The threat to India and Hinduism is due to Insiders not Invaders

Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by Iamanidiot, Feb 4, 2013.

  1. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Discuss..I wanted to post this thread since a long time
     
  2.  
  3. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    True. Proof in two words- Congi dogs.:thumb:
     
  4. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    4,563
    Location:
    Raipur
    Invaders have become insiders, once they took partition now a whole takeover is waiting.
     
    KS likes this.
  5. Sukerchakia

    Sukerchakia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    92
    Are the high castes, pseudo-Aryans Brahmins and Kshatriyas counted as invaders or insiders? If the latter, I agree they have weakened Hinduism more than any invader ever could.
     
  6. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    10,290
    Location:
    India
    Anyone who contributes in harming unity of India is a "invader" so it doesnt matter which religion/caste he belongs to.

    There are everincreasing Vibhishans in India.
     
    parijataka likes this.
  7. Sukerchakia

    Sukerchakia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    92
    But India itself was a fluid concept, changing shape and size every 200 odd years. An invader once, was an insider a couple of centuries later. How do you differentiate?
     
  8. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    10,290
    Location:
    India
    Ok I said as per present situation in a diplomatic way.

    As per history India meant Hindu states where there was 1 big maharaja controlling most of the states.Whenever there was a power struggle it broke down and for small regional goals the Vibishans sided with external invaders.The thing is that unless we stop giving reasons to "internal invaders" there would be troubles.

    So instead of going too much in history lets concentrate what we have today.Hindus needs to throw caste system if it wants to have unity otherwise history would repeat itself and India would be a land of converts.
     
  9. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.
    :pound: pseudo aryans. You just punctured several egos there. Nice:D
     
  10. Sukerchakia

    Sukerchakia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    92
    But how did you root cause the caste system to be the determining factor that will stall the decline of Hinduism and India? Indians didn't throw out caste system for 2500 odd years, faced Buddhism, Jainism, proselytizing Islam and Christianity and in spite of all the onslaught, Hindus still are 75-80% of the population. Is the enormity of the current situation greater than all that was faced earlier?
     
  11. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    10,290
    Location:
    India
    75-80% is not the actual figure.Include the entire South Asia plus far east countries which was mostly Hindu but declined due to conversions.So this roughly means only 50% and declining.

    Caste system has ALWAYS divided Hindu community and untill curbed would lead to Hindus becoming minority and have to live under foreign religion as it has happened before.
     
  12. Sukerchakia

    Sukerchakia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    92
    Agreed. If we take in the whole of the sub-continent, the figure would probably be around 50%.

    Whats wrong with living under a foreign religion?
     
  13. Subramanian

    Subramanian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Doha
    Caste system is no reason for this problem,the real problem was the lack of unity amongst kshatriyas.

    small edit: not only kahstariyas also the brahmins who advsied them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  14. Sukerchakia

    Sukerchakia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    92
    As in, the Kshatriya rulers who were unable to forge an alliance to face a foreign enemy?
     
  15. Subramanian

    Subramanian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Doha
    yes indeed and it happened as late as 1761 where the Rajputs and Sikh Misls just did nothing to support the Marathas against Ahmad Shah Abdali.
     
    parijataka likes this.
  16. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    10,290
    Location:
    India
    Sikhs+Rajput+Maratha alliance would have been not just very formidable but could have ruled far west as well but again "would" "could"....

    As I said regional powers should be UNITED at least now but how? :hmm:
     
  17. Sukerchakia

    Sukerchakia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2012
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    92
    You have to analyse situation from the context of the times prevalent. In this case you are applying the current boundaries of nationalism and analyzing incidents 250 years ago.

    I will give you two reasons why the Marathas, didn't receive as much support as they should have from the native powers of the North - the Jats, Rajputs and the Sikhs.

    One. The Marathas came as conquerors to the North and East. So naturally, they werent benign rulers just marching up into numerous native kingdoms and requesting them to pay tribute. For these native rulers - Sikh Misls, Jats, Rajputs, the Marathas were just going to take the place of the faltering Mughals. And the point about Kshatriyas helping Kshatriyas doesnt stand, becasue the Marathas werent going to show any leniency in terms of tributes to the native kingdoms they subjugated, were they? So Sikhs, Jats and Rajputs had every reason not to support them by remaining neutral, though Jat Surajmal's Bharatpur kingdom did give shelter to the fleeing Maratha women, children and the ailing prisoners.

    Two. A smaller reason specific to the Sikhs is that uptill 1780, when Ranjit Singh combined the Misls, the Sikhs were primarily a guerrilla fighting unit. The Misls divided up all the Doabs among themselves and only united under the banner of the Dal Khalsa in terms of an emergency, like once a decade. But again, their military fighting capabilities were restricted to swift hit and run maneuvers. Hence, they couldn't have faced up to Abdalis forces in an open battlefield. Moreover they had no motivation to do so. See point one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
    Tolaha likes this.
  18. Subramanian

    Subramanian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Doha
    Agreed but the real flaw is that of the brahmins.

    i ll elaborate on it lately.
     
  19. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    You took the wrong character to illustrate your point.

    The character of Vibishan is more like an anti-hero than villain. One can consider him a traitor as well as a man who was standing on the side of Dharma.

    Maybe Jaichand or Mir Jaffar would suit your post better.
     
    parijataka likes this.

Share This Page