Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

[DEJAVU]

can indian be a hindu if he believes that there is no such thing called 7 Seven jannams.
can anyone tell me an animal in the previous jannam can become human in next jannam or vice versa?

 

[Twinblade]

can indian be a hindu if he believes that there is no such thing called 7 Seven jannams.

Forget about the finer details, even atheism is permitted and practiced in Hindu traditions. You can believe in nothing and still be a 'Hindu'.

can anyone tell me an animal in the previous jannam can become human in next jannam or vice versa?

Karma. Screw up and you pay the price.

 

[Virendra]

I am not talking about Christian missionaries, but Islamization. This is what you said:

Aren't you implying that, if Hinduism was more organized, it wouldn't have survived so well?

Yes, after a military and political defeat it wouldn't have. Buddhism was another organized religion in India itself. What happened when the viharas were destroyed and monks were hunted down? It was centralized .. there was a nucleus .. a core to attack and hence there was the setback.
Compare Hinduism to that where almost every household and every civilian practices the religions on a daily basis even at their homes. How many temples would they destroy and how many people could they kill or convert by force?
If Hinduism ideology and its institutions were entwined with politcal and military entities like in Europe .. we would see a similar resistance. I believe the number of muslims we see today would be lesser because the political and military history would have been different.

Are you denying the fact there are more Muslims in the Indian subcontinent than in the whole of West Asia? Why are there so many Muslims in South Asia, if "Hinduism" did such a good job of resisting conversions with its "fluid nature"?

Like I said above, hinduism did a good job fighting as a lone religion. What failed us were the political and military fronts.
There has got to be an impact of that.

As far as I can tell, the highly organized Christian societies in Europe did a much better job of resisting conversion and Islamization than "Hinduism". That's why I fail to understand your statement that "this fluid unorganized nature is again the reason that Hinduism survived so well, after more than a millennia of persecution."

I don't disagree. My point is, you are comparing apples and oranges with Hinduism and Abrahmic religions.
They don't work in the same way.
There was successfull organized military resistance in Europe, that didn'nt happen in India. not to the limits in Europe.
In Europe the political institutions and religion were closely entwined and empowered by each other. They fought muslims on each front fire with fire.
Entire Spain was Islamized. What happened after that. Military turn around and the ncoutnry was re-christianized.
Those societies aren't organized just by Christianity. They are organized in a closely entwined imperialist aggressive system that has political, military and religious wings. You can call the religious wing as Christianity.
In India we lost on military and political fronts and (most importantly) even after that, we fought them on cultural and religious fronts for so long. And best of all we fought none other than those who are known for destroying the native religion and culture wherever they go.

Are you seriously claiming that the pre-Islamic civilizations in West Asia lacked "sophistication"?

I didn't say they had no civilization. You tell me if those deserts were more civilized than India. How much did they achieve as a civilization, compare to India.

And again, Indian civilization did not "resist the desert religion" better. There are around half a billion Muslims in South Asia today. That is hardly a small number, and hardly indicates a "great resistance".

If we talk about the present day then I can similarly point at 14-15% muslim population in India today. But then I would be told how undivided India should be taken into account and not present India.
Which is why I talk of undivided India only.
As far as half billions muslims of today are concerned, a large part of them are those who have bred freely and rapidly in the total Islamic countries of Pakistan and Bangaladesh after partition. Their post Independence growth is irrelavant to the debate of Hinduism.

I am not sure you understood my point. There was certainly persecution, but not for over a millennium, except in the parts that I mentioned (Sindh, NWFP, and Panjab). Those parts are all 90%+ Muslim today, and no "fluid nature" of Hinduism prevented their Islamization.

Yes, and the remaining aren't. The nature and organization of a native Religion is not the only factor to determine whether Islamization happens at a certain place or not.
What also matters is the political and military scene there. What the political and military makeup of native powers is and how they fare against the Islamic entities.
As far as Europe is concerned, the state itself was sponsored and strengthened by religion. Else the likes of crusade wars weren't possible. The philosophy was expansionist and aggressive.
On the contrast, India was the land of spirituality. Though it may get robbed by hordes at times, cultural vitality of the people wasn't lacking. One might have converted when all options are exhausted and a sword is hanging on his head. But one wouldn't convert because someone told him that his Gods were fraud and that he should bow to the new God put in front of him.
That is the main point I make.

Most of India, however, was only under Islamic rule for a few centuries, and far short of a millennium. Most of North India was dominated by Muslims for five centuries at most (13th-18th centuries), as I argued on a previous thread. The Deccan came under effective Islamic rule by the 15th century, and the regions south of the Krishna river were intermittently under Islamic rule, from the 16th-18th centuries. The fact that Islamic rule came so late, and lasted for a relatively short time (compared to West Asia), is another reason why a larger percentage of Indians are not Muslim (though, again, India still has one of the world's largest Muslim populations).

India still has the world's largest Hindu population and it is many times more than the muslim population.

In sum, my argument is that Hinduism's "fluid nature" has little to do with why a larger percentage of the Indian population is not Muslim. Instead, I would say that the three main reasons for this are:
1) The huge population of the Indian subcontinent. There were simply far more people to convert, before reaching an appreciable percentage of Muslims in the overall population.
2) The fact that Islamic rule came to most of India at a relatively late date, and lasted for just a few centuries at most (except Sindh, Panjab, and NWFP, which were all thoroughly Islamized).
3) The indirect nature of the Islamic rulers in India. They were not too concerned with converting the Hindu masses, so long as the masses remained submissive and paid taxes. But even then, they still got the largest number of Muslims in the whole world.

They were ofcourse concerned. They just didn't succeed so much. They achieved the minimum number of muslims needed among the civilians to keep a complete social revolution at bay in the towns where they lived and to create a rift that if you move to the other side, not only the persecution will end, but there will be benefits that the State favorites get.
Once the minimum numbers were achieved, the rulers were tension free that the towns wouldn't be turning a leaf from within.
There is a reason why muslim population was high in towns, instead of country side.

The amount of force needed to get conversions from the vast country side population was out of the State's power to exert for a long time. Further, ideologically also they could not be appealed to as there wasn't a high ground to the invaders in that area.
They did what was left. Subtle persecution, trickling slow conversions.
Even during Akbar's times the muslim population estimates for India hover between 15 and 20 %.
Feasible thing to do was persecution by tax, discrimination and to throw goodies if you move to the other side.
In the vast sea of humanity that follows universal dharmic principles and has a potent civilizational base, there is only so much you can do with force.

I am fairly certain that, if the whole Indian subcontinent was under Islamic rule for as long as Sindh was (past 1300 years), India would be majority Muslim just like Sindh. I doubt that the "fluid nature" of "Hinduism" would resist Islamization in the rest of the subcontinent, any more than it resisted Islamization in Sindh.

Missed again. It is precisely the well dissolved nature of Hinduism because of which conversions were not a large percentage in the bigger picture. Wherever you see 90%+ muslims are the regions where political and military resistance broke down completely and muslims ruled for a long time. That is enough for the 'slow paced' islamization you mention.
At other places, factors intervened. Either the muslim rule was inconsistent and weak or it was short lived or it was absent.
Even after muslims having political and military upper hand in varying degrees, far lesser India was culturally and religiously under their domainance.

Regards,
Virendrau

 

[DEJAVU]

Forget about the finer details, even atheism is permitted and practiced in Hindu traditions. You can believe in nothing and still be a 'Hindu'.



Karma. Screw up and you pay the price.

God plz save me from karma...
Is karma a women or men :cool2:

 

[bose]

can indian be a hindu if he believes that there is no such thing called 7 Seven jannams.
can anyone tell me an animal in the previous jannam can become human in next jannam or vice versa?

I never heard of it I would refrain from going into such details... anyway Hinduism is very simple "Do good to others and donot say bad to others"....

Regarding eating beef, one of my close friend do take beef regularly [his favourite being beef steak] and still be a good Hindu... the reason behind against beef eating is to protect the Cows as those were very useful domesticated animal...

 

[Twinblade]

God plz save me from karma...
Is karma a women or men :cool2:

Karma is a b!tch, hence feminine

 

[Ray]

Would it make you more Hindu is you read the newspaper 'Hindu'?

Same is the case if you are or you did not!

 

[A chauhan]

...

Was there no persecution then? Isn't persecution itself a tool to extend dominance and improve its effectiveness?
Persecution is the biggest reason for conversions in India. Some did to protect their women from rape, others did to save themselves from huge taxes that infidels had to pay. Some just wanted to live and there was no other way for it. Death or Islam had been a norm followed more or less since Mahmud's times.

Sindh was under constant muslim rule since 711 A.D. NWFP and Punjab were under constant muslim rule since Mahmud Ghazni (1008 A.D.).

Regards,
Virendra

And a prime example of that is the 1971 Bangladesh war, where educated Islamic forces of 20th century (Pakistan) raped 3,00,000 (3 Lakh) women. This incident is a hard and tight slap on the faces of those who argue that Islam was peacefully propagated.

 

[A chauhan]

Since you are refusing to provide any supporting evidence or elaboration, even after repeated queries (God knows why), I will throw out these following statement by you:

Unless you provide the necessary links (you have not even provided the names of the relevant cases), I see no reason to believe any of your statements.

You clearly have no idea how to present an argument. You're telling ME to explain what YOU said? Lmao.

I think you are illiterate in googling, or unable to do common internet tasks over the Internet, but at the same time you can do endless blabbering against a particular community's beliefs on the Internet itself. SInce you are so maliciously lazy in your debates I am providing you one of the links :- Welcome to newsanalysisindia.com SUPREME COURT ON HINDU HINDUTVA AND HINDUISM

Do you realize that I made that statement precisely to show that your statement is irrelevant? Your statement is irrelevant because religious minorities exist and are tolerated in plenty of other societies where a majority follow Abrahamic religions. Moreover, you didn't even respond to the actual question that I posed.

Now I have serious doubts on your comprehension ability, I wanted to say that "If Hindus were organised, they could have turned into extremists like other organised religion followers (e.g. Buddhists in Myamar), and they could have butchered the invaders after their entry into the Indian soil"

I can not explain it more better to you, but now I am doubting that whether I am debating with a 4th class student or an educated forumer?!.

I can present plenty of historical sources to prove you wrong. Not only from ancient times, but also from the 19th and early 20th century. It is actually astonishing that you are even arguing this.

Lol! I said I have witnessed outcaste people mingling with other caste through Samaj and doing worships in common temples, how will you prove my own first hand experience wrong? One of my friend was expelled from his caste "Barber" (OBC) for marrying a "Kurmi"(OBC) caste girl, but he was welcomed in the Kurmi Samaj and he goes to the same temple for the worship where he used to go. One of my clients who is a "Kshatriya" married an OBC girl, he was expelled from his caste, but he goes to the same temple for worship and is legally considered a Hindu. No historical examples can prove these cases wrong.

The point is that mechanisms for punishing violation of entrenched religious traditions or taboos have historically existed in both Abrahamic societies and "Hindu" society". In this respect, excommunication or being branded an apostate is indeed equivalent to expulsion from caste society and being branded an outcaste.

I gave you a perfect example of Ahamadiyas to prove that apostate and outcaste are different things, but you failed to understand. Apostate means deserting/expulsion from the religion, outcaste means expulsion from the caste. Now did you get it?

The whole purpose of this thread is to find out what a "Hindu" actually is, and what a "proper Hindu" should or should not do. The specific example I used was eating beef.

Finally! you are revealing your real intention. Then why didn't you name the thread like that ? Let me answer you, Hinduism does not need to be defined in a strict or narrow set of rules or definitions, I can eat beef and still be a Hindu, the only possible problem is the Karmic devine punishment for beef eating, now did you get your answer ? If you still don't get it kindly see the top of the page, you will find a Poll there, and you will get your answer in the form of poll results.

Since I live in a free society, I can pose any question I wish and dispute any belief or tradition I wish. If you have a problem with it, or have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion, then don't respond to this thread. No one is forcing you to post here.

I am aware of it since you have posed many questions on the Hindus and the Hinduism in the past. Your thread itself is useless and you expect useful info and contribution on the topic. You are asking foolish questions on my religion and you expect me to keep quiet.

In fact, the term "Hinduism" is nothing more than a convenient catch-all term for a variety of religious practices that are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. It is a simple function of geography, and not much more, as I have explained in a previous post:

Whatever Hinduism is, it has survived even after so much invasions and persecutions. It's of no use to know, how and why a 'Cauliflower' was named cauliflower, because the thing which matters is the taste and not the name.

Actually, I am starting to think I am trying to solve a problem with no answer, since not a single Hindu is providing a single, concrete definition for his/her "religion". No one is disputing the posts that I previously made.

I have beaten my head telling you about what the SC said on the topic, but if you still don't want to understand, no one can help you.

You again show an inability to use logical reasoning when your ridiculous claims are demolished. Let me briefly remind you how we got to this point of the debate:
1) First, you claimed that we are following Westernized structures because "we were slaves for long time".
2) I countered by saying that the very fact that we were "slaves", shows that we had poor structures and institutions. It is a basic fact of history that societies with strong structures and institutions eventually overcome those with poorer structures and institutions.
3) You then claimed that we were conquered only because the "religion of the invaders were barbaric and imperialistic". [sic]
4) I countered by showing examples of other societies that were also invaded by the same "barbaric and imperialistic" invaders, who nonetheless were able to repel them, develop their own successful systems and structures, and become developed nations today. The specific examples I mentioned were Spain, Greece, and Turkey.
5) Your response is that I should move to those countries.

Above mentioned 2nd point didn't disprove what I said on the 1st point you mentioned above. We are following westernized structures because we were slaves for a long time. Any British colonial state will have westernized structures? was I wrong when I said so? But you and your arguments

The reason why India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are so poor today has nothing to do with the fact that they were ruled by Muslims for centuries, because other countries that were also ruled by Muslims for centuries are rich and well-developed today. You see, I never claimed that being ruled by Muslims makes a country well-developed (that would be ridiculous), but you did claim that India did not develop its own structures and systems because it was "slaves for long time" and "religion of invaders was barbaric and imperialistic". So, I have basically debunked your argument.

Earlier you were claiming in post # 169 that the countries where Muslims ruled are much more rich and you gave examples of Spain, Greece, and Turkey, see what you said "Several countries that were ruled by Muslims for centuries (like Spain, Greece, and Turkey) are today much more developed than India, which was also ruled by Muslims for centuries."

But when I gave some examples of Muslim ruled countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh you took a "U" turn from your earlier statement. Nah! you debunked yourself. You not only failed to understand my posts but continued to fell into the well of failures deeper and deeper, post by post, that is why you are totally confused. You forgot to add British colonial rule and the bad effects of it on Indian economy, as if Muslims were the last ruler.

For your 2nd point, Chhatrapati Shivaji kicked Mughal rule, and if British wouldn't have arrived, Marathas could have kicked other Islamic forces too. Chhatrapati Shivaji proved that the Hindu structure and society was not weak. On the other hand British took a monetary approach unlike Islamic religious conquests.

You have amused me too much. You said that "The very fact that we were not free, shows we did not have good systems and structures." I replied "No, it doesn't show anything like that, it shows that the religion of the invaders were barbaric and imperialistic in the nature and approach, unlike Hinduism. " Which is correct because those invaders were religiously barbaric and imperialistic , that is exactly why they attacked us and continued the attacks, while Hinduism was peaceful and non-imperialistic so it only tried to defend itself, which ultimately resulted into the slavery. It doesn't mean that we didn't have good structures. You failed to realize that it is the rapist who is to be punished and blamed and not the victim, but you want to blame Hindus and Hinduism for each and everything. Now did you get it?

I really do not know who/what a "Hindu" is and what "Hinduism" is. As I said before, that is why I opened this thread. I want other Hindus to enlighten me.

Kindly enlighten yourself with the link I provided above. You shouldn't have asked the question of beef eating at the first if you do not know what is Hinduism.

Now I am asking you a question :- Whether a Hindu ceases to be a Hindu after eating beef ? since I have answered it and you didn't accept (failed to understand) that. Kindly tell me what is your perspective on the question so that I may debunk that. What if I eat the beef meat tomorrow? will I cease to be a Hindu?

I didn't undestand one thing, I am a Hindu and I am not interested in knowing its definition, but you seem to be abnormally more interested, are you a Hindu ? what is the reason

 

[civfanatic]

I think you are illiterate in googling, or unable to do common internet tasks over the Internet, but at the same time you can do endless blabbering against a particular community's beliefs on the Internet itself. SInce you are so maliciously lazy in your debates I am providing you one of the links :- Welcome to newsanalysisindia.com SUPREME COURT ON HINDU HINDUTVA AND HINDUISM

Thank you for finally providing the necessary link, after multiple pages of queries. This really shouldn't have taken so long.

Now, let us take a closer link at the SC's judgement:

1) Does the SC define what is a "way of life?" - no, they do not. They say that "Hinduism" and "Hindutva" relates to the "way of life" of the Indian people, but they do not elaborate on what that "way of life" is, or what it exactly means.

2) Does the SC provide a definition of "Hindu" or "Hinduism"? - There is only a legal definition, which Messiah posted earlier, and which includes Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs as well as "Hindus" (whoever those may be; as a subset, they are not defined as far as I can see). However, it is important to note that this is a rather one-sided definition, because many Buddhists and Sikhs do not consider themselves "Hindus", and in fact would take great offense at it (I don't know about Jains). So there is no actual cultural definition of a "Hindu" that is agreed upon by the relevant parties, but there is a legal definition that can be used in legal proceedings.

3) What is the ultimate conclusion of the judgement? - the SC's ultimate conclusion is that the terms "Hinduism" and "Hindutva" should not be construed narrowly to refer only to strict Hindu practices, and can also be used in a wider sense to relate to anything belonging to India. If you followed by discussion with Cliff@sea, you would see that I too agree with this more elastic definition of the term "Hindu", since this more elastic definition is how the term "Hindu" was originally used. However, for this thread, I am only concerned with the Hindu religion, whatever that is. I am not concerned with the wider application of the term "Hindu", so the SC ruling is actually not that relevant to this discussion.

Now I have serious doubts on your comprehension ability, I wanted to say that "If Hindus were organised, they could have turned into extremists like other organised religion followers (e.g. Buddhists in Myamar), and they could have butchered the invaders after their entry into the Indian soil"

I can not explain it more better to you, but now I am doubting that whether I am debating with a 4th class student or an educated forumer?!

Your posts continue to amuse me. Let us take a closer look at this following statement by you:

If Hindus were organised, they could have turned into extremists like other organised religion followers (e.g. Buddhists in Myamar), and they could have butchered the invaders after their entry into the Indian soil

First of all, what is wrong with "butchering invaders"? Shouldn't invaders that enter a country unlawfully, with the intention of subjugating its inhabitants, be butchered? I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, NOT butchering invaders would be far more problematic, and that I would have a issue with.

However, you also mention the Buddhists in Myanmar as an example, which I don't understand. Did Muslims "invade" Burma? If so, when? How long did Muslims ever rule over Burma proper? I don't understand the relevance of mentioning the term "invaders" after using the Muslims in Burma as an example.

And finally, just because you follow an organized religion, does not mean you are automatically inclined to butcher any religious minorities. There are millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in America (a country that is overwhelmingly Christian), and they are not being "butchered". This was my point when I made the statement "Religious minorities existed (and still exist) in plenty of societies that follow Abrahamic religions." The fact that such religious minorities can exist in countries where a majority follow Abrahamic religions, shows that your statement and the "logic" behind it is completely fallacious.

Lol! I said I have witnessed outcaste people mingling with other caste through Samaj and doing worships in common temples, how will you prove my own first hand experience wrong? One of my friend was expelled from his caste "Barber" (OBC) for marrying a "Kurmi"(OBC) caste girl, but he was welcomed in the Kurmi Samaj and he goes to the same temple for the worship where he used to go. One of my clients who is a "Kshatriya" married an OBC girl, he was expelled from his caste, but he goes to the same temple for worship and is legally considered a Hindu. No historical examples can prove these cases wrong.

Once again, it seems I need to remind you of the question that I posed:

Are you claiming that upper castes and outcastes could always gather in the same temples, and participate in all the same religious activities?

Pay attention to the big, bold word. This word means "at all times" (Always - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), i.e. throughout history. So, again, are you seriously claiming that upper castes and outcastes could gather in the same temples and participate in the same religious activities throughout history? I am not too concerned with your personal experiences, because the present Indian society is much more liberal than what it was in the past (I am talking just one century ago, forget about ancient history). Though even at present, there is plenty of casteism still around.

I gave you a perfect example of Ahamadiyas to prove that apostate and outcaste are different things, but you failed to understand. Apostate means deserting/expulsion from the religion, outcaste means expulsion from the caste. Now did you get it?

Of course apostate and outcaste are different things. As I said before, there can be no apostate in "Hinduism", because Hinduism is not an organized religion, and no one knows how to define it anyway. What I said is that the two things are similar, because they are both mechanisms for punishing members of the religion for violating certain religious and/or social taboos.

Do you understand what I said, or should I use simpler English?

Finally! you are revealing your real intention. Then why didn't you name the thread like that ? Let me answer you, Hinduism does not need to be defined in a strict or narrow set of rules or definitions, I can eat beef and still be a Hindu, the only possible problem is the Karmic devine punishment for beef eating, now did you get your answer ? If you still don't get it kindly see the top of the page, you will find a Poll there, and you will get your answer in the form of poll results.

So then, do you believe that a "proper Hindu" should avoid eating beef?

As I already mentioned, the title of this thread and the OP is flawed, and I should have asked a better and more precise question.

I am aware of it since you have posed many questions on the Hindus and the Hinduism in the past. Your thread itself is useless and you expect useful info and contribution on the topic. You are asking foolish questions on my religion and you expect me to keep quiet.

Whatever Hinduism is, it has survived even after so much invasions and persecutions. It's of no use to know, how and why a 'Cauliflower' was named cauliflower, because the thing which matters is the taste and not the name.

What is funny is that you cannot even answer these "foolish questions". You cannot even define your own beliefs and "religion".

As for the notion of "Hinduism" surviving "after so much invasions and persecutions", please refer to my discussion with Virendra. This is another myth that I will shortly debunk thoroughly.

Above mentioned 2nd point didn't disprove what I said on the 1st point you mentioned above. We are following westernized structures because we were slaves for a long time. Any British colonial state will have westernized structures? was I wrong when I said so? But you and your arguments

Hello, the very fact that we were a British colonial state shows that we had poor structures and institutions. How were the British able to defeat so many indigenous states like Marathas, Nawabs of Bengal/Awadh, and Mysore, and establish the British Raj? Because they had superior political and military structures compared to these Indian states. So obviously, we will copy these British political and military structures, because they were far better than what we had. That is why the basic structure of the present Indian Armed Forces is derived from that of the British Indian Army, and the Indian political system is based on that of the British Parliament. When India obtained its Independence, we could have kept the rule by maharajas in the Princely States, and kept the feudal armies, but that would have been retarded.

Earlier you were claiming in post # 169 that the countries where Muslims ruled are much more rich and you gave examples of Spain, Greece, and Turkey, see what you said "Several countries that were ruled by Muslims for centuries (like Spain, Greece, and Turkey) are today much more developed than India, which was also ruled by Muslims for centuries."

But when I gave some examples of Muslim ruled countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh you took a "U" turn from your earlier statement. Nah! you debunked yourself. You not only failed to understand my posts but continued to fell into the well of failures deeper and deeper, post by post, that is why you are totally confused. You forgot to add British colonial rule and the bad effects of it on Indian economy, as if Muslims were the last ruler.

Your inability to understand English is not my problem. How could you conclude from my statement ("Several countries that were ruled by Muslims for centuries [like Spain, Greece, and Turkey] are today much more developed than India, which was also ruled by Muslims for centuries.") that I was claiming that being ruled by Muslims makes a country rich and developed? You see, it was not you who mentioned India as a counter-example, I myself mentioned India, in the very post that you yourself quoted.. If my intention was to show that being ruled by Muslims makes a country rich and well-developed, then why would I have mentioned India in the first place?.

My intention was to show that being ruled by Muslims for centuries in the past DOES NOT DETERMINE whether or not a country is rich or well-developed IN THE PRESENT. If being "slaves for long time" under centuries of Muslim rule is the reason why India is poor and does not use its own institutions and structures, than Spain, Greece, and Turkey should be in the same situation as India is today. The fact that they are not, shows that your statement is bollocks.

For your 2nd point, Chhatrapati Shivaji kicked Mughal rule, and if British wouldn't have arrived, Marathas could have kicked other Islamic forces too. Chhatrapati Shivaji proved that the Hindu structure and society was not weak. On the other hand British took a monetary approach unlike Islamic religious conquests.

You don't know you are talking about. It was not because of the Marathas that the Mughal rule ended, but because of poor policies and institutional/structural failure within the Mughal Empire itself. The Marathas could never even take over Hyderabad State (a second-rate Mughal successor kingdom) which bordered the Maratha home territory itself.

I should also point that the the very fact that the Marathas lost to the British, shows that they had poor structures and institutions compared to the them (as mentioned above). The Marathas also lost to the Afghans (Durranis) in the north, as well as against Mysore in the south during the First Anglo-Mysore War. They were nothing more than an opportunistic power who take advantage of the political chaos and divisions in India following the collapse of the Mughal Empire.

You have amused me too much. You said that "The very fact that we were not free, shows we did not have good systems and structures." I replied "No, it doesn't show anything like that, it shows that the religion of the invaders were barbaric and imperialistic in the nature and approach, unlike Hinduism. " Which is correct because those invaders were religiously barbaric and imperialistic , that is exactly why they attacked us and continued the attacks, while Hinduism was peaceful and non-imperialistic so it only tried to defend itself, which ultimately resulted into the slavery. It doesn't mean that we didn't have good structures.

YES IT DOES. If Indians had better structures, they wouldn't have been subjugated by Muslims for half a millennium (even longer in NW India) in the first place. If they had better structures, they would have been able to repulse the Muslims, as the Spanish did in Western Europe or the Austrians in Southern/Central Europe.

Now I am asking you a question :- Whether a Hindu ceases to be a Hindu after eating beef ? since I have answered it and you didn't accept (failed to understand) that. Kindly tell me what is your perspective on the question so that I may debunk that. What if I eat the beef meat tomorrow? will I cease to be a Hindu?

I didn't undestand one thing, I am a Hindu and I am not interested in knowing its definition, but you seem to be abnormally more interested, are you a Hindu ? what is the reason

I do not know what a "Hindu" is, so I do not know whether or not I am a "Hindu". It seems even you do not what a "Hindu" is, yet you still seem proud to call yourself one. I do not understand people who are proud of being something, but don't even know what that something is.

 

[civfanatic]

Yes, after a military and political defeat it wouldn't have. Buddhism was another organized religion in India itself. What happened when the viharas were destroyed and monks were hunted down? It was centralized .. there was a nucleus .. a core to attack and hence there was the setback.

There is no use comparing the death of a dying religion with the defeat of a very alive religion. Buddhism in late 12th/13th century India was already deep in decline. There were no functioning viharas in India outside of a couple in Bihar. There was not a single Buddhist dynasty in India, when the Ghorids launched their invasion of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Buddhism was declining in India at least since the 7th century, as the Chinese traveler Xuanzang mentions that many Buddhist viharas were abandoned and in ruins, and Shiva temples and lingams were taking their place. By the time the Islamic invasions began in full force, Buddhists were almost certainly a very small minority of the population (I am not sure if Buddhists ever formed a majority of the Indian population at any time, but that is another discussion).

Also, the most successful Indian religion to resist Islam was neither Buddhism nor "Hinduism", but Sikhism (another organized religion). The Sikhs succeeded in converting many Muslims in the Panjab into their ranks and began reversing the process of Islamization in NW India. They even expanded into territories that were staunch Islamic strongholds, like NWFP and parts of Afghanistan. Who knows how much they would have achieved, if they weren't defeated by the British.

Compare Hinduism to that where almost every household and every civilian practices the religions on a daily basis even at their homes. How many temples would they destroy and how many people could they kill or convert by force?

Why did Sindh, Panjab, and NWFP all convert to Islam then?

If Hinduism ideology and its institutions were entwined with politcal and military entities like in Europe .. we would see a similar resistance. I believe the number of muslims we see today would be lesser because the political and military history would have been different.

What is "Hinduism ideology and its institutions"?

Entwining of religious, political, and military institutions is precisely what the Sikhs did.

Like I said above, hinduism did a good job fighting as a lone religion. What failed us were the political and military fronts.

It didn't do a good job. If it did, there wouldn't be two Panjabs or two Bengals today, nor would UP have twice the Muslim population of Saudi Arabia (the actual birthplace of Islam).

I don't disagree. My point is, you are comparing apples and oranges with Hinduism and Abrahmic religions.
They don't work in the same way.
There was successfull organized military resistance in Europe, that didn'nt happen in India. not to the limits in Europe.
In Europe the political institutions and religion were closely entwined and empowered by each other. They fought muslims on each front fire with fire.
Entire Spain was Islamized. What happened after that. Military turn around and the ncoutnry was re-christianized.
Those societies aren't organized just by Christianity. They are organized in a closely entwined imperialist aggressive system that has political, military and religious wings. You can call the religious wing as Christianity.
In India we lost on military and political fronts and (most importantly) even after that, we fought them on cultural and religious fronts for so long. And best of all we fought none other than those who are known for destroying the native religion and culture wherever they go.

The reason why there was no successful organized military resistance by Indian states, is precisely because "Hinduism" is unorganized. There was no mechanism in "Hinduism" which could enable a united front to be raised. "Hindus" could never be rallied under the banner of religion like Muslims, Christians, or Sikhs could. It is therefore unsurprising that such an unorganized system could not create proper political and military structures to mobilize the human and material resources of India against the invaders. India as a whole certainly had far more resources than anywhere else in the world besides China, yet the lack of centralized and organized structures meant that such resources could never be properly utilized.

Also, the entire Spain was never Islamized. The Muslims never conquered the northern parts of Spain, which became the bases for the Christian Reconquista, nor did they ever convert the whole Christian population under their rule to Islam. The Christian populations in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece also never converted to Islam, despite nearly half a millennium of Islamic rule under the Turks (about the same time as North Indians were under Islamic rule). And, most remarkably, the Coptic Church in Egypt is still surviving today with millions of adherents, despite nearly 1400 years of often brutal persecution. All of these examples show the fallacy of claiming that unorganized religions do a better job of resisting Islamization, than organized ones.

I didn't say they had no civilization. You tell me if those deserts were more civilized than India. How much did they achieve as a civilization, compare to India.

Almost all of the basic characteristics of human civilization - agriculture, writing, urban settlements, concept of the state, etc. - are first attested in the Fertile Crescent of West Asia. In particular, the region extending from western Iran to northern Egypt.

I was not the one that claimed West Asian civilization was superior to Indian civilization, but you made the opposite claim. So please show me in which area Indian civilization was more advanced than the pre-Islamic civilizations of West Asia. It is rather astonishing that you are actually arguing this.

If we talk about the present day then I can similarly point at 14-15% muslim population in India today. But then I would be told how undivided India should be taken into account and not present India.
Which is why I talk of undivided India only.

Even that 14-15% is larger than the population of any single West Asian country.

And there is no use talking about the modern nation-state of India in the historical context. The modern Indian borders are completely artificial. The historic western boundaries of Indian civilization did not end at the Thar Desert as the modern Indian border does; they extended up to the Indus River and the Hindu Kush range, and this basic fact is attested in our National Anthem as well as in the very name "India" itself.

As far as half billions muslims of today are concerned, a large part of them are those who have bred freely and rapidly in the total Islamic countries of Pakistan and Bangaladesh after partition. Their post Independence growth is irrelavant to the debate of Hinduism.

Even in the 1940s the population of Subcontinental Muslims was greater than that of most West Asian countries combined. The 1941 British Census of India recorded 94.4 million Muslims out of a total population of 390 million (@Singh this is about 24% and not 15%). In comparison, the first Iranian census in 1956 recorded a total population of 18.9 million (would have been a bit smaller in 1941), the population of Syria in 1937 was about 2.4 million, the population of Iraq in 1950 around 5 million, the population of Turkey in 1945 around 18.5 million, the population of Saudi Arabia in 1950 around 3 million, and the population of Egypt in 1937 around 15.9 million.

Thus, in the mid-20th century, the number of Subcontinental Muslims was substantially greater than the whole populations of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt combined (more or less the heart of the old Islamic civilization). This is the case today too, as it was in the past.

On the contrast, India was the land of spirituality. Though it may get robbed by hordes at times, cultural vitality of the people wasn't lacking. One might have converted when all options are exhausted and a sword is hanging on his head. But one wouldn't convert because someone told him that his Gods were fraud and that he should bow to the new God put in front of him.
That is the main point I make.

What happened to the great "cultural vitality" of people in Panjab, Sindh, and NWFP? These regions were all under Islamic rule for the longest period of time, and they were all thoroughly Islamized. I don't know why you keep ignoring this glaring fact.

India still has the world's largest Hindu population and it is many times more than the muslim population.

Actually, it is only about twice as large (I am of course taking into account the whole Indian subcontinent, not just the artificial modern state of India). At the time of Partition, it would have been about three times as large.

Missed again. It is precisely the well dissolved nature of Hinduism because of which conversions were not a large percentage in the bigger picture. Wherever you see 90%+ muslims are the regions where political and military resistance broke down completely and muslims ruled for a long time. That is enough for the 'slow paced' islamization you mention.

Political and military resistance broke down in most places in India, but most of North India was ruled by Muslims for just a half a millennium, whereas Panjab/Sindh/NWFP were ruled for several centuries longer. The regions that were thoroughly Islamized are simply the ones that were ruled by Muslims the longest, while the ones that are less Islamized were simply ruled for less periods of time. Notable exceptions include Kashmir and East Bengal, which were Islamized despite coming under Muslim rule relatively late (I guess Kashmiris and Bengalis lack 'cultural vitality'). However, there is no region in India, which remained under Islamic rule for as long as Sindh (1300 years), and still resisted Islamization.

I want to know why didn't the "cultural and religious resistance" and great "cultural vitality" work against Islamization in these cases. This is what you said:

In India we lost on military and political fronts and (most importantly) even after that, we fought them on cultural and religious fronts for so long. And best of all we fought none other than those who are known for destroying the native religion and culture wherever they go.

Where exactly did that happen? First you say that we fought them on "cultural and religious fronts for so long" even after losing on military and political fronts, then you say that the regions that were Islamized were those where political and military resistance broken down? Where does the "fighting them on cultural and religious fronts for so long" come into play?

Where is the native religion and culture of Sindh, NWFP, and West Panjab? These cases clearly show that "Hinduism" failed not only on the political and military fronts, but on cultural and religious fronts as well.

 

[The Last Stand]

actually there is.saraswati peetadhipathi in sankaracharya parampara is considered to be un official head of hinduism

Maybe in some places. I have never heard of what you are talking about, no Hindu I know has ever claimed of a religious head.

 

[drkrn]

Maybe in some places. I have never heard of what you are talking about, no Hindu I know has ever claimed of a religious head.

hindus gave up the idea of having a religious head..
even christians stopped hearing to pope....world is moving towards aethist religion

 

[Dovah]

aethist religion

No such thing.

 

[civfanatic]

hindus gave up the idea of having a religious head..
even christians stopped hearing to pope....world is moving towards aethist religion

"Hindus" never had a religious head at any time in history.

No one even knows what "Hinduism" is, including "Hindus" themselves. How can you be the leader of something that you can't define?

 

[Apollyon]

No such thing.

Bullshit. Hindus can be Atheist or Theist.

 

[civfanatic]

If atheism is a religion, then maybe abstinence is a sex position.

 

[Dovah]

Bullshit. Hindus can be Atheist or Theist.

But in't Hinduism a way of life rather than a religion?

 

[A chauhan]

Thank you for finally providing the necessary link, after multiple pages of queries. This really shouldn't have taken so long.

Such links have already been posted on various threads on this forum, but you were lazy enough to search them. I didn't give you the link of the 1966 judgment and you didn't read the link I gave you carefully lol! The reason I was not posting on this thread is that it's a long topic and I didn't have the time, but since you are endelessly trolling and maliciously posting against Hindus and Hinduism without knowing who and what a Hindu is, I entered here.

Now, let us take a closer link at the SC's judgement:

1) Does the SC define what is a "way of life?" - no, they do not. They say that "Hinduism" and "Hindutva" relates to the "way of life" of the Indian people, but they do not elaborate on what that "way of life" is, or what it exactly means.

You should have replied only after reading the link carefully, but you didn't. The "way of life" is a phrase which has a broad meaning and scope, and it was long and tough job to define it, which was out of the purview of the SC regarding the case presented before it, but it rejected the Hinduism as a religion in narrow Abrahmic terms. Here by narrow the SC means a well defined set of rules and traditions which can not be overlooked or the rules which can not be violeted, a Muslim can be punished with capital punishment (beheading) if he commits apostate. A way of life can mean many things like collection of faith, belief systems, way of worshiping the concerned Gods, ways in which the personal beliefs are treated like personal law, customs, traditions which is a long time consuming job, hence the SC didn't go into the depths, because it was unnecessary in the eyes of the SC. If it were necessary the SC wouldn't have left that undefined. And I don't think I'll do the time consuming job of defining the "way of life" to a person like you who does not know what is what, but is still maliciously interested.

But the SC in the case of "Sastri Yagnapurushdasji And ... vs Muldas...1966" has set some guiding features to decide who is a Hindu and who is not, I'll be quoting them later in this very post.

2) Does the SC provide a definition of "Hindu" or "Hinduism"? - There is only a legal definition, which Messiah posted earlier, and which includes Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs as well as "Hindus" (whoever those may be). However, it is important to note that this is a rather one-sided definition, because many Buddhists and Sikhs do not consider themselves "Hindus", and in fact would take great offense at it (don't know about Jains). So there is no actual cultural definition of a "Hindu" that is agreed upon by the relevant parties, but there is a legal definition that can be used in legal proceedings.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has "NO"definition of who a Hindu is. The points which @The Messiah has quoted are from the section 2 of the Act, which determines as to whom the Act applies, so the title of the section is "Application of Act" which are the guiding rules which only talks about the religion of the Parents of the person in the question (religion i.e. Hindu by birth or by conversion), the Definitions are mentioned in the section 3 of the Act which has no definition of Hindu/Hinduism. And that is why the dispute as to who is a Hindu occurred, and the dispute was determined by the SC in the case of "Sastri Yagnapurushdasji...1966". The views expressed by the SC have an effect of enacted law, and that is mentioned in the Constitution itself, kindly do not ask me to quote the Constitution (online available) or you will make a Popat of yourself which you already have. Since you are talking about the Hindu law Now, let me tell you that I can remain a Hindu as per the above mentioned law even if I eat a Beef, but if you provide me any SC judgement regarding beef eating I'll accept it. So far as the Buddhists and Sikhs are concerned, currently Hindu law applies to them, they are Hindu at least legally until they get separate personal laws, but after that they wont be considered a Hindu.

3) What is the ultimate conclusion of the judgement? - the SC's ultimate conclusion is that the terms "Hinduism" and "Hindutva" should not be construed narrowly to refer only to strict Hindu practices, and can also be used in a wider sense to relate to anything belonging to India. If you followed by discussion with Cliff@sea, you would see that I too agree with this more elastic definition of the term "Hindu", since this more elastic definition is how the term "Hindu" was originally used. However, for this thread, I am only concerned with the Hindu religion, whatever that is. I am not concerned with the wider application of the term "Hindu", so the SC ruling is actually not that relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps you missed a case which the SC has followed in the link I provided, that assesment is based on the judgment of "Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya" case, which is the real case where the court has discussed the matter. In short the features of Hindu religion recognized by the court in Shastri Yaganapurushdasji (supra) ( Complete judgement of the Supreme Court of India - In-Depth Issues - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 ) are:

"(i) Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of Hindu philosophy.

(ii) Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and appreciate the opponent's point of view based on the realization that truth was many-sided.

(iii) Acceptance of great world rhythm, vast period of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession, by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.

(iv) Acceptance by all systems of Hindu philosophy the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.

(v) Recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are many.

(vi) Realization of the truth that Gods to be worshipped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the worshipping of idols.

(vii) Unlike other religions or religious creeds Hindu religion not being tied-down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such. "

So even after Hinduism is not taken as a religion by the SC, the SC accepted some of the practices as guiding features of Hinduism, which clearly excludes the Abrahmic faiths i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism; and Zoroastrianism etc. I should make it simple so that you can understand here the term "reverence" doesn't equate to the "obligation".

Your posts continue to amuse me. Let us take a closer look at this following statement by you:

"If Hindus were organised, they could have turned into extremists like other organised religion followers (e.g. Buddhists in Myamar), and they could have butchered the invaders after their entry into the Indian soil"

First of all, what is wrong with "butchering invaders"? Shouldn't invaders that enter a country unlawfully, with the intention of subjugating its inhabitants, be butchered? I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, NOT butchering invaders would be far more problematic, and that I would have a issue with.

Very good, I said that because I don't like the religious extremism, to defeat an enemy we do not need to butcher them, we just need to defeat them. I do not agree with you assertion that Hindus should have butchered the Invaders, defeating and punishing rigorously would have done the job. However thanks for saying so. But if we had done that the leftists would have no place in the modern India? leftists ka kya hota?

However, you also mention the Buddhists in Myanmar as an example, which I don't understand. Did Muslims "invade" Burma? If so, when? How long did Muslims ever rule over Burma proper? I don't understand the relevance of mentioning the term "invaders" after using the Muslims in Burma as an example.

I mentioned that to show the peaceful nature of Hindus, who even after lots of invasions and blood shed remained peaceful, on the other hand your beloved Buddhists have become extremists in Myanmar without any invasion and butchering your another beloved i.e. Muslims.

And finally, just because you follow an organized religion, does not mean you are automatically inclined to butcher any religious minorities. There are millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in America (a country that is overwhelmingly Christian), and they are not being "butchered". This was my point when I made the statement "Religious minorities existed (and still exist) in plenty of societies that follow Abrahamic religions." The fact that such religious minorities can exist in countries where a majority follow Abrahamic religions, shows that your statement and the "logic" behind it is completely fallacious.

You are saying that today because the Abrahmics have gone through the renaissance period (except Islam). At the point of the History that 'we were talking about' almost all the Abrahmic religions were extremists unlike Hinduism.

Once again, it seems I need to remind you of the question that I posed:


Pay attention to the big, bold word. This word means "at all times" (Always - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), i.e. throughout history. So, again, are you seriously claiming that upper castes and outcastes could gather in the same temples and participate in the same religious activities throughout history?. I am not too concerned with your personal experiences, because the present Indian society is much more liberal than what it was in the past. Though even at present, there is plenty of casteism still around.

Did you mean that the outcastes could "Never" gather in the same temple and participate in all the same religious activities? Never - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Never means "Not at any time". Perhaps you forgot what you said in post # 144 :- "Until fairly recently, no one would have dared to socially mingle with outcastes, and no they could not visit the same temples."

Which was utter nonsense and a BS as usual.

Of course apostate and outcaste are different things. As I said before, there can be no apostate in "Hinduism", because Hinduism is not an organized religion, and no one knows how to define it anyway. What I said is that the two things are similar, because they are both mechanisms for punishing members of the religion for violating certain religious and/or social taboos.

This is exactly the point where you are mistaking again and again, read your thread title "Can you eat beef and still be a Hindu?" then read the above bold part of your statement, Hinduism is not a religion in a narrow definition but it can not be compared with merely a caste-system, which you are doing here, and that is why there is no apostate in Hinduism. I can leave my caste and easily mingle with other castes and still be a Hindu. And NO it is not a similar thing, in Apostate a person leaves the religion and the Gods too, accepts his new religious Gods, e.g. a Hindu turns a Muslim. If you do not believe my words then kindly try to enter into the Sun temple of the Konark, you will be kicked out if you are not a Hindu. To make it easy for you to understand Hinduism is neither a religion nor merely a caste.

I have given you the links of the SC judgments.

Do you understand what I said, or should I use simpler English?

Bhai, use any language but it wont have any gravity, since you are posting without understanding.

So then, do you believe that a "proper Hindu" should avoid eating beef?

As per the SC decided no Hindu is "tied down to any definite set of rules and concepts", hence it depends on the person and varies Hindu by Hindu.

As I already mentioned, the title of this thread and the OP is flawed, and I should have asked a better and more precise question.

Ok!.

What is funny is that you cannot even answer these "foolish questions". You cannot even define your own beliefs and "religion".

Actually if any one would have asked the same with Good-Faith I already would have answered him, but it was you, but I have given you the SC judgment and have defined who is a Hindu as well.

As for the notion of "Hinduism" surviving "after so much invasions and persecutions", please refer to my discussion with Virendra. This is another myth that I will shortly debunk thoroughly.

No wonder! you are here to mock and troll Hindus, and you will continue your job of BS producing. But I wonder if you are getting sallery for this from any missionary or Islamic institutions.

Hello, the very fact that we were a British colonial state shows that we had poor structures and institutions. How were the British able to defeat so many indigenous states like Marathas, Nawabs of Bengal/Awadh, and Mysore, and establish the British Raj? Because they had superior political and military structures compared to these Indian states. So obviously, we will copy these British political and military structures, because they were far better than what we had. That is why the basic structure of the present Indian Armed Forces is derived from that of the British Indian Army, and the Indian political system is based on that of the British Parliament. When India obtained its Independence, we could have kept the rule by maharajas in the Princely States, and kept the feudal armies, but that would have been retarded.

My dear you are at a Defence forum and you do not understand the basics We adopted from British armed forces because it was the system we were having and accustomed for many years.

British were having superior military technology as "Rifles", they didn't bring their westernized structures with them. And with that you have dragged the politics in a religious debate.

And finally you accepted my assertion that "we are having westernized structures because we were slaves for a long time."
Why didn't you accept that at the time when I said so? But Thank you.

Your inability to understand English is not my problem. How could you conclude from my statement ("Several countries that were ruled by Muslims for centuries [like Spain, Greece, and Turkey] are today much more developed than India, which was also ruled by Muslims for centuries.") that I was claiming that being ruled by Muslims makes a country rich and developed? You see, it was not you who mentioned India as a counter-example, I myself mentioned India, in the very post that you yourself quoted.. If my intention was to show that being ruled by Muslims makes a country rich and well-developed, then why would I have mentioned India in the first place?.

What about the examples of Bangladesh and Pakistan which I gave to you ? Were you claiming that we are poor because we were Hindus ?

My intention was to show that being ruled by Muslims for centuries in the past DOES NOT DETERMINE whether or not a country is rich or well-developed IN THE PRESENT. If being "slaves for long time" under centuries of Muslim rule is the reason why India is poor and does not use its own institutions and structures, than Spain, Greece, and Turkey should be in the same situation as India is today. The fact that they are not, shows that your statement is bollocks.

First of all, Spain is a small country with a very small population (only 4.5 Crores as of 2013), Greece is even more smaller than the Spain ( with only 1 crore population) and Turkey has only 7.5 crores as of now. My dear let me remind you that Indian population is almost about 124 crores, which is the prime reason of poverty. Only an idiot will compare such tiny populated countries with a big country like India. It shows that you do not understand what we were discussing, as I have already told you that Chhatrapati Shivaji kicked the Mughals, just like the Christian armies kicked Muslims in the Spain. Marathas lost with the British because they were having superior military structures and not because of the Hinduism. Period.

You don't know you are talking about. It was not because of the Marathas that the Mughal rule ended, but because of poor policies and institutional/structural failure within the Mughal Empire itself. The Marathas could never even take over Hyderabad State (a second-rate Mughal successor kingdom) which bordered the Maratha home territory itself.

What ! a ! blind argument !! Shivaji fought with almost half the numbers of soldiers against Mughals in many wars, still he managed to win the wars. The least number of armymen and the victories itself proves your argument that "Mughals lost due to their own faults" isa complete BS. On one hand you praise and see whatever trivial is non-Hindu, on the other hand you are reluctant to praise big accomplishments by Hindus or Hinduism.

I should also point that the the very fact that the Marathas lost to the British, shows that they had poor structures and institutions compared to the them (as mentioned above). The Marathas also lost to the Afghans (Durranis) in the north, as well as against Mysore in the south during the First Anglo-Mysore War. They were nothing more than an opportunistic power who take advantage of the political chaos and divisions in India following the collapse of the Mughal Empire.

Who will tell the readers about the First Anglo Maratha war in which British had to sign the Treaty of Wadgaon, who will tell that Tipu Sultan was defeated in the battle of Gajendragadh. And by your logic British forces HAD poor structure because Marathas forced them to sign the Treaty of Wadgaon in the first war. Since you are malicious against Hindus you will not mention them. Since Marathas successfully stopped British in the first war their structure can not be called poor. Moreover having greater number of guns and forces doesn't equates to poor structure.

YES IT DOES. If Indians had better structures, they wouldn't have been subjugated by Muslims for half a millennium (even longer in NW India) in the first place. If they had better structures, they would have been able to repulse the Muslims, as the Spanish did in Western Europe or the Austrians in Southern/Central Europe.

Take abovementioned Maratha example. India is not a miniscule country like Spain or Greece it's a big country, big size has its own disadvantages.

I do not know what a "Hindu" is, so I do not know whether or not I am a "Hindu". It seems even you do not what a "Hindu" is, yet you still seem proud to call yourself one. I do not understand people who are proud of being something, but don't even know what that something is.

Your contempt against Hinduism and Hindus clearly reflects from the bold and italics part of your post and other posts,it proves that you are mocking here. I know I am a Hindu and I have faith over the above mentioned guiding features accepted by the SC in the Ygana-purusdasji... Since I am not tied-down to any definite set of philosophic concepts to remain a Hindu, I am not bound to follow the Vedas or anything like that word by word, hence I can remain a Hindu even after eating a beef, nor I need to define the "way of life" before a person like you in such a useless thread like this.

Finally your bubbles regarding Hindu and Hinduism have been blown

I have seen the way you escaped my question on beef eating and the question on your religion because you were locked in a Tight corner, so I am now confirmed you are not a Hindu, that is why you have contempt against 'proud' Hindus and so you pose questions against them in every second Hinduism related thread; so now the onus of proof is on you, either you prove with citations of the SC judgments that after eating a beef I will legally cease to be a Hindu, or you leave it.

 

[wolfpackx1]

"Hindus" never had a religious head at any time in history.

No one even knows what "Hinduism" is, including "Hindus" themselves. How can you be the leader of something that you can't define?

Hindus do have heads like Sri Adi Sankracharya, he established skahtipeeths where there is a head of each peeth.
That is wrong Sanatana dharma is hinduism,i know my religion .Hindus dont know hinduism is the bias raised by left liberals and Abrahamic faiths to make it look
as though hinduism and hindus are headless chicken without any direction therefore the need to be converted to true religion,that is the basis of all
their debunking of hinduism and calling it doesn't exist.