Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald sheds the light of truth on another subject about which there is a great deal of misinformation and disinformation: the treatment of Hindus (and Sikhs) by Muslims in India.
In sheer numbers, no group of Believers has suffered from Islam like the Hindus. It is amazing that few Indian-Americans, and few Indo-British, seem to know the history of their own ancestors and of what the Muslim conquest -- or perhaps one should say the Early Conquest and then the Later Conquest -- did to India, which Naipaul accurately described as a "wounded civilization." K. S. Lal writes of the 60-70 million Hindu victims murdered by their Muslim masters. When those Muslim masters ceased the mass killings, it was not out of any sense of mercy, but only to extort the jizya from people who would now be treated in a manner akin to Jews and Christians: dhimmis who would be allowed to live, but would be subject to a series of economic, political, and social disabilities that guaranteed a permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity.There are those who are morally indifferent to how the Mughal conquerors ruled, or to what happened to the Hindus (or the Sikhs). One thinks of the deplorable William Dalrymple (who is apparently not deplorable enough for the TLS to cease assigning him books to review on the subject) in his popular accounts of the luxury and love-intrigue at Mughal courts, or that other, more scholarly apologist for Islam, Francis Robinson. A number of factors have contributed to the indifference of Hindu intellectuals in India, and outside India, to the real nature of Islam. For the first, there is the common desire to ape the attitudes of so-called intellectuals in London and New York. It would not do, it does not do, to be too exercised about Islam. And of course, all things pertaining to Hindutva, to a sense of Indian nationalism connected to Hinduism, is mocked in the world, though it offers not the slightest threat or menace (unlike Islam) to anyone – anyone, that is, but the Muslims who continue to procreate and "gain market-share" as a percentage of the population in India, even as they harry or persecute or murder the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan and Bangladesh and, whenever they can, in Kashmir and elsewhere in India.
The astounding ignorance of Indian history that one finds in the Western world, and the supplanting of that history by the ooohing and aahing over Mughal emperors, should stick in everyone's craw. And some sympathetic attention to the claims of Hindus to Hindustan, and to the other non-Muslim populations in that most naturally tolerant of civilizations, should be given in Western universities and in the Western media. Even those newspapers in the Western world that are aimed at an Indian immigrant audience tend to pull their punches about Islam, or perhaps ignore the subject altogether (save in a few cases where the readership is definitely Hindu or Hindu and Sikh). This is done, one supposes, because the newspaper owners do not wish to alienate Muslim Indians in the West who might also read the paper, even if it means ignoring the major issue of our time and possibly of our century: the issue of the world-wide Jihad, from which Indian civilization suffered, and from which Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India itself (including Indian Kashmir), and now in Great Britain, also suffer. Hindus and Sikhs in Britain, having come to the West with its freedoms and opportunities, and who once here have not given any occasion for alarm or offense, now find themselves, thousands of miles from India, subject yet again to the implacable hatred and menace of Islam.Whenever an Indian (Hindu or Sikh) intellectual becomes known outside of India, he is quick to demonstrate his abhorrence of what is called "communalism" (which always means: those silly Hindus, and Sikhs, who may be too much attached to their own traditions and faiths, and of course are to be regarded with lack of sympathy should they dare to demonstrate any lack of sympathy themselves for Islam). One can see the phenomenon, for example, in the attitudes and rhetoric of Amartya Sen, who has written about the "democracy" within Islam. Sen’s is an entirely ahistorical piece that makes one wish to insist that this particular shoemaker should stick to his last profession, though now he appears to have decided to make shoes for the whole wide world.
Readers should go to the historians of India -- K. S. Lal, Sir Jahundath Sarkar, those who contributed to the 19th-century volume edited by the Englishmen Dowson and Elliot -- as well as to the modern non-Indian scholars Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier. They will be surprised what they will learn about the history of India. They might even begin with that book with the old-fashioned title "The Wonder That Was India," about pre-Islamic India, written by A. L. Basham. Others might choose to look at the grim list of Hindu temples, thousands of them, destroyed by Muslims, a list compiled by Sita Ram Goel (another author, who along with Ram Swarup is regarded by many Bright Young Indian Things as simply beyond the pale -- and they make this judgment without ever having bothered to read his works), and published in two volumes.
Among those of Indian descent well-known to the outside world, and who cannot be ignored as "Hindu fanatics" (a term thrown around a good deal, even though the most fanatical of Hindus would not come close, in the menace that his worldview would present to non-Hindus, to what the mildest and most "moderate" of Muslims presents to non-Muslims), the only one to tell the truth about Islam has been V. S. Naipaul.
There should be many more.
Well Hugh,
U missedout on one point. Most these so-called intellectuals are Commies who r mortal enemies of Hindutva. Just check out their website:www.countercurrents.org.
U see they've got sections on communalism,Palestinian "struggle",Iraq War... Now wat do Indian commies have got to do wit Israel-Palestine conflict or Iraq war for that matter... They propogate peace with Pakistan but stauchly oppose friendly guestures towards Israel (i 'll never their mentality).
Vikrant:
Although initially supporters of the Jewish State, Israel has been the Communists' little Satan since the early 1960s at least, when the USSR threw its lot in with the Arabs. The Indian Communists are probably only towing the central party line.
Good luck to the Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Sikh and other Indian groups in regaining control over what were their religious sites, desecrated and/or destroyed by the muslims invaders; good luck to them in ridding their wonderful country of the creeping malign influence of islam; good luck to them in destroying most evidences of the islamic horror visited on them.
It is long past due to get rid of the dhimmi attitude in India, be proud of the wonderful civilizations that the muslims did their best to destroy, and stop soft pedaling the evil that islam did, and continues to do in India.
60-70 million? un-freakin-believable! over what time frame? does this include the mass-murders during partition in '47? the 2.5 million killed in Bangaladesh's war of independence in '71?
Thats equivalent to the total population of the UK, or France, or Italy.
Almost twice the poulation of Poland, 3X the population of Australia.
Half again as much as all the Caribbean, or all of Central America.
I see upon closer attention that these are conquest-related homicide. Nevertheless, the idea that anyone could have the capacity to commit such appalling crimes, and that their descendents yearn for the "good old days", is quite simply terrifying.
I have a habit of reading a book, having new questions at the end, and diving into another for answers, eventually reading a sting of related books. Currently I'm midway through a number of books dealing with guerilla/small-group warfare(War of the Flea/Taber, Sun-Tzu, War in the Shadows, etc). It is posts like this that show me how much I don't know, and how ill-prepared I am for the coming storm. In my defence, I've read "Unveiled" and "Muslim Soldiers", which now get loaned out relentlessly.
The above-mentioned titles are dutifully noted.
On a lighter note, being a rabid book collector, it is a self-reinforcing task.
Yet another Hugh Fitzgerald piece that deserves publication (and in this case perhaps some expansion) in a major scholarly forum, somewhere.
Until I started to study about Islam I was ignorant of the jihad against India. It has been a real eye opener, and the jihad 'there' looks like the jihad 'here' and 'over there' and 'down there' and 'up there.' It's all the same for 1400 years, isn't it?
I will be reading the Quranic Concept of War by Malik soon. Indian visitors here, I'm sure, know about that.
Pedestrian Infidel
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog
Particularly good reads:
The Calcutta Quran Petition by Sita Ram Goel
(koran verses related to their context in the life of mohammed) Goel points out that this "holy" book only passes for a religious text due to the lack of sequential coherence. Also deals in-depth with islamic politics.)
Understanding Islam through the Hadis: Religious
faith or fanaticism? by Ram Swarup
(hadith, or the words and actions of mohammed, are explained and arranged by categories. In-depth look at jihad.)
Dear Hugh:
I think I've found your Doppelganger: he is as erudite and witty you are, yet he is a stone-cold dhimmi. He calls himself "Anonymous"
Please visit the Examined Life philosophy forum where your Doppelganger, some guy who calls himself "Anonymous" has, along with other apparently intelligent and educated dhimmis, contributed to a thread called "Does Islam generate violence?"
Hugh, the thread desperately needs your input -- particularly against Anonymous, who could become your Moriarty, as it were.
Link: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html
Click on "Today" from the list on the left to take you to the threads, where the "Does Islam generate violence?" thread is prominently visible.
Thanks,
Dr. Pepper
Dr. Pepper -- In honor of your eponymous soda I good-naturedly checked out Mr. Anonymous and was disappointed. I couldn't find any trilingual puns or anything else that conceivably might interest. Neduel'nij. I did find sentences that won't have me headed over the Reichenbach Falls anytime soon.
Dr.Pepper..I read the bulk of the thread and it appears to me your're doing a commendable job.
dang gotta start previewing,,that's yure not your're
(Waterdragons52: I left a note at "Niger...." for you and Texan and others.)
I can almost hear someone say "Ah, but if the Mughals hadn't conquered India, we'd never have had the Taj Mahal." (sarcasm).
I would, however, also like to know the sources and time-frame for the 60-70 million. It is known that the Mughals did massacre many, but some note on the sources for numbers given would be in order.
However, much as I dislike Islam, I would never hold a candle for the Hindu Nationalism unleashed during the years of the BJP. It made plenty of attacks on Christians as well as on Muslims; and probably had nasty things to say about those low-caste Marattha folks who turned Buddhist.
Kepha, just like jihadists raise the bogey of persecution, so do the missionaries. The number of these "attacks" you can count on your fingers in totally 10 yrs or so because most have been found to be falsified reports (eg in case: nuns raped by supposed "hindu fanatics"...turns out the FATHER of the church had raped them). These are documented criminal cases. And about the attacks on muslims, there have been equally heinous or worse attacks by muslims on hindus and most of them are not reported or retorted against. Not to say Im for any kind of violence but this happens in India because of the absence of the rule of law in most places. The courts are bogged down by a huge backlog and the police is poorly funded/trained or corrupt. Inspite of this hundreds of terrorist attacks have been prevented. But as you know, even if the FBI and CIA can miss 9/11 then so can our poorly funded and trained police forces in our most massively diverse countries plagued by many "insurgencies" and other subversive activities.
Kepha, theres a whole side to these "attacks on Christians" that you have swallowed from Indian english language press or from the western papers who just report from these. Im not sure if Hugh can enlighten us on it as this site does not deal with that and his expertise is on islam and muslims not hindutva-christian relations. Just a month back these supposed "hardcore hindutva fascist fanatics" (using commie and missionary language) saved a dozen (or more?) Christian preists from some forest. Im not aware of the details but you can google it if you like. The rescuers belonged to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who John Dayal (head of the Indian Catholic Union) called "the greatest enemy of christians in India".
So please, Kepha lets keep this to Jihad and Islam.
Ok Kepha,
Your comments are full of factual errors. For starters Marathas belong to warrior class and they were considered to b low caste (I dont believe in casteism 'n stuff, mindya). 2.4 million Marathas have dies during the rebellion frm timeframe of 1630-1761 in the defense of Hinduism. You'd hard pressed find a Maratha tat has converted. The guys who've converted to Buddhism were mostly Marathis (Marathas == Community, Marathi == Language) i.e marathi speaking ppl. Most Hindus rever to Lord Buddha as God. That movement is called Neo-Buddhist which marries best of Hinduism & Buddhism.
Half knowledge is a dangerous thing
Can you gimme links to those "plenty" of attcks on Christians and Muslims. Its turn outs tat those "plenty" of attacks boil down to just one attack on a missionary back in 1999. The guy whos done tat is on a death row. You also fail to mention coercive and concentrated efforts by missionaries to convert Hindus. As for "attacks" on Muslims, theres been just one f***ing incident during the BJP rule. Moreover it was a riot in response to torching of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims by Muslims. In the same time period it must b noted that there were literally 1000's of attacks on Hindus by Muslims in J&K and else where (including Amsterdam!)
If your thinking Congress is secular think again. They had these anti-Sikh riots in 1984. India recognises certain provisions of Sharia. Muslims have their own personal law and they can practise polygamy even tho othr Indians cant. Indian govt gives $100 m Haj subsidy (even BJP didnt dare stop tat. Muslims have a greater degree of legal autonomy.
Its pretty easy to fall for Vatican propoganda on Hindutva. All Hindutva tries is to reconvert Christians and prevent further conversions by their own welfare activities... As Hugh has sed Hindutva has been a soft target for its critics...
Corrections: Your comments are full of factual errors. For starters Marathas belong to warrior class and they were not considered to b low caste
t-ham posted:Thats equivalent to the total population of the UK, or France, or Italy.
The total is over a period 200 years or so. Even then it is a very large figure. This is just those who were killed. One must also factor in several others considerations.
1. Such large killings have a profound effect on the economy of the community, which at the time, must have been agricultural. Deaths due to famine would have occurred on a grand scale. We do not know what the figures are for such "collateral" damage.
2. Then there are the "descendents who were never born", as a consequence of this genocide.
3. Even if one just considers 60 million, it is still large, as the population of India must have been much much smaller then.
Now there are some 150 million Muslims in India, growing in numbers each decade as the census reveals, and hardly any Hundus or Sikhs in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
India is unfinished business as far Islam is concerned. Indians better wake up.
BTW, what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, and is happening in Kashmir, Phillipines etc, is going to happen here in the West as well. There is no reason I can think of, which will make the West an exception.
Saxena and Vikrant,
Do you have links to soberly argued articles that can be used to refute Christian dhimmis. As an Indian Catholic it troubles me that Indian Christians are willing to put the worst construction on Hindu right wingers, but are unable to do the same when it comes to Muslim extremists. I recall that some ago there was a series of small bomb attacks on churches in Andhra or Karnataka, which the Christians loudly blamed on Hindutva. When it transpired that these were in fact the work of Deobandi Muslims doing their bit for jihad, the Christians became sheepishly silent.
While I don't care for the extremists, the fact of the matter is that both India and Sri Lanka are very hospitable to Christians. This is due only to the inherent tolerance of Hinduism and Bhuddism and not some western secularism which in any case is only skin deep. Anyone can look across to Pakistan and BD to know the difference.
Commentator Hugh Fitzgerald inexplicably refuses to go over the Reichenbach Falls to joust with his Dhimmi Doppelganger the mordant Anonymous.
JWers suspect he is stalling to first gird his loins and don his gleaming armor(and thoroughly analyze the Dhimmis arguments) before riding forth to do battle with the Doppleganger.
We are arraying our pic-nic baskets and heading to the field to witness the clangour and crash of swords and finally the bloody slaying of the dread Dhimmi Anonymous.Hurrah!
here thine breastplates Sir Hugh..chain mail and steel boots..and gleaming helmut with a view..
I boost you upon your Noble armored steed Veritas.Sir Hugh..
gallop forth and engage your Dhimmi Doppelganger
Anonymous...whose reasoning is a thicket..
Re: Hugh's Doppelganger
Thanks for your support, otterfish. For Hugh's benefit, I only wish to add that perhaps that particular thread didn't bring out the full depth of Anonymous's evil genius: I have been sparring with Anonymous for well nigh four years now, and I bear the squid-marks from our expeditions.
This I can guarantee: if Hugh were to test the waters with a judiciously aimed salvo (or two) at Anonymous, the ball would get rolling, and the Battle of the Doppelgangers, as Nostradamus might have predicted, would commence.
Dr. Pepper (aka Erich)
"our pic-nic baskets"
-- from a posting above
Pic-nic, or as we have learned to spell it from another thread, pique-nique baskets?
And if the latter, might some be seeing signs of Arabic infiltration where there is none? Possibly "niquer" is simply an abridged form of "forniquer" and is unrelated to the Arabic "nikah."
Next you'll be trying to convince us that the well-known Anglo-Eurabian saying -- "An apple a day keeps the toubib away" -- is not the original version. How gullible do you think we are?
in other words ..you cede the field to The Doppleganger..ok..your decision.
in other words ..you cede the field to The Doppleganger..ok..your decision.
nice red herring btw
in other words ..you cede the field to The Doppleganger..ok..your decision.
nice red herring btw
fear of one's Doppleganger is quite normal.
DP111: The genocide is actually over 1200 yr period since the conquest of Sindh.
Anyways guys, dont buy the dhimmi propoganda of Indian Christians, they're jus playing into the hands of Muslims... Believe me, Hindutva is an idealogy which is the mortal enemy of Islam, Muslims'll go to any lengths to vilify and demonize it.
Hugh - don't be too hard on William Dalrymple.
I know he's an apologist for Islam, but you have to read FROM THE HOLY MOUNTAIN. It's a very honest and sad look at the plight of Christians in the Middle East - It's a very good read. As you read it you will find it hard to believe that it was even penned by William Dalrymple - personally I can't understand him too well (as a person).
WHITE MUGHALS (I presume that this is your "the luxury and love-intrigue at Mughal courts") was an extremely scholarly offering that shed new light on many areas, partially from sources that had never previously been published. WHITE MUGHALS was a refreshing look at how the British were really part and parcel of 18th Century Indian Society, rather than just being the wicked alien invaders as so shallowly and conveniently depicted by many modern Indian & Muslim historians. In this respect, it wasn't politically correct at all.
The Mughal Empire was cruel and politically unstable, but it's wrong to put a writer down just because he writes of its former grandiosity.
On microfilm, I came across a 17th century book published in London called "Geography Anatomized: Or a Complete Geographical Grammar. Being a short and exact analysis of the whole body of modern geography. After a new, plain and easie method whereby any person may in a short time attain to the knowledge of that most noble and useful science." Its reference to India reads:
"In a word, there is no Country in the World richer than this…. Commodoties of Peninsula India are Metals, Silks, Cottons, Pearls, Drugs, Coco’s, Rice, Ginger, Cinnamon, Pepper, Caffia, &c. And lastly, The chief Commodities of India extra Gangem, are Gold, Silver, precious Stones, Silks, Porcelline Earth, Aloes, Musk, Rhubarb, Alabaster, &c. The inhabitants of this Country, viz. the Indians, are generally affirm’d to be a people tall of Stature, strong of Body, and in Complexion inclining to that of Negroes. In their Behaviour they are said to be abundantly civil, and many of them are wonderfully ingenious. They abhor fraud in their dealings, and are punctual observers of their word."
This isn't modern hype, but a 17th century Atlas! For a time, Mughal India was a major player on the world stage. What most Muslims fail to understand is that the British had nothing to do with its demise. It was crushed and wrecked by the Iranians! (Persians) The British simply restored order some thirty years later so they could carry on with business.
William Dalrymple has written some very disappointing articles on Modern Islam, but he is a very deep and multi-faceted writer who should be judged by the full weight of his work.
Interesting views on Muslim and British rule from some of Bengal's leading figures, which I found in an Indian newspaper dated November 1832.
Many prominent Bengalis gathered together with a view to drafting a letter of thanks to the king. The meeting was also attended by Captain Everest (who had a certain mountain named after him) and David Hare (a prominent educationalist –schools still bare his name in Kolkata).
"Baboo Roy Kaleenauth Chowdry rose and said with much elegance, that for some time the practice of burning women with their deceased husbands has prevailed in our country. We consider it, however, an abominable thing.
It has been continued in our country only by violence and covetousness; and we have not only considered it abominable, but through this burning of feeble women, we have been disgraced and put to shame in the eyes of many. For this reason, foreigners have not only despised, but even abhorred us, because we had not a spark of compassion for our wives. Moreover, through this means, some of our countrymen have even been guilty of their mother’s death. But by our British rulers, the load of disgrace has been removed from us: and why therefore should we not declare that his British Majesty is unequalled in the preservation of the lives, property, and honour of his subjects? Can we refuse to render our thanks to the British people, for this beneficial measure?
Baboo Prusunna Koomar Thakoor next rose and expressed his sentiments by saying: ‘The King of England is our paramount Sovereign indeed; but our country has come into the hands of the Honourable Court of Directors, and to them we are indebted for the care and preservation of our property, lives and honour. They are therefore the protectors of our country. In the present matter the Honourable Court of Directors have greatly benefited us; and I cannot conceive it just or proper, that we should be silent on the subject. The Indian Government abolished the burning of women by the XIIth Regulation of 1829; but had the Honourable Court chosen, they could themselves have repealed the Regulation.’
Shreejoot Radha Prusad Roy rose and said: ‘We suffered many kinds of oppression through the indifference of our former rulers, by which not only was our property endangered, but continual attacks were made upon our lives, caste, and religion. Since the accession of the British Government, we have been delivered from all the oppressions as all acknowledge. But all Hindoos are not unanimous in acknowledging our obligations to the British Government for abolishing the violent murder of women, under the name of Suttee. The error of those who are opposed to this measure must be evident, on the smallest consideration. For its unmercifulness is manifest. The son with eagerness burns in the fire his mother who bore him for ten months in her womb, with all suffering and patience brought him up to the year of understanding, whilst she is in perfect health - then which death can be more agonizing? As a means of keeping this fond mother from escaping from the flaming fire, large bamboos and strong ropes are brought. Is the cruelty and mercilessness of such conduct not manifest to them?’
Should any Hindoos say, that the English are invading the Hindoo religion, their opinion is inconsiderate and irrational: for the very name of the prevention of injury and malice is religion. How can this burning of women, for which no sufficiently contemptuous language can be found be called an esteemed religion? And how therefore can we say that the English are hostile to religion?
It must certainly be allowed that when the Moosoolmans were our rulers, they committed many acts of violence and injustice for the suppression of our religion. Thus Atoorung Badshaw leveled to the ground the temple of Seeb at Benares and erected a Musjeed in its place, and by force made many Hindoos Moosoolmans, and in many similar ways attempted to overthrow the Hindoo religion. Now through the favour of the English, our religion is practiced without fetor or hindrance. They have never made any attempt against religion. Wherefore I most freely declare that the English are worthy of all praise. The Governor General Bahadoor has abolished Suttees: by the 5th Regulation of 1831 he has entrusted Hindoos with the office of Principle Sudder Ameen: and by his other actions we perceive that he is desirous in future of conferring still further honour upon us. It is therefore impossible to say what farther claims he may yet have on our gratitude."
Sati or Suttee was never banned under Muslim rule.
Erich,
Yes, I agree, Hugh could no doubt master that beast..but Anymouse surrounds himself with such a tangle of werds it's hard to peer thru and find
where to make a thrust between the ribs..
I will be poring over his flummoxin' and attempt my own poor method of elliciting a response to a singular query upon which i might hoist him upon his own pitard..
Timbo
It was crushed and wrecked by the Iranians! (Persians)
The Persians?
What Persians?
The Mughal Empire grew internally weak, riven by rivalries, decadence, and was brought down by a combination of internal and external factors, through the rebellion of various Indian peoples who fought it and threw off its chains by force, primarily the Sikhs in the Punjab and the
Mahratta's in Maharashtra.
Where did the Persians come into this?
Timbo
Dalrymple's early book about the asphyxiation and dissapearence of Christianity from the Middle East makes his later apologies for Islam all the more perplexing - you would think that with his knowledge of and insight into the historical process of Islamisation and exactly what it means he would be able to put two and two together and actually see what is happening now - and place it all in the context of history and the slow, steady aggression of Islam over other cultures and religions in its grasp.
Very strange indeed.
Timbo,
As a part-Maratha (Zico its spelt Maratha) meslf, i'm offended by ur lack of knowledge of Maratha Confederacy. In 17th Century Maratha clans rose in revolt against the Muslim governors of Mughals. They managed to estd Hindavi Swaraj. In mid-18th they controlled most of India with their confederacy spreading as far as Attock,Afghanistan. Mughal empire did exists but it was jus a Maratha-Sikh protectorate. In 1761 the Maratha-Sikh alliance was defeated by Afghans in the 3rd War of Panipat when Muslims in Maratha army muntinied. The bulk of French trained & equipped Maratha-Sikh army was slaughtered. Its is also recorded that Muslims took in 100000 civilians (mostly women and children) as slaves back to Afghanistan. There is a some Muslim tribe in Afghanistan and NWPF who claim to b descendents of Marathas who're brought as slaves to Afghanistan.
Timbo, Vikrant:
Are you both saying that the British and the French had NOTHING to do with overthrowing Muslim dominance in India?
otterfisher,
I might try another tack, seeing as Hugh has lost interest: I will invite Anonymous over here.
Informed Christian wtf the crao r u talking abt. U talk abt casteism but surely u havent cared to follow the progress made in throeing it off. Untouchability has been dead since last 55 years. In India, Dalits get reservation in all spheres like, legislatures,colleges,jobs. If ur buying the Missionary myth that Dalits are queueing for conversion then ur wrong IC. Only ppl who convert are either of Dravidian descent or from other fringe cultures like Nagas.
Quote:It is a Hindu country (But it could/would become a Christian country very soon).
Precisely that kinda crap comming out of Chrostian mouths inflames the Hindu sentinment. Why do u wanna convert ppl. My religion doesnt ask anybdy to convert. You can pray to a Hindu God at same time remain a question. I c there is a tendency to concentrate on negative aspects of Hinduism while at same time ignoring the facts that most of them are a thing of past. Hinduism gave to world principles of Yoga,"Ekam Sat" i.e tolerence of other religions. Dont lemme dig up dirt on ur religion. Lets all accept that every religion has its inherent flaws but Hindus have reduced those are now in the last stages of destroying casteism
IC, Hindus are not arrognant as to ignore that their religion has faults, but we've improved and are trying to improve it in earnest. Your views on Hinduism either dtem from ignore or you've simply bought those half-truths abt Hindutva. Hinduism is far more tolerent than any Semitic religion. It is an umbrella term for all Dharmic religions which dont fall in category of Jainism,Buddhism or Sikhism. Hinduism ranges from monotheism,monism,dualism etc. I'd say that American slavery system was even more bad than casteism. "Upper" Caste Hindus have accepted the system of institutionalised discrimination put against them. Moreover presence of Dalit Christians debunks the myth of dalits converting to get rid of casteism. Most convertees to Christianity convert for material gains, they reconvert back to their original religion. Try to read the comment my me and Timbo & ivan (an Indian christian himself) without any prejudice and then form any opinions on Hindutva.
Hindutva has never endangered Christians, give me any proof of Hindutva ever doing so..
The Persian, Nadir Shah's invasion of the Mughal Empire in 1739 was really the end of the glory days for the Mughal Empire.
In the first half of the 18th century the Marathas caused general anarchy all over India and made it easy for the British to take over. Yet the Marthas never proved themselves in battle against the British. The Marathas don't impress me that much - sorry.
Dear friend IC I agree that you are an informed one about Chritianity -a great religion. You are also right that Christians have right to live respectfully in India. I am sorry to say that you are not so well informed about Hinduism. What is called Hinduism is Sanatan Dharm( Eternal religion)i.e., existing right from the begining. Hinduism evolved without any challange from any other faith. Hinduism does not treat other faiths as inferior ones and India is the only place (in whole of the world )where Jews lived hundreds of years without any persecution. Parsis came to india from Iran and are living as MOST RESPECTABLE CITIZENS OF India. Hindus are polytheist, for them Christ is as respectable as their own god- Ram. It is the self righteousness of others which treats hindus as inferior(Pagans) which hurts. This self-righteousness is best illustrated by your's statement that India could /would become a Christian country very soon.
Dear friend IC I agree that you are an informed one about Chritianity -a great religion. You are also right that Christians have right to live respectfully in India. I am sorry to say that you are not so well informed about Hinduism. What is called Hinduism is Sanatan Dharm( Eternal religion)i.e., existing right from the begining. Hinduism evolved without any challange from any other faith. Hinduism does not treat other faiths as inferior ones and India is the only place (in whole of the world )where Jews lived hundreds of years without any persecution. Parsis came to india from Iran and are living as MOST RESPECTABLE CITIZENS OF India. Hindus are polytheist, for them Christ is as respectable as their own god- Ram. It is the self righteousness of others which treats hindus as inferior(Pagans) , hurts. This self-righteousness is best illustrated by your's statement that India could /would become a Christian country very soon.
Dear friend IC I agree that you are an informed one about Chritianity -a great religion. You are also right that Christians have right to live respectfully in India. I am sorry to say that you are not so well informed about Hinduism. What is called Hinduism is Sanatan Dharm( Eternal religion)i.e., existing right from the begining. Hinduism evolved without any challange from any other faith. Hinduism does not treat other faiths as inferior ones and India is the only place (in whole of the world )where Jews lived hundreds of years without any persecution. Parsis came to india from Iran and are living as MOST RESPECTABLE CITIZENS OF India. Hindus are polytheist, for them Christ is as respectable as their own god- Ram. It is the self righteousness of others which treats hindus as inferior(Pagans) , hurts. This self-righteousness is best illustrated by your's statement that India could /would become a Christian country very soon.
Dear friend IC I agree that you are an informed one about Chritianity -a great religion. You are also right that Christians have right to live respectfully in India. I am sorry to say that you are not so well informed about Hinduism. What is called Hinduism is Sanatan Dharm( Eternal religion)i.e., existing right from the begining. Hinduism evolved without any challange from any other faith. Hinduism does not treat other faiths as inferior ones and India is the only place (in whole of the world )where Jews lived hundreds of years without any persecution. Parsis came to india from Iran and are living as MOST RESPECTABLE CITIZENS OF India. Hindus are polytheist, for them Christ is as respectable as their own god- Ram. It is the self righteousness of others which treats hindus as inferior(Pagans) , hurts. This self-righteousness is best illustrated by your's statement that India could /would become a Christian country very soon.
Informed Christian,
I doubt if you can fool Hugh Fitzgerald with your lies. There are only two types of Hindus - (1) the peaceful Hindutva type (either active or passive sympathisers of this crowd) and (2) pseudo-secular Islamofascist loving Communist sympathiser.
Group (2) wields power and sullies group (1) which is what Hugh's piece was about. I also suspect you are a Muslim trying to spread your lies.
Dr. Pepper
The British smashed the forces of Tippu Sultan in 1799 in the south at the battle of Serringapatanam (I probably spelt that wrong) for the loss of about 35 British soldiers (according to the British Army records I looked up for that year). It also routed the forces of the mad and depraved Siraj ud Dowla in Bengal in 1758, for the loss of one British soldier. So, yes, the British had much to to with the loss of Muslim power in India, but very little to do with the fall of the great Mughal Empire - although it does seem from the easy British victories that the Muslims were ready to take a fall anyway.
In 19th century Bengal, certain Hindus became extremely wealthy in commercial activity, to an extent not seen during Muslim rule. In the early 19th century one Hindu, the son of a weaver, started buying old bottles, cleaning them and re-selling them. His business grew, and he went into general commerce. A few decades later he had claimed the bulk of the business between Calcutta (the Empire's second city after London) and the USA, to the extent where American traders would only do business with him. He became astonishingly wealthy (a billionaire by today's standards) - they even named an American ship after him. Such social progress of a once lowly Hindu would not have been possible under the Muslims, and indeed the Hindus took over the bulk of non-British commercial activity in Bengal.
The Calcutta police however, for some reason, were mostly Muslims, and Muslims backed the British Government fully during WWII in exchange for Pakistan.
Dr. Pepper
The British smashed the forces of Tippu Sultan in 1799 in the south at the battle of Serringapatanam (I probably spelt that wrong) for the loss of about 35 British soldiers (according to the British Army records I looked up for that year). It also routed the forces of the mad and depraved Siraj ud Dowla in Bengal in 1758, for the loss of one British soldier. So, yes, the British had much to to with the loss of Muslim power in India, but very little to do with the fall of the great Mughal Empire - although it does seem from the easy British victories that the Muslims were ready to take a fall anyway.
In 19th century Bengal, certain Hindus became extremely wealthy in commercial activity, to an extent not seen during Muslim rule. In the early 19th century one Hindu, the son of a weaver, started buying old bottles, cleaning them and re-selling them. His business grew, and he went into general commerce. A few decades later he had claimed the bulk of the business between Calcutta (the Empire's second city after London) and the USA, to the extent where American traders would only do business with him. He became astonishingly wealthy (a billionaire by today's standards) - they even named an American ship after him. Such social progress of a once lowly Hindu would not have been possible under the Muslims, and indeed the Hindus took over the bulk of non-British commercial activity in Bengal.
The Calcutta police however, for some reason, were mostly Muslims, and Muslims backed the British Government fully during WWII in exchange for Pakistan.
Vikrant_Camberleykar.
Nagas - now there's a people who have been treated like crap for 50 years!
*Never part of ancient or Mughal India
*Only fully taken over by the British until the 20th Century
*No religious, linguistic or racial similarities with mainstream India.
When British imperialists moved out - the Indian imperialists moved in! The British conquered the land - and India eagerly took it over. What hypocrites you are! You demanded self determination and independence for yourselves, yet crushed the Nagas when they asked for the same. You hated British imperialism, and yet you greedily snatched its ill-gotten spoils.
Yes, the Nagas know all about Hindu tolerance.
When they protested - in went the army! Massacres and human rights violations for 50 years - with no referendum, which they had been promised in the 1940's so they would enter into the Republic peacefully. Nehru tricked them.
I know how they treat Christians in North East India - I've been there more times than I can remember. When Hindu mobs demonstrate in Calcutta, it's ignored. When Christian mobs demonstrate in the North East, out come the lathis and teargas! When the Naxalites go on the rampage in Bihar or MP, only the local police are sent. When a small group of Christian tribals start any trouble - in go the army!
Christianity IS an Indian religion. The first church was built in India before the first church was built in England! (historical fact) It's far older than Islam or Sikhism. When people convert to Islam or Hinduism in India nobody gives a damn, when people convert to Christianity, Hindus and Muslims start screaming about Western imperialism! Ha! Christianity is from the Middle East!
First church was built in India much before the christianity was introduced into Britain and Christianity is very much Indian religion. Both are undeniable facts. Applying these facts to present tells us that demand of seperation of Indians(Nagas)to create a new Independent state is without logic. Indian state is secular. Christianity teaches love,not the hatred (for hindus). (Polytheist) Hindus are tolerant and respect other religions including Christinity. This is best illustrated by the fact that India is being governed by a Christian and not by a hindu. Sonia Gandhi is loved by hindus because she treats them as fellow human beings and not pagans.
Look, I'm only wary of Hindutva; not Hindus in general (since I seem to have started a flame).
Also, while I am aware of a high warrior caste called Marathi, I know as well that there is a language called Maratha, spoken in central India (inland from Bombay), among whose low-caste spearkers there was a movement into Buddhism.
Iqbal IC and others, I am also aware of the problems of India's far northeast.
I wish India well in solving such things, and have some confidence that it might. HOwever, some of the BJP types are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
What is urgent is for the telling of the story of `Jihad` in india. I do hope Vikrant n othrs. would be able to get together to produce a movie on this - with all the blood, rape etc.
It will tell the non-muslims in india they are dsecended from survivors and also put to shame the muslims (whose ancestors converted).