Bharat Rakshak

I don't know the answers to these questions for I ask them of myself too. I promise to do some research and get back. From what little I know Vivekananda professed a view that no one can be truly free until all of us are. His view of being a good Hindu and what Hinduism stood far was all encompassing, with extraordinary equity, and the oneness of it all. This flies in the face of nationalism to some extent.

let's see if numerology has an answer ...

A lot of "Mahatma" Phule's works are anti Brahmin rants, they cannot be taken seriously.

yes Alok, be careful.

If that is the case then, why have a thread on "religion"?
How would you respond to those who share the same geographical scope but don't call themselves Hindus...isn't that where it reall counts. We can call them Hindus all we want but then there we have it, the Babri Masjid.
Would Hinduism be a largely decoupled concept from that of a Hindu?

how does one really get to approximations so detailed as this:-
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1 ... 2-03.shtml

http://vundru.blogspot.com/2005/11/dalit-battles.html



One can be equally dismissive of the praise showered on Peshwas. Mahatma Phule is talking by giving specific examples of discrimination by Peshwa rulers. The above incident that I quoted further proves that.

This is precisely the peril of trying to read the history from "nationalist" perspective where some like Peshwas or Travancore maharajas are glorified for no real reason instead of studying the dynamics of the society at that time.

As Rajeev Srinivasan accurately pointed out in his article, recognition for social reformers like Sri Narayana Guru or Mahatma Phule is lacking even today. Instead, we spend more time glorifying Travancore Maharaja and Peshwas.

Disgusting.

For the sake of argument, let us reject the hypothesis that Indian=Hindu.

Long ago we had discussed on the forum the question of "What is indianness"

The topic is archived here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?t=231

Is it possible at all that "Indian" could be a set of traits that form overlapping circles on a Venn diagram so that every circle has a connection with every other circle at least indirectly via other circles.

What are cultural traits that are shared in India?

There is of course language, dress and diet.

There is also a narrative. It is the narrative of India that is predominantly Hindu. It is also the oldest narrative in India - perhaps in the world. The narrative is not just the Vedas/Upanishads at the apex, but the epic poems Ramayana and the Mahabharata but thousands upon thousands of stories, fables and parables that once again can separately be plotted as a Venn diagram that is contiguous throughout India.

We can plot two separate sets of Venn diagrams. One set is only the culture, dress and diet. Another is the Hindu narrative.

Both these sets of Venn diagrams occupy roughly the same geographic area. Both have the same people with one important difference. The Hindus can all be lumped into the Venn diagram that represents the Hindu narrative. They occcupy a place in both sets of venn diagrams. The "Hindu narrative" set is entirely Hindu, but the "Indian" set includes Hindus and non Hindus.

The "Indian" Venn diagram includes all Hindus plus some others. Christians and Muslims of India whose genes and family history place then well within the "Indian" Venn diagram claim a place here. Also included in this set are the "modern" narratives, some of which are considered "anti-Hindu"

There is a narrative of the dalits which is often worded in an anti-Hindu fashion. It too has a place in the "Indian" Venn diagram.

Apart from an early loss to Hindu geography, the main "loss" to Hindus is the loss of Hindu narrative.

If that can be accepted as an indicator of what has gone or is going regarding Hindus, the answer lies in a two pronged effort.

The first effort would be to counter the negative propaganda that has led to a loss of Hindu narrative

The second is to promote an propagate the Hindu narrative as part and parcel of India.

Can you explain how maharaja becomes nationalist.

Studying the 'dynamics of the society' is different from history and sense of history. So is class warfare.

Hi Shiv,
you are onto something, I am walking with you.
I have not read the other thread, but will do so.
What is the Hindu narrative? Can we begin by reciting it?
(as opposed to Hinduism (a truly universal concept), or that of an Indian (a truly nationalistic concept)).

I think it would be a comic relief to read that blog.

I enjoyed the part that talks about how british created the caste system and how brahmins and kshatriyas were imitating the british by oppressing the lower castes.

That doesn't gel very well with that Mahar regiment of British army defeating Peshwas, does it ?

Dude, if the Peshawas treated the Mahars despicably, nobody will defend that treatment. At the same time there is a definite contribution of Peshawas in turning the tide of Islam and taking the Hindu Swaraj all the way to Attock. To claim that Peshawas were all bad is the despicable hijacking of Hindu narrative that you are trying to peddle. If mistakes were made, they will be acknowledged. Hindus are not the ones defending the wrongs of the past unlike the other two.

Lot of discussion
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... wtopic=937

I am not here to glorify anyone, but to highlight the flaw in viewing history through the so-called "nationalist" prism and then criticizing the "marxist" prism of D.D. Kosambi.

Again, your view of the history or take on the Peshwas is still as the war between two religions, demonizing one party - somewhat similar to the western depiction of Xerxes in 300. Rather comical, not objective.

But I think reality is probably more complex than that even in those days, as it is today.

Unlike Ambedkar, "Mahatma" Phule did not even pretend to be objective. His views on anything related to Brahmins has about the same credibility as Nazi views about Jews.

Just curious.
Were you previously in this forum as Narendhar?

Looks like it. The forum had hashed all this before many times. We are still coming back to caste etc.

I find your characterization of the war between Marathas and Mughals as between two religions and hence not objective extremely comical. Let me give you more such comical statements, objective from my pov but comical from yours:
- a woman was raped by some men. In your parlance it was just an altercation with some sexual undertone between members of opposite sex. rather comical - nothing objective but you would probably characterize my statement as demonizing one party viz. men.
- Pakistani terrorists detonated bombs in Delhi (and myriad other places) killing innocent Indian men, women and children. Obviously I am demonizing one party the pakis and also one religion Islam. In your parlance it was just a misunderstanding between two religions.

Question to myself - why am I wasting time with narendhar?

Gosh, great minds do think alike. Vijnan, Acharya and yours truly. came to the same suspicion simultaneously. He is obviously a bot from dalitstan.org

Considering who the oppressor was in this case, you might want to liken it to Jewish view of Nazis

You don't consider Mahatma Phule to be objective (and I am sure you might apply the same to Sri Narayana Guru who famously said that he erected the statue of an "ezhava shiva" when someone questioned him about his right to perform pooja as he was an "avarna"), yet said nothing when people are showering praises on the magnanimity of Peshwas and how they treated lower-castes.

Now you are making a futile attempt to portray me as some narendhar (i have no clue who that dude is)

As I had suspected, I am convinced about something by now about conversions and why people of this forum fear/protest against conversions so much.

I think it is the same reason Maharaja of travancore feared conversions - it was going to force a change to the status quo.

However, people like Mahatma Phule or Sri Narayana Guru who worked to prevent those conversions are described as Nazis in this forum by some. How much more pathetic it can be ?

BTW, did you know that the families of dalits who were killed for skinning a dead-cow got converted to Budhism ? Blame them for being anti-brahmin!! That is the easy way out.

Even in kerala, hundred years after Sri Narayana Guru, temples still go through purification ceremonies when someone perceived to be a non-hindu (despite being raised as a hindu) enters a temple and there are people in this forum to justify that.

So what is the point in discussing about evangelicals ? First look at the root-causes

Obsessive hatred for a "oppressor" is a sign of mental sickness, which this "Mahatma" exhibited.

This rant is clearly the work of a person who needed treatment

In Phule's worldview, ALL Brahmins where evil, cunning, parasites, his obsession with Brahmins made him unhinged. In contrast Sri Narayan Guru was a saint, who did not hate anybody, the comparison is improper.

I don't know if he suffered from obsessive hatred, but as far as I can see, other than abusing Mahtma Phule, I haven't seen any objective analysis from you regarding what he wrote about Peshwas.

As it is obvious from the link that I had posted here, Peshwas oppressed mahars, as well as other lower-castes. You have NO response to any of that. All you are trying to do is to characterize Phule as "mentally sick".

I suppose the dalit families in Jhajjar that converted to Buddhism must be mentally sick too, because of their "obsessive hatred about the oppresssor"!!

To me, the kerala politician Vayalar Ravi (who paid for the purification ceremony because of the presenof his son and wife in the temple) after conducting the marriage in the same temple is the mentally sick one.

Not really true, that is something that you trumped up just now. From the website that I had quoted


Narayana Guru didn't have the same focus on brahmins because kerala never had any significant brahmin population. Also his community had other options at that time. A significant chunk of ezhavas had already converted to christianity. So maharaja of travancore was willing to listen as his political power was at stake

So it is not easy to compare Phule with Narayana Guru

One more thing - when I look at the social activism from Phule and Sri Narayana Guru, you can find remarkable similarities

- Emphasis on education and organization
- Education of women
- Opposition to caste system

Talking about "nationalist" history


Interesting!! The vitriol still remains!!

Sri Narayan Guru did not "focus on" anybody

Yeah

Not completely true. There was general resentment against UDF before election. Sensing the mood, an orthodox church bishop (I don't remember his name) started fasting against UDF policies toward christians!!! It was obvious to anybody with common sense that he was creating a support base in LDF when they come to power. IUML lost because LDF openly supported Coimbatore blast accused Abdul Nassar Madan arrested in TN jail. The NDF, founded by him, had some scores to settle with IUML and they supported LDF. These are temporary phenomenon. These votes will go back once they resolve their issues and resentment against LDF grows.

To understand how much of this is influenced by communists, read the following section from the same page.
http://www.kerala.gov.in/history&cultur ... tm#malabar

The Malabar rebellion was not much different from what happened in Pakistan side during partition (though not to that scale). It is because of this reason Malappuram has such a huge muslim population. This communal war is written as social struggle of muslim peasants against Hindu landlords by communist historians.

Not really. These trends have been there since parliament elections in '04 when LDF trouned UDF while congress staged a comeback all over india. Even after LDF came to power, despite their perceived anti-minority position on self-financing college issue, LDF was able to win a bye-election even in the face of anti-incumbancy factor in a constituency that was with Congress for 25 years.

So what ?

Are you going to deny that there was no "Malayalee Memorial" and "Ezhava Memorial" ? Are you going to claim that there was no discrimination in Kerala on the basis of caste ? (Then why did Vivekananda describe kerala as a "lunatic asylum") ?

Remember, I have even quoted right-wingers like Rajeev srinivasan here, basically expressing the same opinion

Your agenda in the forum is not clear. You have not displayed any capacity to analyze historical reasons for the caste system nor have you presented enough fact based arguments to explain whether it is a social phenomenon or peculiar to a religion.

1. If the caste system has religious sanction then please prove it with appropriate citation from scriptures. If not, then please do not hijack the religion thread.

Rules of engagement:
(a) You'll research only for caste system a.ka. Jati pratha. People confuse it with Varna Vyavastha, if you are among them, I ask the admins that they ban you for spreading misinformation.

(b) Since we are talking about Sanatana Dharma, please defend your case within context. This means you have the liberty to back you argument with scriptures that are commonly acceptable across the board. For example, in my home state Bengal caste system has no real strength and you cannot quote Dharma Shastras to engage in a debate. However I guess the 4 Vedas, the 18 major Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are acceptable to all and sundry in our faith.

2. Brahmins: A cursory glance at the history for roster for social reformers gives me the impression that Brahmins were always at the forefront. And they strived for reforms at the cost of social boycott from the community. So, your posts are biased with personal ideas. Prove them otherwise with actual citations.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Brahmin, so I've no personal interest in the issue. But truth should see the light.

Dude, Kerala did not have much brahmin population because they had a rule that only the eldest some from Nambudiri family can marry a Nambudiri woman. Other males had to marry from lower caste women. Whatever the reason was, Nambudiris had tremendous power in Kerala till land reforms happened.

Why do you think Swami Vivekananda called Kerala a mad house? He was not calling Nairs or Maharaja. Ins spite of this Nambudiri power, if Sri Narayana Guru could reform the society without abusing Brahmins, that shows is understanding of culture and vision of reform.

My point is, when communist write history they won't tell you what really happened. Instead you will get a lot of stuff that takes you nowhere if not you don't get confused.

That was because LDF was in honey-moon phase and UDF was in disarray after leader left to start a new party.

I give two hoots about the technicalities of caste system. What matters to me is how it impacted real people and what they are doing/tried to do to throw that yoke away and how that is one of the main reasons for religious conversions in India.


BTW, what is the % of brahmins (nambudiris) in kerala ? It will be much smaller compared to other states like Maharashtra and taht was my point.

But I don't have any qualms about admitting the fact that some brahmins played a role in fighting the ills of their society (people like VT Bhattathirippad or EMS in kerala), but that doesn't absolve centuries of oppression.


I don't disagree with that. However situation in each state is vastly different.

If that is the case, are you admitting that communists played as big a role as sri narayana guru in breaking the caste system and brhamin hegemony(through land reforms, incidently carried out by a kerala nambudiri, EMS).


Aha!! So you are upset because you didn't get an "amar chithra katha" vesion of history Something really simplified.

Will you take the same approach to, say Chemistry ? Unless you are trained in chemistry, it may sound like gibberish also.


Well, the point is, minorities don't consider communists as "untouchable" anymore unlike what Calvin said.

According to you, even the bishop sensed the public mood and changed his stance, not the other way (influencing the public opinion from the pulpit) as it used to be - and that is precisely my point.

You need to prove centuries of suppression.

In Kerala, a famous legend is "Parayi Petta Panthirukulam" - translation - "12 kulas born to a Parayi (woman from Paraya - lowest - caste(?))" The thing is the husband of this Parayi was a Brahmin, and the children formed 12 castes (kulam), from Brahmin to Panan. There are a lot of stories about these 12 people, but they will meet at Brahmins house for shraddha of their father.

How is this possible if Kerala had serious caste discrimination for centuries?

The standard answer from leftist for this that this was an abberation. Stupidity of this argument is that this is an important story of Kerala's culture.

I tried to trace my limited way to see oldest incident of caste discrimination. Only story I could find was that of interaction of Shankaracharya and a Chandala. Then, the question I have is, if Chandala was so untouchable, how could Raja Harishchandra become Chandala for some time.