Christianity, Evangelism & its geopolitical impact

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 06 Apr 2015 23:55

A_Gupta wrote: Otherwise not sure what the point is that you are making. Just like with modernization, "we" do not have to become "them" in order to be strong or in order to prevail.

Please do list example of cultures that have "prevailed" with such an attitude by bending over to violence by "them" and still crushing their religious ideology in the end. That should be a very interesting exercise and reveal the value of the above pithy wisdom. If the above has in fact been recorded in history, then there may be lessons to be learnt from those events too.

AFAICT, the only constant to creating victors (and losers) in the past is the ability to commit violence and murders on an industrial scale and wiping the adversary completely and totally, followed by a convenient rewrite of history that projects the victors as the vanguards of civilization and cultural superiority. Any transient stability and peace seen today is the result of such weapons being in the possession of multiple sides and leveling the playing field.

Being dead is a huge hinderance to fighting back, according to military and strategic experts. I am ignoring India for the moment, where a few million dead here or there from violence inflicted on Indians is considered par for the course...there's a lot more Indians still left to take the higher ground and convincingly win a knife fight, armed only with excellent debating skills.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 03:54

^^^ We have prevailed so far.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 07 Apr 2015 04:00

Indian Christians trapped in the politics of Ghar Wapsi?

http://www.bharatniti.in/story/indian-c ... r-wapsi/14

The psychology of the Church is religiously and politically motivating. So they wanted a halo of martyrdom to all, because martyrs and saints are fuel material for the monstrous engines of the church (like jihadis for Islam) without which it cannot sustain.

So it is necessary to quote Dr S Radhakrishnan. “The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of mankind from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one Jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien cults. They invoke Divine Sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam. Wars of Religion which are the outcome of fanaticism that prompts and justifies the extermination of aliens of different creeds are particularly unknown in Hindu India.” (The Hindu View of Life, 1927, Oxford University, p 55).

Before winding, let me quote Swapan Dasgupta, a senior journalist: who, referring to a large demonstration of Christians just days ahead of Delhi assembly polls and discussed how it was a signal for all to vote against the BJP, wrote: “Whatever the real motivations of the clergy of various Christian denominations, there is no doubt that it has succeeded in putting Christians at the centre of a previously non-existent political divide. …… These are just the opening shots of a political battle, using Christians as a human shield.” (Deccan Chronicle, April 3, 2015).

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 07 Apr 2015 04:21

So it is necessary to quote Dr S Radhakrishnan. “The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of mankind from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one Jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien cults. They invoke Divine Sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam. Wars of Religion which are the outcome of fanaticism that prompts and justifies the extermination of aliens of different creeds are particularly unknown in Hindu India.” (The Hindu View of Life, 1927, Oxford University, p 55).

I am just amazed at the perspicacity and insight of Radhakrishnan's. He articulated truths that are only now being whispered in Christian lands.

Although to be fair, Hume, Nietzsche, Thomas Jefferson and especially Thomas Paine had arrived at similar conclusions.

The major issue is that Christians have not read the book. Any thinking, sensitive man however poorly tutored, cannot be but repelled by the litany of abuse, incest, slavery, genocide, tortures that are faithful leitmotifs of these works.
Christian sanctioned law in Oregon in the 19th century required White Christians to yearly assault/beat Black Christians found within the territory.
Of course Christians have evolved beyond this type of justice, there is hope that education will temper some of the more outlandish sense of entitlement.

There is never any need for violent opposition. Education is much more subversive. Don't ban the bible-teach it truly.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 04:29

RamaY wrote: What is your prescription to be "Strong" when faced with Islamist/Evangelic hordes in a secular society like India?

I am not talking about external enemies but internal "radicalized" Muslims and Christians.

a. If the "internal radicalized" have committed violence, they have committed crimes and it is easy to prosecute and jail them. So I assume you mean the internal radicalized Muslims & Christians who have not committed violence, but rather espouse some radical ideology.

a.i: Committing violence against those who have not been violent is not acceptable from an ethical standpoint.

a.ii: Committing violence against those who have not been violent gives them the innocent martyrs they want and that they need, and so pragmatically, this is not an effective strategy.

b. With that assumption under our belt, I'll point out - if it was easy, we'd have already done it. There are several levels to this struggle. One is a battle of ideas, and for that we need to produce Rajiv Malhatras times a thousand. (Even if you don't agree with his specific ideas, we need people who seriously engage with the other side, and understand them and provide the intellectual counter to them.) Another plane of the battle is that of social action. IMO, Hindus spend too much money in building grand temples and too little in the schools, hospitals, etc., to take care of people. And temples need to be centers of arts and culture.

Where do many evangelical organizations get their funds? From the tithes of their churches. In the churches that tithe, their members pay 10% of their income to the church, and the members are very religious about complying. I'm not advocating Hindus give 10% of their income to temples, but I do advocate Hindus finding suitable causes and devoting 10% of their income on those. If not 10%, 7% or something that is pushed as a social norm.

Yet another plane of action is to eliminate our own self-goals. Among our self-goals is the far-from-perfect way we treat women, the resulting female feticide and lousy sex ratio, and the way we fail to embrace all sections of society. Yes, "none of this has to do with Hinduism, or radical Christianity or Islam" - agreed, yet when your house is not sound for whatever reason, it will not withstand a storm.

Another thing is the "children of a lesser god" syndrome; this can only be countered by being on par in material well-being, and is one of the reasons why the success of PM Modi's economic program is so important.

Think about it a little too. It can be flattering that someone has uprooted themselves from their home 12,000 miles away, given up an easy life and amenities to come to some impoverished village and try to help you; when your own country people don't seem to pay much attention to you and your problems. This too we have to neutralize.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 04:31

Translate to Indian languages and circulate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriminalge ... ristentums

Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (In English Criminal History of Christianity) is the main work of the author and church critic Karlheinz Deschner. It describes the misconduct attributed to various Christian churches, denominations, sects, and leagues, as well as its representatives and Christian sovereigns during Christian history. The work covers the entire history of Christianity from its biblical beginnings until the present. It was published in ten volumes beginning in 1986, with the final volume appearing in March 2013.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 07 Apr 2015 04:36

Think about it a little too. It can be flattering that someone has uprooted themselves from their home 12,000 miles away, given up an easy life and amenities to come to some impoverished village and try to help you; when your own country people don't seem to pay much attention to you and your problems. This too we have to neutralize.

This is an odd argument, surely there is much need for those who feel called to give these gifts much closer to home.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 04:44

We have prevailed so far.

I explicitly asked for other examples, since I was certain India's existence today as some sort of master achievement would be the example provided.

Who's "we"? What has prevailed? Yes, everyone didn't die or convert, and a lot of them survived, but that is hardly some sort achievement that happened because of local culture or tradition -- people surrendered and sold out in order to survive. That is not "prevailing" unless one redefines the word "prevail: : to defeat an opponent especially in a long or difficult contest". Staying alive to live another day is "winning a contest" only in the "not dying" contest. I think we are not quite talking about "not dying" as the criterion when we talk about how christians converted everyone by violence and force, or maybe we are. I can't tell.

Just to be clear: surviving in the face of violence and getting coopted is just a matter of how long such violence is perpetrated on a population - utter BS to claim that non violent means can be used to defend oneself from violence. People in India survived because there were just too many to kill, and those who did face the onslaught did convert and change their cultural mooring -- a few more centuries of such violence would have done the trick quite effective.

All the screwed up social problems in the local culture are a result of not prevailing culturally, given how pointers exist that Indicate local culture in India being an ethical one. A lot of it changed with external influence, and there is no escaping that.

Today, we have other structures in place like a government state etc., so the means and motives for prevailing are quite different. But no one prevails in the face of violence with non violence -- that is just delusional BS. Sounds like somebody who has managed to get through life without getting into a fight.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 05:11

The murderers and barbarians of christianity who slaughtered millions (and still do) have managed to portray themselves as culturally superior, loving and caring ones, and their single minded focus is to increase their numbers using whatever it takes -- violence cannot be used against these proselytyzing cults because that is exactly what they want their opponents to do, so they can take the moral high ground. Meanwhile, they will do all the provoking by insulting the local cultures to get medieval on them, the external network of clergy who call themselves "human rights" activists then takes care of the rest of the propaganda. The trick is to not fall for their trap, and take them down by dismantling their "peace and love" cult facade one brick at a time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Apr 2015 06:08

A_Gupta wrote:
Only Hindus seem to believe that violence is not a good way and the minute a Hindu uses violent methods other Hindus come down on him like a ton of bricks "We are not supposed to be like that"

Really? Are Hindus not supposed to be "like that". There seems to be no problem in admitting that the "Blood of Martyrs is the seed of Christianity". Provoke and fight, create martyrs and fight for them. Proselytizing is the weak cop-out method used when the primary method, violence and coercion are unavailable, or when there exists and excess of the egalitarian peaceful over the pagans.
Well, if you want the power&violence thing, given a choice between the originals and a recent wanna-be, what would you choose?

An interesting question.

If I set aside what I might or might not personally do, I come up with two issues:
1. Is there any dogma in Hindu practice that I can use as a starting off point to either

a. Spread some religion by violence, or
b. Protest the spread of other religions using violent means.

It turns out that there is no such thing as "spreading religion" in any Hindu doctrine. But there are, in Hindu dharma plenty of precedents for using violence to quell the spread of untruth, false promises or the imposition of one God over another. So if Hindus get violent against forced conversions and proselytizing there is no Hindu doctrinal bar to that other than a Hindu's own conscience.

2. When Hindus use forcible means to oppose one of the religions a false flag is raised that Hinduism is violent while Christianity is simply using peaceful means to spread. Overall, this is a lie. It is true Christianity has used non violent indoctrination to try and convince people that their religion is false. But Christianity itself does not stop provoking a fight, creating martyrs and then imposing death sentences on opponents. Knowing this to be the case it cannot be argued that Christian doctrine is peaceful. It seeks to provoke and seeks to declare someone else's belief as false with no logical reasoning.

So my considered opinion with regard to your question is that Hindus do not need to debar themselves from being violent or coercive. But for social good violence and coercion must not be used. Conversion is a form of coercion and breaks social harmony. It must be banned.

As an aside, it is easy, from a Hindu viewpoint to ridicule the basis of any faith that claims there is one God who does xyz. The minute a Hindu does that he is called "unsecular". This is nonsense. He is not Hindu unless he does that and states the obvious. The structure of Indian laws are loaded against Hindu doctrines being spread by declaring that they are "unsecular" and tread upon Christian sensitivities.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 06:43

shiv wrote: As an aside, it is easy, from a Hindu viewpoint to ridicule the basis of any faith that claims there is one God who does xyz. The minute a Hindu does that he is called "unsecular". This is nonsense. He is not Hindu unless he does that and states the obvious. The structure of Indian laws are loaded against Hindu doctrines being spread by declaring that they are "unsecular" and tread upon Christian sensitivities.

Why do you think I started this topic?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 06:51

Tuvaluan wrote:
We have prevailed so far.
I explicitly asked for other examples, since I was certain India's existence today as some sort of master achievement would be the example provided.

China has survived as has Japan as has Thailand as has Sri Lanka .....

Today, we have other structures in place like a government state etc., so the means and motives for prevailing are quite different. But no one prevails in the face of violence with non violence -- that is just delusional BS. Sounds like somebody who has managed to get through life without getting into a fight.

OK, Sir, if you were looking for it, for what it is worth, I give you permission to start riots in India. Please Sir, go ahead and do the needful violence.

Since you're getting personal, I'll say
(0) You don't have an argument worth anything, that is why you have to become personal.
(1) You sound like the perfect arm chair warrior
(2) Your "courage" is cheap. My views and who I am are public, I will defend them in any forum, and BRF has sufficient links to my blogs that indicate who I am. You are "Tuvaluan" without the courage to use a real name.
(3) I'm not wasting any further key strokes on you. I won't be watching your career with any interest though, as you rampage against proselytizers in India, or Tuvalu. Good luck to you!

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 07:04

I have not become personal, but i will call out Bullsh!t that redefines well-known words like "prevailed" to pretend that non violence actually works against violence in all situations, and that surviving with total loss of memory due to indiscriminate psychological and actual violence is the same as winning. No, that won't cut it. As for my identity, it is none of your business, and I do not have to explain my reasons to you, so deal with it.

Proselytization makes something personal as a political thing, and the people it disempowers is a matter of numbers after that point, so go work it out. I am against all religions, including hinduism, and as an atheist, I am damn well cheesed off at the kind of liberties religious people of all kinds take, especially the ones who proselytize, or giving pompous lectures on hinduism even as they speak through their arse, since I am familiar with a bit of it from my earlier days and know exactly how deep all these deep thoughts go. As for you career, I could give a rat's arse about it, but keep posting all those news articles -- they are informative.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Apr 2015 07:12

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ We have prevailed so far.

How? You can't make "peaceful" oneliners and get away.

What saved Hindus for 1400Yrs, Ahimsa Or centuries of continuous war against colonial powers?

What is your prescription to use Ahimsa as a tool to survive next wave of colonization?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Apr 2015 07:21

A_Gupta wrote:Think about it a little too. It can be flattering that someone has uprooted themselves from their home 12,000 miles away, given up an easy life and amenities to come to some impoverished village and try to help you; when your own country people don't seem to pay much attention to you and your problems. This too we have to neutralize.

This proves that you dont know Christianity to begin with.

All those people aren't travelling 12,000 miles to help poor. They are 'helping' poor in order to convert them and in the process themselves get better place in Christian heaven. Mother Theresa too belong to same group. She came to India to do Jesus' work, not to serve poor unconditionally.

Secondly you don't know Hindu society either.

There are many Hindu service organizations around the country for millennia. Nearly every village had something a guest house for travelers and near-free food. Poor used to run these taverns and The travelers were never asked for money for food, but only donations at free will.

You don't see the impact of Hindu service organizations because there is no objective of conversion, then or now. Even today, despite of all these conversions, RSS Mohan Bhagavat asked RSS to do unconditional service. you can read the news article posted today in one of these threads. Did you even think why RSS is calling their program Gharwapasi and not convert to Hinduism?

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 07:28

India has prevailed not because of Ghandian Non-violence, but because local Indian culture spread itself all over Asia all the way upto India and beyond, so just wiping it out geographically in parts of North India is insufficient to wipe out Indian culture in spite of all the violence -- it has nothing to do with non violence. There was plenty of violence even among Hindu sects in the past 1000 years -- vishnu and shiva worshippers were at odds to each other around 800 AD (if you observe Vishnu and Shiva temples, you will find the Shiva temples do not have any idols of vishnu and vice versa) and the only exception I have seen is the Chidambaram Temple in Tamilnadu which hosts both Shiva and Vishnu, and that was a deliberate truce between shiva and vishnu worshippers. There was much violence and war in India of old, which is the reason why parts of India prevailed -- and other parts didn't. The bottomline is that none of this happened due to high-falutin principles of non violence, but the opposite.

People like Chanakya wrote solid doctrines on the calculated use of violence and force to accumulate power and influence, and the non violent principles of Ashoka after he had his "revelation" doomed that part of India to death and destruction for centuries afterwards. Again, the moral of the story is that once you spread far and wide enough, it is much harder to take you down as your culture is no longer centralized -- just like we can expect christianity and islam to be a few centuries from now on a global scale.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 07:52

To be fair, the proselytizing evangelical crowd smells blood when they see any group where they can sell their message of peace, love and equality (in theory) quite easily, especially if that group has never experienced such treatment before. The ideas are not all the intellectual, more than they are about empathy and consolidating group interests using religion as a focal point.

To counter this mindset, one would have to usurp the very qualities of christianity that is winning them followers, which has to start from taking down the caste hierarchies that have ossified from the bottom up -- this is not really happening and is providing more than enough room for anyone with even marginally less discriminatory set of ideas, in perception, to basically make the claim that hinduism propagates discrimination and commits human rights violations and anything else that will stick.

Add to it, a media that highlights only news items that portrays hinduism as a regressive culture (and ignores whatever may be good about it) and does the opposite for islam and christianity, but there is nothing that can be done about it in a democratic setup, especially considering that like the paki media, the Indian media has very limited reach given the small number of Indians who read english newspapers or watch english news.

In tamilnadu, the new hindu elite (the brahmins have either deserted the state or moved to Mylapore), the chettiars, thevars, etc. are still very discriminatory towards so-called "lower" castes. Just changing this one characteristic will reap dividends and to be fair, groups like RSS have figured out this is what is wrong with hinduism, but they have no idea how to go about influencing the various hindu groups since their own reach is rather limited. Hindu social workers and leaders are also being assassinated by jihadi muslim groups that see this as a threat to their proselytizing efforts, and the government just buries all these murders as "business quarrel" or "family quarrel" even when the tamil magazines and newspapers report otherwise.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 07 Apr 2015 07:54

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ We have prevailed so far.

We prevailed due to violence -- fought like hell with all invaders, from Alexander to Brits. When the fighting stops, game is over. How well do you think Hindus are prevailing in Kashmir, North East, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

member_24042 · Post by **member_24042** » 07 Apr 2015 07:58

SanjayC wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:^^^ We have prevailed so far.
We prevailed due to violence -- fought like hell with all invaders, from Alexander to Brits. When the fighting stops, game is over. How well do you think Hindus are prevailing in Kashmir, North East, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

The Tibeto-Burman Mongoloid tribals of Nagaland, Mizoram, and Megalaya were not exactly "Hindu" unlike many of the converts in South India, Nepal, etc.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Apr 2015 08:02

A_Gupta wrote:
RamaY wrote: What is your prescription to be "Strong" when faced with Islamist/Evangelic hordes in a secular society like India?

I am not talking about external enemies but internal "radicalized" Muslims and Christians.

a. If the "internal radicalized" have committed violence, they have committed crimes and it is easy to prosecute and jail them. So I assume you mean the internal radicalized Muslims & Christians who have not committed violence, but rather espouse some radical ideology.

a.i: Committing violence against those who have not been violent is not acceptable from an ethical standpoint.

a.ii: Committing violence against those who have not been violent gives them the innocent martyrs they want and that they need, and so pragmatically, this is not an effective strategy.

b. With that assumption under our belt, I'll point out - if it was easy, we'd have already done it. There are several levels to this struggle. One is a battle of ideas, and for that we need to produce Rajiv Malhatras times a thousand. (Even if you don't agree with his specific ideas, we need people who seriously engage with the other side, and understand them and provide the intellectual counter to them.) Another plane of the battle is that of social action. IMO, Hindus spend too much money in building grand temples and too little in the schools, hospitals, etc., to take care of people. And temples need to be centers of arts and culture.

Rule of Law! Easy isn't it?

1/ What happens if rule of law is against the religious beliefs of one of the grieved parties? What triumphs? If it is that simple, then why did Justice Kuriyan differ with CJI Dattu w.r.t Judges conference on Good Fri Day?

2/ What happens to Secularism, if the law bans animal slaughter but Christians/Muslims want to celebrate Beef Festivals and Bakrid?

3/ If it is that simple, why is it wrong for India to become a Hindu Rashtra and impose Hindu "Rule of Law"? Will it be secular?

4/ Which Abrahamjc ideology (including nastik Abrahamic darshanas like communism, secularism etc) in human history stopped violence & had chance of heart because of innocent martyrs?

Looks like you didn't understand Rajiv Malhotra either. I can guarantee that he will not hesitate to use violence to protect Hindu dharma from foreign onslaught.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 08:06

The Tibeto-Burman Mongoloid tribals of Nagaland, Mizoram, and Megalaya were not exactly "Hindu" unlike many of the converts in South India, Nepal, etc.

This has been stated elsewhere on this forum many times, but no harm repeating. There is no religion called hinduism, it just a collection of cultures of people worshipping different gods, while adhering to a common ethical "live and let live" framework, unlike the "live and let die" philosophy espoused by "my way or the highway" cults like christianity, and which is why these violent foreign cults like christianity and Islam that proselytize are a threat to local culture.

Even today, in south India only some groups (and this is a very small number) worship the well-known "hindu" deities like shiva, vishnu. In fact, true Shiva worshippers will not set foot in a Vishnu temple and vice versa. There are a variety of local gods like Kaathavaraya, muruga, or the 63 Nayanmaars, and in fact each village has its own god, generically referred to as "kula deivam" (community deity).

All of this nonsense about north east India being different and "not hindu" is ignorant cr@p propagated by white christian missionaries form the USA and UK, who cannot see outside the framework of their own genocidal religious cult called christianity to see how gods are viewed in this part of the world.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 08:16

The evangelists do their homework alright.

https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/759

All the temple priests in these villages are the very same "dalits" that the evangelists bandy around as an oppressed community....non brahmins and so-called "lower castes" have been temple priests in Tamilnadu temples for more than 5 decades. Yet, you won't find a single paper written or published by any white guy that does not make a reference to "brahminism"...long after Brahmins in Tamilnadu have melded in with everyone else.

The narrative of the north indian hindu crowd matches that of the proselytizing crowd than it does that of the traditional hindu communities. Just saying.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Apr 2015 08:42

There is no word for "religion" in any Indian language. There are however plenty of Gods and no matter which part of India you look, there is no cult or belief system or local religion that claims that it is the only true path and that all other paths are false, needing elimination. Taken collectively, this attitude of allowing all religions space is called "Hinduism" and the philosophical basis for this acceptance of all Gods/religions is a fundamental tenet of "Hinduism" and far exceeds all other religions in the depth to which this question is explored and explained. But you don't need to have a grounding in that philosophy to be Hindu.

Preservation of family, society and nature are given as much importance as God an an invisible God does not get to score over everything else simply because someone or other claims prophethood or a direct hotline to some god.

These "Hindu traits" are under direct threat from Christianity that comes with the absurd and unsustainable credo that there is exactly one God who made man like himself. In a word that is illogical crap that can only be sold by coercion or bribes. There is no such thing as only one God and no such thing as only one set of laws. Anyone who says that is a snake oil salesman. It suits only snake oil salesmen to stand in opposition to anyone who points this out

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Apr 2015 08:59

Tuvaluan wrote: Yet, you won't find a single paper written or published by any white guy that does not make a reference to "brahminism"...long after Brahmins in Tamilnadu have melded in with everyone else.

The narrative of the north indian hindu crowd matches that of the proselytizing crowd than it does that of the traditional hindu communities. Just saying.

Brahmanism is a word that has been coined to separate out and "other" the Brahmin as a tyrant. It is claimed that Brahmins subjugated lower castes. I would like to point out a curious paradox here.

No one claims that Brahmins were armed and dangerous. Brahmins were not required to be armed killers or fighters. But it is claimed that they subjugated and dominated others. This means that all the other non Brahmin caste people must have been extraordinarily stupid, the world's most brainless bunch, to get subjugated by a bunch of unarmed wimps and be controlled by the words of half clad vegetarians with a stupid looking back-of-head tail for a hairdo.

It seems unlikely that all non Brahmin Indians were so stupid as to simply be ruled by a non coercive, unarmed bunch of blahblah blabbering Brahmins, especially when other castes had to live by their physical strength - using tools and even weapons for various occupations - like hunting, herding, etc

So what is more likely? This is easily surmised by looking at the structure of Hindu socieyy in which the Brahmin was supposed to live by alms alone - but it was the duty of Kshatriyas and Vysya to actually give those alms to Brahmins. Even other castes who were allowed to earn by their work were encouraged to give alms. This is there in every Hindu story or book. So Brahmins were not fed out of the utter stupidity or weakness of other castes but by the structure of society where the Brahmin had as much of a role as the other.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 07 Apr 2015 09:13

Brahmins were allowed neither to hold arms nor to accumulate wealth or become rulers. If Brahmins were neither backed by force nor by money and neither were they ever kings, then how can they subjugate a whole society? It is missionary propaganda to create hatred for Brahmins among Hindu society. They did that successfully in Tamil Nadu but had limited success elsewhere in India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Apr 2015 09:24

SanjayC wrote:Brahmins were allowed neither to hold arms nor to accumulate wealth or become rulers. If Brahmins were neither backed by force nor by money and neither were they ever kings, then how can they subjugate a whole society? It is missionary propaganda to create hatred for Brahmins among Hindu society. They did that successfully in Tamil Nadu but had limited success elsewhere in India.

Precisely. Saying that unarmed Brahmins subjugated a whole society is a backhanded way of saying that all non Brahmins were idiots and had less sense than pack animals. Even pack animals need coercion and a prod or a whip. If Indians can't understand this - hey maybe the missionaries were right? Hindus are stupid.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 07 Apr 2015 09:29

SanjayC wrote:Brahmins were allowed neither to hold arms nor to accumulate wealth or become rulers. If Brahmins were neither backed by force nor by money and neither were they ever kings, then how can they subjugate a whole society? It is missionary propaganda to create hatred for Brahmins among Hindu society. They did that successfully in Tamil Nadu but had limited success elsewhere in India.

In Tamil Nadu, Brahmins were discriminated against because it was claimed that they are 'Aryans'.
This is a direct consequence of AIT being peddled as 'history' and the politics of the Dravidian movement.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 07 Apr 2015 10:13

http://indiafacts.co.in

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 07 Apr 2015 10:21

Tuvaluan ji,
Your posts reflect the confusion(that I have as well) of 'thinking people' in TN.

You make the simultaneous claim of dalit oppression and also how dalits and other non brahmana castes have their own priests.The truth is somehere in between.In cities,it is impossible to identify people by cashtu.In villages,dalits have franchise.The dalits own land much more than they did in 1947.They also send children to school and are now upwardly mobile.Yet the village social structure is not accomodating them in the temple rituals.This is true in TN as in Punjab where the Dera Saudas are escaping SGPC sikhism.And you are right that RSS is trying to 'create unity' even in southern TN.

Pulikeshi saar is also right in that even non dalits are attracted to Xism because of incentives like education.Again there are thevars,reddys,even jutt sikh converts to Xism,though they have less incentives.
Shivji,
your portait of Brahmanas is not accurate.There is an ancient martial tradition among brahmanas(I remember you saying twice that you belong to a family which 'founded' Vijayanagara Empire) which you are surely aware from the time of Parashuraama,Drona onwards.Vedas talk of Brahma-Kshatra leadership.Even in TN,the Later Cholas had a famous brahmana general by name Krishnaraman.And this tradition continued to Vijayanagara times.This was the reality from Punjab to TN.The Brahmana influence was part intellectual,part spiritual,part cultural.It did not shy from what it considered legitimate kshatra dharma.

'Religion' can never be divorced from power.

Regarding TN,half truths are worse than falsehoods.The very word Iyer comes from "Arya"(not a racial term) and a section of brahmanas(both Iyers and Iyengars,apart from Bengali bhadralok,konkanastha brahmanas) did identify themselves in early to mid twenth century as belonging to the 'race' of Indo-European language speakers.Let us not demonise legitimate tamizh self expression while criticising its extreme version.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Apr 2015 10:30

A_Gupta wrote: ^^^ We have prevailed so far.

This is a very dangerous statement. Who is we and where have we prevailed?
Did we prevail in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Indonesia, heck even India?
The geographic and cultural space and spread of India/Hindu culture is shrinking not prevailing...
The best anyone can claim is Hindus has managed to survive two millennia of holocausts.
Since you started this thread, it is perhaps clear to you that the situation is quite bleak.

A_Gupta wrote: Just like with modernization, "we" do not have to become "them" in order to be strong or in order to prevail.

First, the problem is current Hindu intelligentsia has never articulated what they want the end goal to be…
If I am an EJ, my end goal is dictated by my belief, there is no lack of clarity or purpose, there is only the vagaries of execution.

Second, I tend to somewhat agree with SanjayC:

SanjayC wrote: We prevailed due to violence -- fought like hell with all invaders, from Alexander to Brits. When the fighting stops, game is over. How well do you think Hindus are prevailing in Kashmir, North East, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

However, this violence has been defensive, it is to preserve a way of life, not to force a belief on the unbeliever. There is no known Indian desire to drive an end goal, perhaps because one does not exist, on anyone else. This means, the strategy is a long-term loser, as there is only so many disgruntled, dissatisfied, underprivileged, etc., before they come for you. The Islamists and EJs have mastered the art of coercive violence at the edges and peaceful co-option at the center.

Shiv wrote: Taken collectively, this attitude of allowing all religions space is called "Hinduism" and the philosophical basis for this acceptance of all Gods/religions is a fundamental tenet of "Hinduism" and far exceeds all other religions in the depth to which this question is explored and explained. But you don't need to have a grounding in that philosophy to be Hindu.

This definition can be challenged. Lets say declarations are taken at face value and conclusions are tentative, and models can contain antithetical parts, then
it becomes possible to agree that all forms of worship that are based in belief is at a certain meta-level bizarre, and as loony as the antithetical atheistic view.

Translated into English – 3 million gods and no god are all truth claimants, Hinduism does not make value judgments, but allows for argumentation between these claimants within the rules laid down by its epistemological foundations - as in philosophical schools.

The problem ironically is most Hindus are blind to the genius of the system, so it is quite the opposite of what you are arguing. In that because not many Hindus, as you correctly point out, know the underlying philosophy, they have frittered away the sacred for the profane.

Finally, over the last two millennia, the Hindus have become more and more amenable to the idea that “acceptance of all Gods/religions is a fundamental tenet of "Hinduism"” This provides us the rationalization to not even fight for preservation, let alone apply violence to instrument change and leave alone the unknown end goal. Therefore, here is my tentative observation, the structural framework of Hinduism abhors ultimate goals based on conclusions – as it dreads false minima in our understanding of reality. Without a well articulated end goal and not even a boundary of where Hinduism ends and where the other begins, how does one go about defending such a system?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Apr 2015 10:31

shiv wrote:
SanjayC wrote:Brahmins were allowed neither to hold arms nor to accumulate wealth or become rulers. If Brahmins were neither backed by force nor by money and neither were they ever kings, then how can they subjugate a whole society? It is missionary propaganda to create hatred for Brahmins among Hindu society. They did that successfully in Tamil Nadu but had limited success elsewhere in India.
Precisely. Saying that unarmed Brahmins subjugated a whole society is a backhanded way of saying that all non Brahmins were idiots and had less sense than pack animals. Even pack animals need coercion and a prod or a whip. If Indians can't understand this - hey maybe the missionaries were right? Hindus are stupid.

+108

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 07 Apr 2015 10:39

csaurabh wrote: In Tamil Nadu, Brahmins were discriminated against because it was claimed that they are 'Aryans'.
This is a direct consequence of AIT being peddled as 'history' and the politics of the Dravidian movement.

TN is not uniquely targeted..., just the effects may be more sharp. Remember TN/Bengal fell earlier than other areas to European colonizers.

AIT, PIE, WU and EJ vision to change demographics are all parts of the same system targeting India and her civilization.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Apr 2015 13:44

svenkat wrote:T
your portait of Brahmanas is not accurate.There is an ancient martial tradition among brahmanas(I remember you saying twice that you belong to a family which 'founded' Vijayanagara Empire) which you are surely aware from the time of Parashuraama,Drona onwards.Vedas talk of Brahma-Kshatra leadership.Even in TN,the Later Cholas had a famous brahmana general by name Krishnaraman.And this tradition continued to Vijayanagara times.This was the reality from Punjab to TN.The Brahmana influence was part intellectual,part spiritual,part cultural.It did not shy from what it considered legitimate kshatra dharma.

Drona is a prime example.

However - apart from these traditions the vast majority of Brahmins were neither armed nor trained in warfare. My own family ran from place to place and accepted the protection of others (Anegundi to Sosale to Mysore) - and did not retain any memories of anyone who fought. Running was their forte. Not fighting. The facts you state hide the reality of a social system where Brahmins and others lived side by side with one dependent on the other, Unarmed Brahmins were hardly subjugators. they were priests, cooks, teachers, and acceptors of all kinds of favors that were given to them because they were Brahmin. But they received gifts - they did not capture them. Others gave them things - they were not subjugated by them. In theory Brahmins were not supposed to retain any more than they needed and were themselves supposed to give away excess. Many probably did not do that but it was hardly force that got them their possessions. By and large Brahmins managed to retain a good name in society and apart from Missionary accusations and modern brahmin self flagellation (and "Dravidian" digestion of fake history) - brahmins have, by and large retained a reputation in Indian society for positive traits and not violence. And I am still on the lookout for stories told by descendants of backward caste people of how their ancestors had molten lead poured into their ears because they heard the Vedas.

Either other castes very extremely stupid to be subjugated by unarmed wimps. Or they gave to Brahmins voluntarily. Every Indian source suggests the latter. Colonial and missionary sources suggest the former - "Brahmin wile", "Brahmin cunning" - but none say Brahmin force of arms. Were the other castes stupid or not. That is crucial here. I think they were not. They and Brahmins were part of a society that was badly damaged by invasions - so badly damaged that we now have it as "accepted fact" that unarmed Brahmins subjugated the minority. How did they do that? No one has even asked that question and I am asking it now.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 15:42

RamaY wrote: This proves that you dont know Christianity to begin with.

All those people aren't travelling 12,000 miles to help poor. They are 'helping' poor in order to convert them and in the process themselves get better place in Christian heaven. Mother Theresa too belong to same group. She came to India to do Jesus' work, not to serve poor unconditionally.

You know it, I know it, does the target know it?

Secondly you don't know Hindu society either.

There are many Hindu service organizations around the country for millennia. Nearly every village had something a guest house for travelers and near-free food. Poor used to run these taverns and The travelers were never asked for money for food, but only donations at free will.

Yes, there were, and in the past the missionaries had very little success. What about today?

The density of Hindu service organizations has to increase. That is how I interpret the words and actions of the convener of the Hindu Acharya Dharma Sabha, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, who also started a service organization, All India Movement for Seva.

You don't see the impact of Hindu service organizations because there is no objective of conversion, then or now. Even today, despite of all these conversions, RSS Mohan Bhagavat asked RSS to do unconditional service. you can read the news article posted today in one of these threads. Did you even think why RSS is calling their program Gharwapasi and not convert to Hinduism?

You can't point to one organization and say, see it constitutes the culture, or even that it is representative of the whole culture. In terms of Seva, Hindus need a hundred RSSes.

PS: it doesn't matter if seva comes from revival of traditions or from innovation, both are good.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 15:58

RamaY wrote: Looks like you didn't understand Rajiv Malhotra either. I can guarantee that he will not hesitate to use violence to protect Hindu dharma from foreign onslaught.

Don't change the goalposts. Your question that I was replying to said:

I am not talking about external enemies but internal "radicalized" Muslims and Christians.

And as I said, if it was easy, we would already have done it. To combat proselytization while retaining a moral compass is not easy. The irony of trying to protect the tradition that teaches "Ahimsa paramo dharma" with violence should be evident.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 07 Apr 2015 16:23

Pulikeshi wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: ^^^ We have prevailed so far.
This is a very dangerous statement. Who is we and where have we prevailed?
Did we prevail in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Indonesia, heck even India?
The geographic and cultural space and spread of India/Hindu culture is shrinking not prevailing...
The best anyone can claim is Hindus has managed to survive two millennia of holocausts.
Since you started this thread, it is perhaps clear to you that the situation is quite bleak.

I locate the shrinking of the area of influence of Hindu culture to primarily have economic causes.
In the medieval world, speed of movement and hence military power was based on the horse. After I read one of the medieval traveller's account of horse traders able to sell their Central Asian horses for exorbitant amounts in India my hypothesis has been that Islamics prevailed partly by controlling the supply of horses. That is also why despite the continuing wealth of India, the later Islamics would defeat the resident incumbent Islamic. In modern terms, it would be like cutting off the supply of petroleum. The Islamics also sat astride the trade routes, and thus, just like NATO paid baksheesh to the Taliban to let their supplies through, the trade that help make India prosperous paid taxes to support the very people and their armies who would seek to conquer India. Notice that the Islamic decline in power is in part because the Europeans found sea routes to India, and the land routes dried up in revenue. Of course, the Europeans controlled the sea routes to their own benefit.

The above is no doubt simplistic, but I think the general idea will stand up to a deeper dive. None of those economic circumstances apply today. India does have a vulnerability with respect to petroleum, but apart from that, military power today is based on technology, which Indians will be masters of; now it is a matter of uplifting the country and unleashing the buddhi of all those who are currently trapped in poor nutrition and poor education.

So I am optimistic. Maybe it is bravado like the Pakistani Army, namely I haven't lost if I am able to fight on one more day. But, IMO, sitting in doom and gloom is contrary to the nature of our traditions, what we want is to be able to continue to live by them; and it is absurd to give them up in the mistaken idea that that will enable us to keep them.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Apr 2015 17:33

A_Gupta wrote: You know it, I know it, does the target know it?

Don't you think this is where the law of the land should come into picture? Looks like you support a ban on conversions and on Abrahamic faiths in India, because the targets don't know these things.

Its interesting to note that you suggest very benevolent ideas, but give these kind of excuses when questioned. This proves my point that the law of the land should be extra careful and conservative to protect native systems because the target audience doesn't know true intentions of foreign ideologies and organizations.

Coming to Rajiv Malhotra I can only guess what his response would be when it comes to internal anti-India forces. You will not be happy with his real views.

Your Ahimsa, optimism etc are very good qualities as long as they are kept at personal level. National policy must be based on realism not romanticism. That is the difference between our PoVs.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 18:33

svenkat wrote: You make the simultaneous claim of dalit oppression and also how dalits and other non brahmana castes have their own priests.The truth is somehere in between.In cities,it is impossible to identify people by cashtu.In villages,dalits have franchise.

I am not confused re: usage of the word "dalit". I should have put the word dalits in quotes because I was using the terminology created by christians and propagated by non hindus to describe all hindus who they think are ripe for proselytization.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 07 Apr 2015 19:01

Tuvaluan wrote:
The Tibeto-Burman Mongoloid tribals of Nagaland, Mizoram, and Megalaya were not exactly "Hindu" unlike many of the converts in South India, Nepal, etc.
This has been stated elsewhere on this forum many times, but no harm repeating. There is no religion called hinduism, it just a collection of cultures of people worshipping different gods, while adhering to a common ethical "live and let live" framework, unlike the "live and let die" philosophy espoused by "my way or the highway" cults like christianity, and which is why these violent foreign cults like christianity and Islam that proselytize are a threat to local culture.

Tuvaluan ji,
That was an IED placed by TS and you stepped on it. Let it go. No point re educating the brainwashed.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 07 Apr 2015 19:16

panduranghariji, Don't know history of this TS, but what he wrote reeked of ignorance/mal-intent, so had to correct it. Maybe he/she was just trolling, thanks for the warning.