Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Hindu Rashtra Explained

Discussion in 'National Politics' started by Sid, Apr 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ManuSankar

    ManuSankar Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    588
    Let me ask you since when did this concept of Hindu Rashtra became so popular,my answer is only in 20th century,to be exact last 3 decades.India has never been united under a Hindu Rashtra banner.At least not since 4th century BCE(age of Maurya). None of the big Empires of Ancient India like Maurya,Gupta,Kushans etc has never been Hindu empires.They patronized all religions .More like a secular manner.You can see this secular behavior even under the reign of Mughal Emperor Akbar.He made a large empire not by destroying small Hindu kingdoms but by making peace with it.When Aurangazeb changed this Akbar's policies to more radical and Islamic ones.everything fall apart and the empire break down in a few centuries.My point is India has never been Hindu Rashtra as you have said,In fact it's the map of India that was made by British Government that first described India as a Geographical unit as we see today
     
  2. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Leave him alone bro., he must be from RSS or something like that :azn:
     
  3. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Not a metter of being popular. The concept has been there. A geofraphical area called Bharata Varsha was defined long ago and it became part of rituals too.

    You maynot be observing Hindu rituals, but millions rather crtores do and have been doing.

    I.. [name].. gotra ...[name]. of vill ... name... prant ... name... in Bharvarsha within jambudvip [Bharat varshe, Jambudvipe...]


    It has been there as part of Sama Veda.


    If you think Bharata was defined by the British, you are mistaken. State or kingdoms may come or go, but a nation is much more permanent. You think Austria is less of a Germanic nation just because it is a different state? Could communism extinguish the german nation in E. Germany? No.


    In fact problem is mrxist influence on you, when you say that Akbar was a secular.
     
  4. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16
    Akbar secular :disagree: ive heard it all now
     
  5. ManuSankar

    ManuSankar Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,323
    Likes Received:
    588
    You are right,the concept was always there,but bharatavarsha as a geographical entity never existed,Its a term that refers the historical spread of culture of India beyond subcontinent.All I meant to say that Hindu Rashtra as you say has never existed
    as a geographical entity,but you can say that there was always a cultural unity in the subcontinent because of spread of ancient Indian Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist culture and philosophy.

    Iam a Hindu and i do observe Hindu rituals.

    I did'nt say Bharatha was defined by British,it would be insane!!!
    but there oppressive rule did provided us a need for political and geographical unity.that's why we are Indian union now.

    I meant to say that Akbar's policies were secular in nature.How else do you explain the Matrimonial relationships between Mughals and Hindu kings,Abolition of Jizya(a tax which all non-Muslims were required to pay),and allowing Hindu's to take key positions in administration and military.The practices were unprecedented.Akbar was a man a man way ahead of his time.

    P.S:I am not Marxist and What is the "problem" in having Marxist influence on any body(i know some good Marxists).
     
  6. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Since Bharat as a geographical unit was defined and was known Bharat Varsha, inhabited by the descendents of King Bharat and known as Bharati, how much more definition of a nation is required? Many countries are still struggling to define their nation, and failing that there is a break up of states. Many African, European and Asian states have broken up.
     
  7. Wolf 9

    Wolf 9 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    74
    Bharata (emperor)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
    For other uses, see Bharat (disambiguation).

    Bharatavarsha, The kingdom of great king BharataBharata (Sanskrit: भरतः) was a legendary Indo-Aryan emperor of India, and is referred to in Hindu and Jain mythology. He belonged to Kashyapa clan of Hindu Brahmins, the second Brahminic clan following the Brahmanya clan, and is considered to be the ancestor of all those belonging to Kashyapa linage. Bharata conquered all of greater Greater India, uniting it into a single entity which was named after him as Bhāratavarṣa. According to the epic Mahābhārata, Bharata's empire covered all of the Indian subcontinent, Bactria, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan, and Persia.[citation needed].

    "Bhārata" today is the official name of the Republic of India.

    Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  8. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    How about going to the best universities on Earth, people who formulate the body of all human knowledge, and tell them that - that surveys and statistics don't matter.

    Personally, I wouldn't buy a hypothesis (this Hindu rashtra) unless you can demonstrate it in a regression model and then apply it on some other population - then use the framework on a lab rat to see if it works. You see, unlike you, I am not too kin in gambling human life away on pointless emotions. Emotions are chemicals, made to spark action, which provides a reaction and thus a mindless cycle of events which can be avoided with some decent restraint and wisdom.

    People who gamble easily suffer most. I don't think any mortal has the right to gamble away the lives of 1.2 billion Indians, I doubt you're the person to do it, sorry to remind you that.

    What history? Don't you mean mythology? What history are you speaking about Mr. rcscwc?

    Clarify please.

    Do you even know what it means? How do you equate a cliche with humanism? You like your family members? That's humanism - biologically, the definition is equivalent albeit humanists don't distinguish between kith and kin and outsiders.

    Now extend that argument a step further - suppose you like a particular village, would you call such an affinity a cliche? Extend that, since you're drawing some form of identity from the Vedic culture, can I call it all just some loud-mouthed cliche?

    Think about it, what makes your ideology reasonable and logical but mine a cliche? What makes you all that stand out?

    From your words, I don't see anything spectacular. You are no Hannah Arendt, neither are you Gandhiji. Why the pedestral, why the distinction?

    You see, with all due respect, you can't demonstrate your hypothesis, neither can you demonstrate your ideology through example, perhaps exemplify your ideas with your actions in life. You can't do that too.

    Why would anyone, in the right mind, someone educated enough, ever buy into this nonsense. You don't demonstrate it because data doesn't matter and you can't exemplify it in some way because that's not possible in one life time (10... maybe).

    So why?

    Then what happens to the Sikhs? What happens to the Jains and the Buddhists? What happens to the Muslims? India *never* was a purely Hindu country at any one point of time in history. Under Chandragupt, they were Hindu majority/Buddhist. Under Bindusar, Hindu/Buddhist/Jain. Under Ashoka, basically Buddhist (majority, given it was state religion) and Hindu. Under the Islamic regime, Islamic and Hindu...

    In any era, the Indian subcontinent was never entirely Hindu. Think with logic, don't equate land with ideas - think - ideas are called 'memes' they are just that, don't expand issues you know will never result in anything sustainable.

    Politics should always be for the betterment of the masses, don't gamble away their lives for hollow ideologies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2011
  9. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Nope, he was a monarch... how the hell can a monarch operating a monarchy be 'secular'? Did you mean tolerant? Yes then he was - because of, quite simply, revenues, human resources and some basic common sense.

    Sam Ved has basically simply organized the Rg Ved into hymns for rituals. It is not supposed to be 'read' without the Rg Ved... but I am assuming you knew that... I hope.
     
  10. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    As illuminati has already pointed out, Akbar was tolerant; not secular & even tolerance must be contrasted with people of his era. No point in looking at medieval kings through the glasses of 20th/21st century morality.

    Btw, no Hindu king could claim secularism either since Hinduism is inherently non-secular towards its own. A Hindu rashtra is primarily an upper caste wet dream, no one from the bottom of the Hindu society would barter away what they have today for what would essentially be slavery.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16

    There is no caste in hindu unity hence the Rss so your wrong as for Akbar being tolerant lets not go there we could be here all day.
     
  12. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16
    RSS opposes caste-based census
    PTI May 23, 2010, 09.10pm ISTNAGPUR: RSS on Sunday said nationality should be the basis in the ongoing national census and not caste.

    "The RSS is following the principles of late Dalit leader B R Ambedkar. Right from the beginning, RSS is in favour of a casteless society and any attempt to dilute it will hurt the sentiments of people," RSS general secretary Bhaiyyaji Joshi told reporters here.

    RSS has been striving to build a casteless society, he said.

    "There is no provision for identifying and separating illegal migrants in the country while preparing the National Population Register (NPR). This will prove to be a threat to the national security and integrity," he said.
     
  13. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16



    Rss does much chartity work and provides education to the masses who can't afford it otherwise
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
  14. yeti

    yeti 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    16
    Akbar's Hindu generals could not construct temples without the emperor's permission. In Bengal, after Man Singh started the construction of a temple in 1595, Akbar ordered him to convert it into a mosque.[ He gave two villages for the upkeep of a mosque and a Madrasa which was setup by destroying a Hindu temple.[ During the early part of Akbar's reign, his army was responsible for the demolition of rich Hindu temples which had gold deities in the Doab region. However, he subsequently made amends for the same by donating a golden umbrella to cover the deity at a temple which had been demolished, and allowing the conversion of a mosque into Hindu temple at Kurukshetra.


    Yep very tolerant indeed :tup:
     
  15. Bang Galore

    Bang Galore Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    341
    you said it yourself - he made amends ! what could be a better definition of tolerance?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page