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. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    There is always hope - just make sure you debate with evidence. If their or any side can provide the evidence, accept it - if not, ignore. Historical facts speak for themselves because 'Bharat' - the Hindu/Jain/Buddhist mythological figure, first figured in the Rg Ved, where he participated in the battle of the 10 kings... which he won (for Vashisht against Vishwamitra) as it is supposed Indra or Purunder favuored Vashistra's prayers over Visvamitra's and sided with Sudas, who was supposed to be a Bharat scion - so can we suppose that the Bharat tribe eventually had to win India over from someone else?

    Any Hindu will surely subscribe to this fact, it's in scripture - unless you're a nastik (Jain/Buddhist) you need to accept the Vedas. So... now comes the Archilles heel, if one believes the Rg Ved, forgot the mandala sorry about that, one is to believe that a battle for conquest took place before the formalization of a 'Bharat'... it's clear that there were 10 kingdoms fighting.

    So... isn't this a worrying fact for the right wing? That there needed to be conquest before 'Bharat', I wonder from whom... the original indigenous people of the Indus, or perhaps fellow Aryan tribes? I wonder if some Hindu rashtra rep can take me on on that. If you need to battle other kingdoms for control of India, that means suppositions of a potential conquest is a natural supposition.

    And, not forgetting Bang Galore, I think you should cite the African shore-line migration theory more often - because that makes all nationalist movements which claim indigenous null and void... because it makes mankind African (historical fact). For me, it basically destroys every indigenous people movement around the world - note, it's not unique to India. There is one in Singapore, Malaysia, US, Britain, Europe, France... the list goes on and on.

    Nothing in India is unique to India, at least the problems that is.
     
  2. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    No - because Hinduism has no official founders (aka Abraham/Yeshua) and secondly the current people who call themselves 'Gandhi' are Gandhis in just name. Congress disconnected with MK Gandhi when Nehru was found giving speeches at 12 midnight when Gandhiji was busy quelling Hindu-muslim riots in Bengal. I gasped in utter dis-belief when I read how Mr. Nehru read the independence declaration... instead of Mr. Gandhi.

    He was a rich man living in self-imposed poverty - espousing self-sufficiency. Practiced honesty by example, even some of his honest annotations may seem questionable, but the fact remains he lived his philosophy. What are the other figures one can consider? Seriously, what?

    Be serious, quote historical figures who have lived and be logical about it - what happens to the Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains? If you want to absorb them back, what will they become, Dalits again or something? You must be dreaming if you think people would want to be dragged back to limited social classes. And in this age of enlightening, education matters more than religion and money dictates all affairs of existence.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2011
  3. Rudrakx

    Rudrakx Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    218
    Basically Hinduism is not religion, India/Hindus survived for over 5000 years. India is not just 60 year old to be son of some Gandhi. There lots of Heros who fought for India otherwise we would have been another muslim country with complete cultural loss like, Egypt, Persia ... etc.
    I don't kind of logic is that but I would go hungry or naked to help and lift up hungry and naked people from poverty. Their are many better ways to eradicate hunger.
    What ?? yuo need to learn some history about Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and how they are integrated with Hinduism.
    Where did I said that ? I am strictly against caste system. Hinduism has evolve through thousands of years and it can evolve in to caste less system. caste system is irrelevant in todays world and its not even core of Basics of Hinduism.
     
  4. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Give me an example and I will tell how and why that figure isn't worthy of it. Note, Gandhiji is the only Indian ideologue who crossed borders - you find his footsteps (ideas) in New York, Singapore, the UK - he inspired Mandela and Luther King... he is basically an icon who has crossed borders.

    The reason why he is revered is because he 'invented' and successfully 'implemented' civil disobedience (through satyagraha), in many ways what Indians, much to the dismay of those outside India, don't realise is that that's equivalent to Einstein and his finding of relativity - only difference, Gandhiji was in the realm of social sciences. In the field of political science, he is a superstar.

    You have no idea because you don't know it's importance, not just for India, but the world. The entire mass movement concept has changed thanks to him - people go on strikes today... he has played a major role in this paradigm shift. I hope you realise what you're arguing against.

    My opinion is simple, a culture that cannot endure nature needs to perish - survival of the fittest, if Hinduism cannot survive nature, it should die. However, it evolved and it was made to endure, few people realise that Varanasi is one of the oldest cities known to human kind, take it and leave it at that. If you want to do something for your culture, write a book - develop an accepted hypothesis, don't dabble in politics that will only affect the poor and the helpless.

    Don't do a Jinnah/Nehru - they've successful destroyed the lives of millions in South Asia.

    This is exactly my point - most of the Hindu right wing nuts are oblivious to the fact that Hinduism purports ascetism. I suggest open up a Upanishad and read it up.

    And do note, even today, most of India is still hungry and naked. Instead of a 'Hindu rashtra', perhaps you should have other priorities, as you've valiantly pointed out? How about dressing and feeding India first, eh? Also, if you still insist - prove it - how a Hindu India, in name, will help it's economy, military, it's people of all race/languages and creeds, and will empower the poor masses for the better. Tell me, show me.

    I promise you if your model is qualitatively and quantitatively satisfying, I'll change my mind.

    Yes, they shared the same platform as Hinduism - however, they are distinct. Do note that if someone wants a unique identity, you cannot deny them this fundamental right. Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism have wide spectrums, that said, certain segments consider themselves integrated within the dharmic school of thought, one in the family of the dharmic faiths, oldest of which is Hinduism, certain segments think they are unique and certain segments find no affinity with Hindu faith at all. You can find Sikh/Buddhist/Jain people of immense variety.

    We're talking people here, millions of them. Respect their rights - is this how things will be in a Hindu Rashtra, you're dividing and basically destroying people's lives for personal prejudices.

    People who wanted to be defined for Islam are gone, finito, it's over - they have their own country, don't live in the past. Let it be.

    Sure, but rural folks still do not think like that. This is nature - things die, ideas die - if Islam dies, it deserved to die. If Hinduism dies, it deserves to die, if Christianity dies, it deserves to die, natural forces take their own course. But none have died because things evolve. It's good you feel so strongly about your ancestral identity, you should be proud because once Hinduism flourished from Ang Kor Wat to Bali, they've found Vishnu statues in Russian Siberia - it's possible it stretched all the way to Caucasia Mountains. However, this pride shouldn't turn to arrogance and this need for ego to engulf everything else.

    You writing a good book about Hindu history will have far more impact than a Hindu India.

    Others deserve their choices and rights - India after partition did the right thing, it remained secular, this needs to endure. It is the only country in the world with a dharm chakra on it's flag (Ashoka adopted the Buddhist chakra) - respect that. As they say, Rakshitam Dharma Rakshati. Be logical about it. India must remain secular where all creeds and everyone's rights needs to remain unhindered, you cannot have that ahmediya business there, even if you read the Mahabharat (the actual thing, I recommend pick up the Ganguly translation), you'd realise that it was always a multi-cultural centre of affairs. It was never exclusively Hindu.

    If the Muslims hadn't invaded, it might have already turned Buddhist. ANd those who invaded are *dead*, the ones alive are not even their relatives. Be logical and let reason prevail.
     
  5. Rudrakx

    Rudrakx Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    218
    An Example - Swami Vivekananda (I thought you read my signature !)
    Gandhi's Ideology was fake, he was the one who was encouraging Indians to join British force to fight against Hitler. Those who inspired by Gandhi's Ideology was never had another choice. Their is lot about Gandhi, which has been discussed on the forum. try to find if you care. This is not the thread.
    This was the A Einstein who said,
    some others
    QUOTES ON INDIA
    Many of these great people, lived before Gandhi.
    You are highly exaggerating Gandhi.world never survived because of non-violence ! Gandhi's principles of the non-violence has limited/conditional implementations.
    like GUJARAT ! You should try to understand that, Economy is about pure materialism, Hinduism is not materialistic it a faith.
    If you really admire Albert Einstein, then these are some of his quotes,
    You need more reading about Hindutva ! Well I am not alone on this, Definitely not.
    You mean India was Secular Before 1947, and before British Rule ? Man you are one wishful Thinker.
    If you think that Hindu-Muslims fought together with British not because they were secular but because they were facing bigger enemy. And thats why when they saw bigger enemy (british) are leaving , they started fighting for next big enemy, Hindus and Asked for Pakistan.
    Remember, Mughals/Muslims were also foreigners like British.

    Not true, No other religion except Islam and Christianity do "marketing" (no offence) for their religion. And Buddhism follows principle of non-violence like Jainism.

    PS: I don't like to judge people from their posts, but seems a good guy who is pissed of religion no matter which one (probably all of them) !
    ,.....
    even if you read the Mahabharat (the actual thing, I recommend pick up the Ganguly translation), you'd realise that it was always a multi-cultural centre of affairs. It was never exclusively Hindu.
     
  6. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    illuminati , if you do not know enough of Indian history to find the great Hindus who preceded Gandhi, then there is no use my giving examples.

    Btw, what does your id mean?

    a masonic sect founded in Bavaria in 1778 claiming that the illuminating grace of Christ resided in it alone

    Are you a xian? Seems so, after they have all the wisdom.

    Pal, you are small country, where almost every one knows everyone else. Terrorism is not your problem, so far, nor have you seen terrorism. I have it directly. SG is a small state, not even a nation, whatever you pretend. So you cannot be expected to know what is nationalism even. So kindly do not lecture us about what we are, or WHAT we SHOULD be in your opinion.
     
  7. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    You are mistaken on many counts. When did Buddhists or Jains denied Bharat? When did they have a political movement to establish their theocracies?
     
  8. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    So, are you denying the Veda? Can you confirm your position - are you saying that the Rg Ved is wrong? Because if you are, you're not a Hindu.
     
  9. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    You sidestepped my question. Was Buddhism a political movement?

    Don't worry if I deny this or that, I can still be a Hindu. Let RV be 100% wrong or 100% right. It is my business. I do not need to give me a sermon about what I should believe as a Hindu. Nor are your services needed by me to illumine what exactly is Hinduism or Hindu Rashtra.
     
  10. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Nope, his letter has been misinterpreted, funny thing is, you fan boys keep missing out on Bose, it was your favourite icon, Bose who was pro Hiter for a while, until they decided to arrest him and he escaped to South East Asia.

    Gandhiji tried to reason with Hitler.

    Not really no, there are no major Indic figures who have impacted world culture as much as Gandhi - very simple and realistic fact. Not Vivekanand or Chaitanya or Shankararycharya - Gandhi's ideas encompass cultures and borders.

    I am speaking from an academic point of you, discard your personal prejudices.

    As I said, his ideas and the successful implementation of civil-non disobedience are not the political science equivalent of relativity. You have to study that subject to realise that. Head on in an environment where they think about world affairs - ask me what they thought of not Gandhi, but his product and how it changed world affairs post British India.

    Just ask them.

    Yes, I admire Einstein, Heidenberg and a load of others - however, Hinduism is an ascetic faith - Buddhists split primarily due to their inability to endure Hindu ascetic requirements, I think the initial disciples of Siddharth were brahmins - and the Jains can easily match Hindu ascetism, they're probably more ascetic in that sense but they are against he varna system.

    You cannot deny people their identities. It's their choice, whether they want to be called Hindu or not.

    I have - I have read the works of Arun Shourie (who in his latest book on his son's misery has turned Buddhist!) and the infamous Sitaram Goel - I don't take decisions lightly, when I say I always have an open mind, I really do. But my questions are deep and complex. It's not a feasible idea, in fact it's a very selfish one.

    What happens to people who do not consider themselves or identify themselves as Hindus? India owes them - besides, it's just too radical.

    A Hindu India is not the India that has a realistic place in this world - a united, multi-cultural India should prevail. Speak with logic here, there is just no data to support your hypothesis.

    Mughals were, but so were the Aryans at one point. This is nature, things get displaced and die off. India was never secular, as I have said, monarchy cannot be secular. And, read my posts to Bang Galore, where I have argued against the premise that the British were a benign force.

    Buddhism probably plagiarized it from the Jains. Besides, Christianity is one of the worst forms of religions in the world because they use lies to sell their ideas. Especially in an era where everything they claim has been dispproved, they still evangelize and claim of being the truth. Like the Earth was 5,000 years old (About 3.3 billion years in fact), it was created in 6 days (as opposed to evolution) and how it's possible for a married woman to give birth to a son and still be a 'virgin'. Utter nonsense.

    I agree, it's absurd, but Hinduism has it's share of great absurdities as well behind some philosophy. So does Buddhism, how can a person just be enlightened sitting under a tree for a couple of days, nonsense.

    *All* religion is nonsense, hence a religion-less state - I endorse that.

    Yeah, I don't like religion, particularly those which want to shut people and thrust them back into the dark ages. I doubt religion today has any other function other than creating communal identities, what's the point of keeping it alive in the public domain?

    Keep it at home - and if people want to do something about religion, they should write a book or a thesis instead, ideas which are accepted have far more consequence than politics that can be change in an instance.
     
  11. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    Basically, I support the politics that will best represent and benefit the poor and the helpless, if there is any such politics, which will help the helpless, I will support it. Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist/Jain/Christian or whatever politics are at the expense of the poor and defenseless, hence they need to go extinct.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2011
  12. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Illuman

    Gandhi was unrealistic. But not being an Indian Hindu you cannot realise it. And I don't want you to lecture to me about him.

    You may have a view about Bose. But he was no pro Hitler. He was anti imperialism and a pucca Indian.But you do not know about Bose even.

    He was under house arrest when he vanished and resurfaced in Moscow, ruled by an ultimately anti Hitler.

    From there he went to Berlin. But Hitler did nothing for India.

    Then Bose made his way into Tokyo.

    Now come on tell me he was war criminal.
     
  13. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    What does me not being a Hindu got to do with anything... at all? Knowledge, friend, knowledge matters, not creed. You still do not realise what you're arguing against. Big ideas often seem unrealistic...

    The South African blacks supporting the white-majority South African rugby team was an unrealistic target, but they did so - everything seems unrealistic until implemented.

    Not really no. He was a militant Indian - had he succeeded, India's foundations might have been completely different. Besides, I doubt he might have - given Britain were a super power at that time in history.

    Yes, Hitler called his Indian contingent useless. Nope, he was a patriot Indian, who tried his own method but failed. Good icon but not the Gandhian sorts which cross cultural and regional boundaries. Churchill should be to Indians what Hitler is to the West... remember that.
     
  14. rcscwc

    rcscwc Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    593
    Means a lot, pal, a lot. You cannot understand what rashtra, how can you explain it me? A certain sort of knowledge can come only from within.




    Yes, he was a militant. So? But he did stir and fire up the Indians. He showed that loyality of Indian soldiery could no longer be taken for granted. Did a lot to shake the empire. Reason why even your little island state got independence. You had no gandhian, and no Bose even.


    Gandhian solutions cannot work in your immidiate neighbour to the north. Preach all that there.


    Again Bose is our icon, and we are not thrusting him upon you.

    Churchill is definitely on our villaions list, might be a hero for you. Bengal famine will killed at least 5 million in 1943 was due to his policies. In contrast, Hitler is not our personal viullain nor a hero.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2011
  15. illuminati

    illuminati Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    133
    So, are you suggesting that the Kashmiri militancy is acceptable? How is Bose's militancy acceptable and the others not? I won't seek to inform, as it is clear that you are not open to reasonable information. Let's just bury the entire thing.

    Let's just focus on diving in each of these hypothesis - tell me again, why a Hindu 'rashtra'? Have you even bothered reading the vedic literature you so vehemently endorse (yes, I have read the Rg Ved/Sam Ved, Griffith's translation and Sayan's commentary).

    Just by quoting Chanakya will get you nowhere, most of the Hindu right wing know as much about Hinduism as a child knows about the world around him. How much do you know and how deep does this go?

    What school of thought do you follow? Are you a Vaishnav, Shivaite or do you follow Shaktism? Clarify since that is would be where we start to dissect all of this. I am basically open to all and everything reasonable, that's where I stand.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page