1857-What Really Happened-A Reconstruction

trail

regard, in reference to your last para, a society of faithfuls is not a society of robots devoid of all variety, creativity, and innovation.

And faith can be quite reasonable, although it is not, in the least, based on reason. That's why dharma and faith are two very different things.

Anyways, it is sheer criminal neglect to compel/seduce/induce large numbers of faithless (or dharmic) and faithful people to live together, or to let them live together without honestly educating them about each other.

#64 Eklavya :
Assimilation of Gods was in the reference of India, while responding to Anil. Where it has been historical tradition, at least since Aryans. Jeus– ,Indra and the whole pantheon of Gods of Aryans were adopted by Dravidians in south India. Aryans of N. India adopted Shiva, Kali etc. of south India. Even Gandhi used magic religious formulae accepted by Indians – ‘Ishwar Allah Tero nam, Sabko sanmati dey Bhagwan’ ( and not Bhagwans).

In India with huge cultivable tracts of land, neighbours did not have to fight for resources and tried to come to terms each others faiths.

However, uou’re right about religions born in Mediterranean basin. The desert, a resources scarce region, had moving tribes where competition for resources was fierce. Only those who played the card of exclusivity, fidelity to the tribe, succeeded. Religion – a civil code, also suffered the same fate. It had to be an exclusive identity. Mohammad spent his life fighting.

Today while a Hindu will go and pray at a Dargah without any reservations. No Muslim or Christian will ever dare ask favour of a Hindu god without suffering excommunication.

Religion is an Abrahmic concept. When confronted by it, a Hindi word - ‘Dharma’ was found as it comes closest but this means duty and not affiliation to any particular set of civil laws. This is the same thing about the word ‘Hindu’. You never find it in any Indian scripture (I don’t dare call it Hindu scritpure as those who wrote them won’t even understand it). BTW, same is true in China. This is contrary to Islam or Muslim, which are repeatedly claimed as religion and the identity of the believers in Quran. The same goes for Christianity or Judaism.

Now a ‘faith’ is true or not, let us apply some basic ground rules
- What faith teaches is absolute truth and can’t be demonstrated as wrong (and not allegorically)!!
Can we find one such religious enunciation (including Buddhism which comes closest to rationality). All offer speculations with many things right but also many things found blatantly wrong since they were founded.

- What religion teaches can be considered allegorically truth and will help in founding a more balanced society!!
Here we’re starting with a set of vales, which are generally found to be good socially, and trying to find them in the religious enunciations. But if we already have them, what do we need the religion for. Especially when it requires great intellectual effort and often leads to adjustment of conveniences and misuses.

- Faithfuls are better fits in society!!
If that was really the case, why more religious societies like S. Arabia or even India or Pakistan need such a harsh civil code.

- If all population was strict Muslim or Christian or .., the society will run better!!!
It is possible if everybody behaves like robots with same set of rules. Life style defined by one person- a mullah and not even many mullahs. Stop thinking; no science, no invention, no more intelligent speculation. Of course this is a sure guarantee of having a new prophet coming up and challenging the system.

Thanks, Regard.

I don't think anyone who has actually tried to understand different religions has made the statement that all religions preach of the same God or teach the same things. But whenever saying so makes life easy for people they are likely to make that assertion. Understandably.

IMHO, you have made an excllent case for non-faith religions. But many people can only accept (sometimes, only understand) faith-based religiosity.

[Given human condition, more people would naturally want a faith-based religiosity than non-faith based one. So the only remaining objective thereafter is to show that your faith is the true one (and other faiths are not).]

Thank you Eklavya. I must not be very clear in my note.

'God - worst imagination of man' - I hope it is self-explanatory. As I say later, the invention (or imagination) of concept of God is damaging more than anything else man invented. I wonder if our grand children will not think of us as credulous and idiots as we think of those who believe in witchcraft.

In oriental religions- Hinduism, Buddhism..., Maïa (call Saitan if you're muslim) is supposed to be hiding the truth from man when he is trying to explore truth- Nirvana. But any search of 'truth' requires rational vision (Darshan- philosophy) and not being bogged down by received 'truth' of faiths. This is what I called that religions and concept of God deny this liberty of thought.

Often a compromise is found saying that all religions take to the same God but then why the attributes of God are always different from one religion to another.. and more often in the same religion, depending on the circumstances. How a merciful God becomes revengeful at the time of Kayamat or when we get in an accident or an earthquake occurs.

Religious individuals are either virtuous but exploited and suffer by others, those who are not and there is always one. Religion may justify suffering but does not save them from everyday torture of being misused or fooled. They are hardly ever able to support others. On the other side of the religious spectrum, There are religious prescriptors- Mullahs of all religions- who will not let you exercise your freewill but give their own versions of religiosity and justify their own agendas. God's will is more often used to justify weakness and lack of socially responsible behaviour. If we look around, those who are successful in life (not in earning money but in general happy with their lives), are always those who have scant care of any religious obligations (they may be still referring to their godliness to win points).

Let us look at all prophets of all hues and latitudes of all times. Only one thing is common. They succeeded in breaching the religious constraints of their own societies. But using the easy tool of a new religion, they introduced reforms and socially more acceptable behaviour.

My contention is that religion or God concept gives an easy excuse for lack of social awareness and obligation of the responsibilities to let others live their own lives. When the mind is free of God and such constraints, we know that we can expect from others only what we can offer ourselves to others and nothing more. This is where your tolerance is rewarded by others (society). Anyone misusing others lives will automatically lose others indulgence.

Hope I'm a little more clear.

anil ji, I have often thought about what might constitute the greatest possible 'religious' error from Indian point of view. The mother of all errors. And always, it seemed to be, the urge to limit, confine, hijack, and imprison 'God.'

BUT if by some magic or trickery, we COULD imprison God and put him in our pockets, He would be a most powerful genie. So you can imagine how irresistably and seductively strong the urge to do exactly that can be.

---------------------------

regard, could you please clarify what you were saying # 61. Thanks.

#50 Anil
You seem to be fascinated by something which has been long settled by Charvaks (Vrihaspati 6th BC): It is preposerous to say that man is best cretaion of God, but it is certain that God is the worst imagination of man. There have been many variants on that since.

Please consider:Religion and concept of God became Maïa (man made illusion) themselves. They misled in investigation of truth by creating ‘faith’ diversions. If the God is the truth, then there should be only one truth. Why there are so many definitions? Why it is so stretchable and fits such contradictory religious paradigms. The doctrine that we are presided over by a loving deity has become so rounded and elastic that no earthly evil or natural disaster, it seems, can come into collision with it.

Religion may stand for anything ranging from a sum of scruples to outright justification of encroaching on others’ freewill. It impedes the free use of our faculties and inhibits from taking our own individual responsibilities. In fact successful among us are only those who decide to breach religious constraints. Even the prophets and demi-gods themselves are only those who broke religious barriers of their times. Religions put unnecessary constraints on those who are conscientious but offer an escape clause to those, who transgress others liberty easily, an after-action confession for any socially reprehensible act.

Take the God out and societies becomes more responsible. It seems 2/3rd west Europeans are agnostics -a diplomatically acceptable word instead of atheists. Have'nt they created the most tolerant society?

Re: # 59 About martial race. I think at highest levels of any army nobody believes such things is my feeling except F.M. Ayubkhan as he wrote in his "Friends and not masters" about his perceptions. He wrote hindu can absorb one stroke ( military) but you give two he is finished. I do not think he really believed. But myths even untrue can be powerful than truth.
But such things are spread propanganda and its needed to "inspire" people on ground.
The people who are cutting edge of army at battle front now real truth. This is needed as what glory a punjabi infintry man facing indian counterpart expect , he is really worried about his comrade in arm, he does not except really advance on red fort and hoist green. He is too worried if survive tomorrow and at end he has no glory , may be fieldmarshalls will have ,not for infintry man his families.Aga Amin wrote criminal attitude of higher up of sending army to fight( Kargil) at high heights without supplies to freeze and dry with out objectives. All myths are needed to sacrafice poor men and some time inspire men to go for thier own slaughters , its unfortunate the general and army behaved so ungratefully towards even own men and they were just used as cannon fadder by Musharaf.
Knowledge srts you free , and myths make you blind.
I respect AH simply as he write what is truth as he sees , one may not agree his conclusions or analysis but his factual infirmation is never fabricated. Great intelluctual honesty in him noted he does not miss lead by submission most refreshing is he does not even try to mislead by ommision.
I always fear generals will go to war to save their skin on easterfront and may even meet success for few months due advanced military equipment , more tanks and advanced airmachines and advanced atmomic bombs but finally Indians will kill as elephant even killed by ants and eaten.
I always final indopak war will start if army gets bogged on western front and if people get restless to galvanise them behind army war with India is best solution. What is going is mad general and mad corp commander and their economic struggle to keep economy and all derivatives to their limited company.
Good day.

{"About Sikhs also I have nowhere said that they were in majority in the English Company's force.My analysis , although not covered here that a substantial part of the collaborator Indian force with the English Company at Delhi was Punjabi Muslim and Pathan.After all the English East India Company was the knight in shining armour which rescued the Punjabi and Pathan Muslim from constant rape by the Sikhs !"}

Pavocavalry Sahib,
I respect your extensive research in coming up with these generalizations about the Ghadr, Mutiny, or War of Independence - depending upon your own perspective. Of course a lot depends on how many English "historians" have been relied upon for facts. The anecdotes of 19th century white Christians have to be digested with considerable tolerance. :)

As for the Sikh participation in putting down the rebellion, the fact that most of Hodson's Horse consisted of Sikhs is probably the reason for the myth that most local collaborators were Sikh. The deadly fate of the Mughal princes help captive by Hodson adds to that myth. Pretty good job in dispelling the stupid concept of "martial races."

Thanks for your article for it gives new perspective on old monumental historical landmark.
As you wrote you studied this subject while cadet at army organization I wonder following.
The topic is suggested by officer or teacher or student pick up the subjects.
Is this project pear reviewed by other teachers or just by your officer/teacher and shelved.
How you were able to get hold of so many references . ( Does army keeps records for posterity)
Most work done by students is more on historic lines or future conflits.
This is very difficult question to me. Yourself and other ( Like writer of military inc. Mili Business Inc) always state the GOP spends huge amount on army expense. As the budget is never disclosed and it is true like major cost of army the retired people compension is not shown in defence budget so it must be more.
What are real figures and how people like yourself speculate about that.
The figures stated at great variance from low 6% to 50%. If you can throw light it will be helpful for all readers.

Do money paid by usa around 1 billion of recent years can be considered as cost? As it is paid by others for services rendered.If you take out 1 billion of budget % for defence cost can be substantially down.

It is facination to understand how when overlords of country meet for corp commanders meeting with top general how the meeting is conducted. Are particular corp commanders are more important than others and it is free for all discussion or they just give opinion on topic at hand and move to other topic. If you or any body has any information which is not secret please throw the lights. Good evening have good 2008

Majumdar #56
I don't think any Muslim will doubt basic tenets of Islam.
It can be divided into belief. One God, prophets, angels, holy books, and day of judgement.
And actions. Prayer, Fasting, Zakat (alms), Hajj.
I have not read Rumi myself but is highly revered Muslim.
In Islamic empire all trends flourished from Dene Ilahi of Akbar to Strict fundamentalism of Mujaddad Alf Sani.
Islamic empire of Baghdad was a great place for Muslims, Christians and jewish artisan, scientists writers etc, as was Spain.
Looking at those societies, Muslim rule was pragmatic. There was so called fundamentalism (although extremism is a better word). Like any society Muslim society has both extremes, with majority of people in the middle.

Rashid mian,

Re: #55

(I have heard that both Hindus and Muslims go to the tomb in Ajmer Sharif.)

Hindu pilgrims in Ajmer and Fatehpur Sikri far outnumber Muslims. I am a frequent visitor to Sikri myself.

(Why you want to restrict Islam to a narrow vision. )

My #30 was made in response to a post by Anil-ji who suggested that Rumi's views contradicted Koran. IMHO, Koran is quite literally the word of God as per Islam, so assuming that Rumi (or any other Muslim) had a philosophy which contradicted the basic tenets of Koran, the same philosophy could not be considered Islamic. (Not that being unIslamic would make it wrong or inhumane).

Regards

Majumdar#30
Why you want to restrict Islam to a narrow vision.
I have heard that both Hindus and Muslims go to the tomb in Ajmer Sharif.
Maulana Rumi is as Islamic as Mujaddad Alf Sani and Averroes as much as Ghazali although superficially they are poles apart.

Laddu ji:

Not you, who can reform. Therefore, need for you to despair or waste your energies.

Lasting reforms / changes always come from the within. Outsiders can only put unrelenting pressure to the point it is unsustainable for the status quo, and reformers from within get an upper hand. This summarizes the anothology of peaceful reforms / changes.

For now, and probably for another 50 years, most certainly until the rest of the world has found an alternative source for energy, this pressure will continue. Therefore, for a long time, politics, social, and economic conditions of the middle east are tied to the western interest, and later when three or more jumbos (China, Brazil and India) start flying there will be more to pressure not less.

Strong leaders in the region can change their destiny, by delinking Islam, Political Islam etc. from the Islam that they want. This beginning can begin by empowering girls and provide education.

Iran has girls as 65% university student population. I do not see wrong in education and female empowerment, even if it comes from the madrassas. Among the empowered and educated are the reformers from the within. Among the rest are mere followers of 7th century, or 2,000 BC thoughts and practices. For them nothing changed and nothing changes. Till then the powers to be will continue to play in the hands of those who need energy source.

Ironically, Islam does not lend itself to such separations as may be necessary, and hence this tussle may continue until the consumers of energy loose interest in that source. Chaos works for them, just as well as the peacefully reformed societies will.

You (= Hindu) or India as a whole cannot play any role in this tussle. There are many ahead of India and you in the line.

Learning from Chinese, Japanese and other South East Asians is in India's interest. I believe Today's India is precisely doing this.

Living in the past when India and its hindus were dominated, and thus frothing in anger hurts Today's India. There are, at the very least, 20% of India who do not subscribe to this fothing or anger.

Today and tomorrow's India will be better served by carrying all Indians inside its tent of success and future. No Indian should be left behind.

I have many dear friends who get very angry when the name of their beloved religion is linked or mentioned in the same sentence as OBL and Jihad. Their helplessness is very clear because the Islam they love, is seen as an institution in which their aborants also too belong. According them, if a terrorist belongs to Christianity or Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism does not taint these beliefs why their religion is singled out.

This feeling is beginning of reform. Their anger is beginning of reform. The beauty in such reform process is that it is from the within. And it is certainly not hateful or derogratory. You can see and respect it here in Hamidm, Tahmed Sahib and many onto the other end of the spectrum.

Regarding upnishad's, manu smriti etc.

I have not read any such scripture. However, I did read Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's and another professor from Princeton's analysis. I also have read Stephen Mitchell's translation of Gita, and his work on Buddhism. All of which I found non-dogmatic and challenged me to think.

I get more fascinated by Buddhism than by Hinduism, altough neither's rituals.

I have settled for this question from Riga Veda, and the beauty of this question for my intellectual satisfaction. What you wrote here about OSHO, to me seems to conform to the probate power of the question from Riga Veda.

Re: # 51

Anilji,

Islamofascists have the support of a considerable number of 'moderate' muslims and has the Quran and the Hadith on his side to ensure mayhem and destruction in the entire world.
we Hindu idolators are actually just an open invitation for murder to them and every momeen has to shout Taqbeer and jump into creating collective mayhem like they did in 1947, Paris and recently in Calcutta.
The only way out is to make 'moderate' muslims confront the horrible reality of their Islam and make them realize that they need to throw out portions of that horrible book of hate or has to ban those inciting tafsirs and hadiths if they want to live in a modern world.
Do not act like a dhimmi and look for roots of violence in muslim world at other things like 'politics', 'poverty' or 'education' - there are 20,000 madarassas in Pakistan that have created enough of morons to make the rest of the kafir world worried for the next 20 years.