India Unvarnished

The answers provided are reasonably good EXCEPT the fact that the author tries to defend Islam at any cost. Statements like ``Islam was avowedly a religion of peace`` are the worst lies spread by Islamic apologists. How can a religion that advocates torture and persecution of infidels call itself a religion of peace?

While the author has every right to criticize Hindus and their entrenched clergy, the Brahmins, fairness demands that he also expose the mindless violence and bigotry promoted by Islam right from the time of Muhammad. Otherwise, the history of Islam in India and elsewhere will remain sugar-coated fables.

Salaam Murad Sahib,

I am very impressed by your knowledge about the subject of human history. I have a question that no one seems to be able to answer. I hope you will be able to oblige.

The question basically any information about the ancient civilization that existed at the southern most tip of the Arabian penninsula more than 10,000 years ago. (Present day Yemen, yet they far outdate even the Persian settlers who colonized Yemen thousands of years ago.) I have read in the Yousaf Ali Quran tafseer, details (at the bottom of some surah, I can cite if need be) about this people.

They were the original race from which some of the more amazing parts of the Arabic language and wisdom come. They used stone tablets for writing, and in this Quran tafseer, I read that even to this day sometimes stone tablets of extremely fine workmanship can be found which no one understands because no one is even capable of conjecturing who these people were, where they came from or where the ended up disappearing to.

Any information would be most welcomed.

I can also be contacted at:

http://aaas.i.am/

Email: aaas@i.am

thank you sir.

Seeker of Yet More.

As per your assertion the Avestha is older than Rig Veda. Even the most ardent linguistic proponents of the so called Arayan Invasion Theory will not agree with that!

The s to h sibilant shift can occur only ONE WAY. So Sindhu can change to Hindu but the reverse is not possible.

Now there is clear geological evidance in favor of the Sarasvati river drying up around 1900 BCE. That is when the Indo- Iranian rift probably occured. Iranian themselves trace their roots to the east not to the west.

When the rift occurred the Vedic gods became Avestan demons and the other way round.

Thus the Parsi God Ahura came from Vedic demons Asura. Sarasvati changed to Haraquiti

The Hindus that are posting ridiculous backlashes to the authors objective analysis of history and tradition in India are being very unHindu indeed. During the Buddha`s time, Hinduism was not so dogmatic. New ideas were welcomed, old ideas questioned, and insight gained. The Upanishads were themselves written as a result of analytical discourse. Hinduism is not a religion that stopped evolving when some random person decreed that they had the word of god all to themselves. Therefore, Hindus should stop acting so defensive. I say question every damn thing. That`s true Hinduism. It`s a religion like Buddhism that evolves with the human experience- as humans understand more about their world. Buddhism was born from Buddhism during such a period of free thought. In fact, I`d say that the Golden Age of the areas now known (temporarily) as Pakistan and Afghanistan was during the Buddhist period. True human achievement has been sinking in these areas since Buddhism`s demise.

ABC 20/20 Friday September 1, 2000

Why is tiny Hong Kong so rich and gigantic India so poor? One of the most common answers in recent decades has been population density: There are simply too many people in places like India, or so goes the conventional wisdom.



India does have a free press, freedom of religion and expression and a democratic government (elevating its ranking on the less economics-oriented Freedom House survey). Well it`s the largest democracy in the world.

But its thicket of business regulations and bureaucratic restrictions is so dense — and wealth so difficult to create there — that Indians endure a standard of living

as low as that of communist countries. John Stossel visits Calcutta, India interviews prominent Indians in USA Dinesh D`souza, Silicon Valley CEO Kanwal Rekhi and West Bengal politicians.

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/chat_stossel0901.html

Chat with John Stossel

Moderator: Why did you choose to focus on Hong Kong and India in your program?



John Stossel: Because so many people believe natural resources are the key to success and high population the root to failure. India and Hong Kong demonstrate the falsity of that.

Moderator: What are some concrete steps that nations like India and North Korea could take to improve their current conditions?



John Stossel: Stop regulating people to death.

Stingray says: Do you seriously think that economic planning, not astronomical population growth, has anything to do with the status of third-world nations?



John Stossel: Yes. Didn`t you just watch the program?

Hysterics in America do believe that population growth is the root of all evil. But Hong Kong, with greater population depth than India, demonstrates that population growth isn`t the problem. Clueless, meddling bureaucrats who think they know better how to run your life are the problem.

Murad#103

``Concerning Mihirikula. I have never heard that the Huns were followers of Shiva. They were warlike nomadic tribes from east of the Pamirs. Most nomadic people worshipped elemental sky gods and not the animal/ pashupati gods of the forest dwellers or the goddesses of the cultivator societies. There were many similar deities worshipped in ancient Babylon, Africa and even in Europe who were not the Hindu Shiva``

That`s why I objected to your attempt at ``unvarnishing India`` in 4 days without checking the references. I will post some of them at the end of this message. Please also note that my main objection is to your attempt to indicate that Mihirakula`s cruelty was due to his ``recent conversion`` to Hinduism. Another very obvious tendency I can see in your articles is to ``cut hinduism`` in size. You indicate that Shiva is not a hindu god, earlier you indicatd that Ganesh and Hanuman are tribal gods and they are not hindu gods. This just shows a lack of knowledge about Hinduism (or may be a bias attitude).

Anyway, here are some references to Mihirakula for your reading pleasure.

http://reenic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.html

PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES IN PRE-ISLAMIC INDUS VALLEY

--Dr. Tariq Rahman, Fulbright Visiting Fellow

The White Huns even destroyed Gandhara, a centre of Buddhist civilization, in 450 A.D. 71 and Sung-Yun, the Chinese traveller who visited this area in 520 A.D., found Taxila being ruled by Mihirakula (d. circa 532 A.D.) who worshipped the Hindu deity Shiva and used the Brahmi script.72

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,121169+32+111197,00.html

The first Huna king in India was Toramana (early 6th century), whose inscriptions have been found as far south as Eran (Madhya Pradesh). His son Mihirakula, a patron of Saivism, is recorded in Buddhist tradition as uncouth and extremely cruel.

Against Communalising History

D. N. Jha

Professor of History,

University of Delhi

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/

Sent via email by Murad Baig


Sadna.

I agree that we each seek and can interpret our own truths and that there are many examples of cross-religious homage to sacred things. Many Hindus go to the Dargas of Muslim Sufi saints and Hindus even preside at that of Sai Baba of Shirdi. There are many examples in all countries.

Perhaps deflate is the wrong word. I do not wish to disparage anyone`s beliefs but to try to present a more realistic or down-to earth perspective to many common practices. I personally dislike superstition that I believe many priests or professional practitioners of religion deliberately foist on the people for their own gain or for the gain of their royal or political patrons.

I confess that I may have been a bit provocative but my effort has been to try to get people thinking analytically about the entire panorama of issues that colour Hindustani thinking. After we all tear apart the many dissenting views on each subject we may end up with a clearer perspective.

Sadna and MacGupta refer to Ram Janambhumi.

What are the facts? Is there any empirical evidence that Babur built it or ordered it built in an area that he may not have even ruled? Did he or his armies even get to Ayodhya during his tempestuous five-year rule at Delhi?

If the earliest archaeological evidence of urbanisation in the area dates to after the 8th century BC, how could Ram be so historically recent? There are remains of a temple under it but it was probably Jain or Buddhist. The earliest `Hindu` temple dates to 5th century AD.

Is it not strange that the Sankara Vijaya a work detailing the emerging (post Vedic) Hindu religion by Ananda Giri a disciple of Shankaracharya, about the 10th century AD has no references at all to the worship of Krishna or Ram?

Truth. Thanks for the thoughts. No apology needed.

Pennathur. Thanks for the wise words.

Friend. I need to address your queries about Shankara and Mihirkula.

I have read many passing references to Badrinath, Kedarnath, Puri, the temple at Srinagar and others originally being Buddhist. The Buddhists were avid traders who had no Brahminical aversion to Arth and their monasteries were almost always near major trade routes.

Concerning their conversion to Hinduism there are several accounts. Hsuen Tsang`s accounts in the reign of the Buddhist king Harsha in the 7th century might be considered biased but most of his accounts including distances have usually been very accurate. He seems to write about both Buddhist and Hindu places of worship quite objectively.

E.S.Oakley in an otherwise interesting and sympathetic book `Holy Himalaya` quotes Dr. Daniel Wright who is much more forceful…

`` The Nepalese and Kumaun traditions agree that Sankara came to the Himalaya and drove out or suppressed the Buddhists by force. He found a curious intermixture of the two religions, Buddhist or Bauddamargi priests officiating at temples of Pashupati and all four castes following the religion of Buddha….

(According to Nepalese sources). Some who would not allow that they were defeated were killed, Wherefore many confessed that they were vanquished though in reality not convinced that they were in error. These Sankara ordered to do Hinsa (to sacrifice animals) which is in direct opposition to the tenets of the Buddhist religion. He likewise compelled the Bhikshunis or nuns to marry and forced the grihastas to shave the knot of hair on the crown of their heads when performing the `charakarma` or first shaving of the head. …put a stop to their religious ceremonies…84,000 works on the Buddhist religion were searched and destroyed….

Having overcome the Buddhists he introduced the worship of Shiva in place of the religion of Buddha… but he was obliged to leave Bauddhamargis in some places as priests where he found no other persons…

…what Shankara did in Nepal he did also in Kumaun and Garhwal. Buddhists were driven from the shrines at Kedar and Badari and Sankara established disciples of his own there and in many places in the Himalayas and preached the efficacy of pilgrimage to these holy places.``

Atkinson points out that the constant influx of Brahminical pilgrims in Kumaun and Garhwal prevented the relapse into Buddhism.

The Katyuri Hindu kings only established themselves after the 8th century AD.

Concerning Mihirikula. I have never heard that the Huns were followers of Shiva. They were warlike nomadic tribes from east of the Pamirs. Most nomadic people worshipped elemental sky gods and not the animal/ pashupati gods of the forest dwellers or the goddesses of the cultivator societies. There were many similar deities worshipped in ancient Babylon, Africa and even in Europe who were not the Hindu Shiva. In India too Shiva was never a Vedic deity and seems to have been a tribal deity who was later incorporated into the evolving Hindu tradition during the period of the Puranas. Many ancient kings including Kanishka struck coins showing numerous local deities without being necessarily a follower of them all.

The Jain tradition has Toramana as a follower of their faith. I can`t find the source showing where Mihirikula was converted by Brahmins but have noted a date of 515 AD when the event was supposed to have occurred. Accounts of his activities are recorded by Hsuen Tsang and more elaborately by Kalhana in his 12th century Rajatarangini.

In almost all religions, there was regrettably a revivalistic period when some bigots violently destroyed the objects worshipped by others just as all of them have also had so much to admire. Many think that Hinduism has always been tolerant but that is also a myth even if it has been extraordinarily tolerant for the most part. The orthodox Brahmins were not tolerant of the emerging local Bhakti faiths let alone those of outsiders.

Murad

Murad,

Thanks for your responses.

You say:
``you are right about the importance of myths and I understand you will react to any efforts to deflate them``

Murad, any individual(even your own) interpretation of Hindu philosophy and mythology in search of his own `moksha` does not depend on anyone else`s concurrence in the matter. Each of us seeks the truth in our own way, there is no starting point or ending point, there is no sage no: 101 who is the definitive fountainhead, there is no prophet no: 562 who can say `enough is enough`. Hence the use of the word `deflation` is rather pretentious.

You also say :
``myths are important and are to people what dreams are to individuals``

I suspect you mean a mythology pertains to a `group/collective/community` belief whereas dreams pertain to individuals. That is not quite accurate, mythology in Hinduism provides vehicles for even an individual to feel a personal relationship with the Absolute through manifestations of its identifiable quantifiable qualities or deities.

``There is however a down side when mythology begins to be treated as something sacred and is used to justify violent or derogatory political or sectarian actions.``

I will never presume as you do, to tell someone what should be sacred to them and what should not be. If the Prophethood of Muhammad, or Jesus or the shrines at Mecca and Medina and Jerusalem and Bethlehem are considered sacred by some, other things are considered sacred by others.

Let us address the sacredness of myths, their historicity and mass faith with examples, since I am no gyani. In South India, I knew of many who made a trip to worship at a famous Christian shrine built by Portugese sailors a century or two ago in Velankanni where the patron saint `Our Lady of Health` is believed to cure illnesses. Such a trip is considered a last resort in illness even by many Hindus. Similarly, a particular church of Infant Jesus in a city of S. India attracts huge crowds on Thursdays to the extent the city bus service has to arrange special trips on that day of the week. You find the local newspapers carry advertisements by individuals of all faiths thanking Infant Jesus for granting wishes after offerings of devotion.

The questions to be asked are, is the faith and belief of so many based on myths ? If so, are these myths justified in being considered sacred? If they are myths and considered sacred, must they also be `deflated`?

Now, you have earlier mentioned historicity as a tool to `deflate` myths, so I presume you mean all myths and not just Hindu myths.

Historicity: Yes, Mary probably did exist as a historical figure. The historicity of her divinity status as Virgin Mary and her miraculous powers, can be called conclusive or inconclusive depending on who is saying, there is no categorical and undeniable evidence. Regarding the basis of many people`s faith in the saint`s healing powers in relation to the Velankanni Church , I doubt there is sufficient conclusive evidence to prove historicity or authenticity.

The same question may be asked for the Infant Jesus shrine I mentioned or any dargah or temple anywhere where many people worship in faith and believe their labors have been rewarded. I doubt that cause and effect can be so easily proved or even disproved. One cannot objectify the effects of faith on people and their lives, leave aside prove or disprove conclusively the workings of divinity in which faith is reposed.

Now I ask again, are you saying people must not worship at Velankanni or any other shrine when all hope is lost because that is only a `myth which has begun to be treated as something sacred`? Or some myths are OK, others are not?

Now let us return to Hinduism. A Hindu is not called on to believe in the historicity of a myth or any mythological figure as a test or requirement of good faith, unlike in Islam or Christianity. Moreover, noone can `dictate` the terms of faith to others. Hence those who demand alleigiance to Hindu symbols can easily be proved to be of malafide intentions without affecting the symbolism of the symbols or myths. Hence those who claim alleigiance for themselves on Ram`s behalf can be shown to be on doctrinal quicksand without detracting from the significance of Ram as a religious figure or object lesson in Hindu tenets.

``is used to justify violent or derogatory political or sectarian actions.``

Now maybe your argument is that only myths which lead to violent and derogatory political or sectarian actions deserve urgent deflation by historicity. Then the whole world is your playground, Protestants vs Catholic in N.Ireland, Jews vs Muslims in the Middle East, so much history related to Christianity. And let us not forget the starving beseiged women of Afghanistan. Has deflation of myths really been a viable option?

I have one banal argument, here, if a cult bearing JFK`s name a century from now, finds some reason to commit violent and political actions, would such actions be more justified even if every moment of JFK`s life has been documented with full authenticity and no myth attached?

Separate the actions and the myths. Its much easier to do so in Hinduism. Those who claim ownership on myths cannot justify themselves in Hinduism. A look at the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis will be found to be based on what many can as easily call `myths treated as something sacred and used to justify violent or derogatory political and sectarian actions`. Must we do away with Islam altogether or the supposed `myth` of the significance of the martrydom of one of its prominent figures to stop its misuse in perpetuating violence an dissent?

Where the Ram Janmabhoomi issue is concerned(I suspect the unspoken motivation for this quest for deflation), I personally have no opinion either way except that it will be a dire disrespect to build a temple whose foundations are soaked in blood of innocents.

Instead of getting sidetracked into the issue of mass devotion toward Ram(being only half the story, the mass devotion toward Allah being the other half) as the spurious primary cause , I think the objective Indian intelligensia ought recognise it as fundamentally a political issue where a paradigm shift in Hindu-Muslim relations after Independence is sought

The old perceived conquered-conqueror relation has to now change to mutual respect for each others religious aspirations and mutual compromise as equal participants of the future. Maybe many think that given the secular basis of the Indian state, all have a equal right to demand and expect these from each other. If such a `New Contract` had been accomplished without politics and without violence it would have been something to be proud of, we missed the chance. Hope future opportunities are better handled, and that the buddh-jan come up with creative workable solutions. Hopefully they willnot take the intellectually-lazy route of thinking that purging of each other or each other`s objects of faith is the only way.

I suggest `The Elements of Hinduism` Stephen Cross, 1994, publ. Element Books as a quick overview.

Thanks for your patience.
Sadhana

re: macgupta#100

Couldn`t agree more..with everything you said and the freakin Pope.

regards,

Kabuli

I wouild suggest, Murad, that the problem you want to address has nothing to do with history or mythology.

For example, you might eventually get every Hindu to accept that Rama was a mythological character. Nevertheless, the demand for the Ayodhya Babri/Ramajanmabhoomi site will not go away, because, historically, that site was consecrated ground for Hindus that was snatched away from them.

Likewise, pointing out that there may be Hindu analogs to Ghori, Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb is nevertheless not going to diminish the reality of what the above-named did.

So, mythology doesn`t really enter the picture, and history is what it is -- we can only try to hide it or destroy it, we have no time-machine to go back and correct it.

The real questions are : why should any of these incidents in the remote past have anything to do with the way we treat each other today ? What part of our collective and our separate heritages do we want do celebrate ? Are we agreed today in honoring the humanism and repudiating the nasty stuff that our heritages have ? Or, are we the children of Aurangzeb and Mihirkula, bent on pursuing the same goals or ideologies today ?

These questions do not go away regardless of how much ``debunking`` you attempt.

As to this agreement on the ``use of history``, why is it necessary, what does disagreement show ?

I, for example, find it extremely offensive, and indicative of the Roman Catholic Church`s modern attitude towards India, that while the Pope has gone around in this 2000th anniversary of the church making apologies and asking forgiveness for all the people the Church killed in Europe, the Pope has not found it necessary to make apologies for the Inquisition in India (the Inquistion was equally remote in time, and equally if not more bloody in outcome).

I read that as saying that the Pope feels that such methods are acceptable with Pagans, no apologies necessary. So the different views of history reveal a basic cultural conflict.

-arun gupta

Murad:

I would like to unconditionally apologize for raising the issue of your mentioning your wife`s religious affiliation. It was in bad taste and I`m sorry.

Dear Murad,

You like anyone else have the right to interpret or postulate an history. But please understand that there are many historians who could offer an explanation quite different from yours to many of the questions you pose.

The construction of Buddhism as an alternative traditional source of Indianness is not new. The best guide on this matter would be Surendranath DasGupta`s tratise ``History of Indian Philosophy`` a 10 volume book. I suggest that you and several readers spare the time to glance through it before arriving at rash conclusions. By the way what you have said adds nothing new to what has been said and is a regurgitation of the by now discredited ``Aryan Invasion Theory`` and its derivations.

For instance scientific evidence about the Sarasvati river does exist and so does evidence of older and more extensive inhabitations along its banks right upto Gujarat.

Another excellent contemporary authority about the Rig Veda is Prof. Subhash Kak of the Lousiana State University.

For your information I believe that the Hindu texts are spirutually inspired but not divinely revealed.

Murad,

My objection is to your phrase ``Mihirkula, recently converted to Hinduism``. This phrase, along with a mention that Islamic rule was tolerant one, just indicated a desire to show hinduism responsible for Mihirkula`s cruelty. Clearly this pharse had no natural place in an article about Kashmir and Cars.

I have already posted references that very clearly indicate that Mihirkula (and his father Tomarana) were part of central asian war-like tribes who were attacking remanants of Gupta empire. These tribes were shaivites (not recent converts) and their destructive assults were finally contained by largely hindu kingdoms of Baladitya Gupta and Narsimha Gupta. Mihirkula `s campaign was purely for material gain and was not a religious campaign. Story of Mihirkula`s wife is a myth, not supported by any historical record.

My second objection is to your unsubstantiated mention to ``Shankaracharya who replaced buddhist temples at Badrinath etc to Hindusim``. Atlease in early India, Buddhism coexisted with various sects of Hinduism. Shrines and temples shared dieties from several sects. Main diety of temple sometimes changed with changes in accpetance of a particular sect with time.

However, no historical records show that Badrinath or Kedarnath were ever Buddhist monasteries.

If you have been observant during your travels to monasteries & temples in Ladakh, Bhutan etc, you will find that still budhhist dieties share place with Rudra and other dieties from Shaivaism.

Will write more once I see your references.

Regards

Response from Murad Baig


Message for Sadhana:

Sadhana, you are right about the importance of myths and I understand that you will react to any efforts to deflate them. As I had said in the beginning, myths are important and are to people what dreams are to individuals. There is however a down side when mythology begins to be treated as something sacred and is used to justify violent or derogatory political or sectarian actions. I love the myths of all societies but abhor the hype that some enthusiastic followers infuse them with. By deflating I don`t want to mock them but to just try to put myths it in a more realistic perspective. Even an alternate perspective.

Regards

Murad

Response sent by Murad Ali Baig


Hey guys/gals give me a break. You don’t have to stomp on me with hobnail boots/ stilettos.

Can`t I just tell you some unvarnished facts without having to have a motivation.

But as you ask, I must say that I have never found it necessary to declare my own or my wife`s religion as our names say it all. And we both are religious in the sense of believing in a nameless, formless cosmic force but do not subscribe to all the rituals that are considered by many as being fundamental to religion. These were mostly the creation of priests and not of the founding sages or prophets. Many have also degenerated from spiritual to superstitious. I nevertheless do respect the feelings of others and do not fling my skepticism into their faces.

Sadhana has rightly pointed out that the philosophical underpinnings are the core of religions and I greatly respect these. As you will find as the essay unravels, the evolution of the philosophies and the role of reformers are not ignored.

Thank you Krashid for pointing out that the effort of 4 days was not without some substance. I had pointed out in my last note that I have been working on the subject for the past 9 years.

Friend wanted to know about Mihirakula`s killing of Buddhists mentioned in the Kashmir article. There are several sources and A.L.Basham in `The Wonder that was India` says:

``From AD 500 onwards, Western India was in the hands of Huna kings, two of whom, Toramana and his son Mihirkula were apparently mighty monarchs. The latter is remembered by the 7th Century Chinese traveller Hsuan Tsang as a fierce persecutor of Buddhism and in Kashmir… and memories of his sadistic tyranny were still alive in the 12th century when they were recorded by the historian Kulhana.``

I am looking for my exact sources that state that Mihirkula had originally been Buddhist (a recent convert) until convinced by his wife who was a Hindu princess. I will revert. Later Mihirkula was driven from the Northern plains by Narasimha Gupta and killed in Kashmir.

Murad

Even those who have studied Hindu philosophy and its practice as a purely academic subject recognise the `value` of the philosophical underpinnings of its mythology and the fundamental `nonabsolute` or `nonliteral` characteristic of its mythological figures in comparison with the mythology of other religions. The fundamental `nonliteral` nature of its mythology( as opposed to philosophy ) has in the past facilitated reform in religious practice.

The author seems confused because he seems not to acknowledge this fact and seems to think

a. that the political philosophy of `Hindutva` currently prevelant is the same as the Hindu philosophy of the millions of Hindus of India, past and present

b. that to purge the evils of religious practice, the religion as it is practiced or believed in by so many itself should be purged.

c.The uncovering of historical or geographical facts is sufficient to undermine the philosphical authority of Hindu scriptures.

Moreover he doesnot seem to consider of any significance to his stated intentions, the existence of any past or present reform movements.

The caveats to these conclusions are:

a. Hindutva is not Hinduism

b. Purging of religion or religous practice from popular culture has never worked anywhere in the world and has created more problems and violence than it has solved. Do we really want to go down that road ?

c.Reformers of Hindu religious practice ought to have at least a minimum grasp of the philosophical underpinnings to be effective, in my opinion and history shows. In other words, the keys to successful reformation lie within the religion itself. Please look up the `Swadhyaya movement` or see the Shyam Benegal movie `Antarnaad` as just one of countless examples(some `features` of the modern Indian state being one).

If the author wants to instead purge the political philosophy of `Hindutva`, he is most welcome :-).

Sadhana