Mahadev Gobind Ranade (1842-1901)
Yasser Latif Hamdani March 19, 2005
#31 Posted by echoboom on March 20, 2005 9:54:32 am
Mantolives:
Iz Raza Kazim the m`aashooque in this pUrdaa-e-ZanGaree? Surely sounds like him.
You `write` somewhere in the article:
``..Iqbal had mentioned of how the Hindu society could never be democratic, because such a situation will mean an end to Hindu society. Had he qualified it with..``
Are you not twisting Iqbal`s words? Please provide that ``quote``. It is in a line or two and begins with `` If a hindu
``.
It shouldn`t take you too long. It is pretty well known as well.
Unless of course you , as usual ``discovered`` something to prove your Sahih Bukharis of
Jinnahcorrect.
Iz Raza Kazim the m`aashooque in this pUrdaa-e-ZanGaree? Surely sounds like him.
You `write` somewhere in the article:
``..Iqbal had mentioned of how the Hindu society could never be democratic, because such a situation will mean an end to Hindu society. Had he qualified it with..``
Are you not twisting Iqbal`s words? Please provide that ``quote``. It is in a line or two and begins with `` If a hindu
``.
It shouldn`t take you too long. It is pretty well known as well.
Unless of course you , as usual ``discovered`` something to prove your Sahih Bukharis of
Jinnahcorrect.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#32 Posted by HP on March 20, 2005 10:26:40 am
Yassar,
I had read about Ranade a long time ago but never really thought that he influenced the Indian society in a big way. In the 19th and the early 20th century, there were many intellectuals, scholars, and government servants that were taken in by the British upper middleclass idealism and found reformism to be their niche in the over all Indian society. They always said the right things and barring a few never wavered in their support for British colonialist. They have our respects because they were the original elitists in the Indian society. Rabindranath Tagore was probably the last of 19th century elitist in the sub continent.
Feroz,
Your assessment of Pakistan is based on the current situation in Pakistan. Your comments appear appropriate but do not reflect the true state of affairs in Pakistan. Like many developing societies, the Pakistani society would have its own vicissitudes and sometime your pessimistic analysis may appear to be the whole truth but it is not.
If you compare the current Pakistani society to the one in the 50s, 60s and the 70s, you would find that Pakistan society’s progress despite the military regime and the absurd two-nation theory, was geared more towards modernism and acceptance of new ideas. There were severe conflicts in the society at that time and in the 80s the obscurity won the battle mainly because the biggest supporter of the modernization of Pakistan, the east wing parted company along with its more enlightened political and social ideas.
As someone said, “Even utter obscurity need not be an obstacle to success”
The conflicts move the society and the current conflicts would be helpful in removing many barriers to success from Pak social structure.
The positive side of the current story is that whenever people in Pakistan were allowed to make a choice they made the right intellectual choices and that proves that generally Pakistanis understand the need of the day more than the its rulers.
The previous Afghan war allowed the dogma to take control of Pakistan, the new war of Afghanistan after 9-11 is opening the doors for Pakistanis to reclaim society from the fringe echoboomseque elements of the Pakistani society. They controlled the society for far too long and it is not possible to eliminate their influence in a short period. It will take some doing to bring all of their symbols of obscurations down.
The prerequisite is to move the Pakistani society away from its unreal Muslim identity. The emphasis should be on the Pakistani society rather than on the Muslims or ummah at large. I am not suggesting that Pakistanis should be made to give up their religion but the effort should be to remove the religion from the collective life.
We tend to be very critical of the US influence in Pakistan. The US policies in the 80s led Pakistan to the current situation but it was still a choice made by the Pakistani rulers and not Pakistani people. Again, the US is offering a choice and again the rulers are forced to accept it. This time around, the US offer appears to more on the lines of realism than dogma.
The US support is vital in changing the Pakistani society as they have complete control over the Pak army and as long as the US continue to push the army for reform, despite its natural reluctance to do so, the army would follow the US line.
There is no doubt that the enlightened people like you in Pakistan need strong support as they have been weakened enormously during the last 20 years. The US is coming forward to provide the support. It is pushing the rulers to change their outlook and bring the realism back in the society.
India is another country that can provide enormous help in changing the Pakistani society. The conflict with India always helps the echobooms of our society. That’s why in the worst of times, the Pakistani left, liberals and democrat have always supported better relations with India. The current Indian government understands that without supporting the modern, liberal, and secular elements in Pakistan, it will not be able to remove the long-term threat that is the bread and butter of the obscure elements on both sides of the border.
I had read about Ranade a long time ago but never really thought that he influenced the Indian society in a big way. In the 19th and the early 20th century, there were many intellectuals, scholars, and government servants that were taken in by the British upper middleclass idealism and found reformism to be their niche in the over all Indian society. They always said the right things and barring a few never wavered in their support for British colonialist. They have our respects because they were the original elitists in the Indian society. Rabindranath Tagore was probably the last of 19th century elitist in the sub continent.
Feroz,
Your assessment of Pakistan is based on the current situation in Pakistan. Your comments appear appropriate but do not reflect the true state of affairs in Pakistan. Like many developing societies, the Pakistani society would have its own vicissitudes and sometime your pessimistic analysis may appear to be the whole truth but it is not.
If you compare the current Pakistani society to the one in the 50s, 60s and the 70s, you would find that Pakistan society’s progress despite the military regime and the absurd two-nation theory, was geared more towards modernism and acceptance of new ideas. There were severe conflicts in the society at that time and in the 80s the obscurity won the battle mainly because the biggest supporter of the modernization of Pakistan, the east wing parted company along with its more enlightened political and social ideas.
As someone said, “Even utter obscurity need not be an obstacle to success”
The conflicts move the society and the current conflicts would be helpful in removing many barriers to success from Pak social structure.
The positive side of the current story is that whenever people in Pakistan were allowed to make a choice they made the right intellectual choices and that proves that generally Pakistanis understand the need of the day more than the its rulers.
The previous Afghan war allowed the dogma to take control of Pakistan, the new war of Afghanistan after 9-11 is opening the doors for Pakistanis to reclaim society from the fringe echoboomseque elements of the Pakistani society. They controlled the society for far too long and it is not possible to eliminate their influence in a short period. It will take some doing to bring all of their symbols of obscurations down.
The prerequisite is to move the Pakistani society away from its unreal Muslim identity. The emphasis should be on the Pakistani society rather than on the Muslims or ummah at large. I am not suggesting that Pakistanis should be made to give up their religion but the effort should be to remove the religion from the collective life.
We tend to be very critical of the US influence in Pakistan. The US policies in the 80s led Pakistan to the current situation but it was still a choice made by the Pakistani rulers and not Pakistani people. Again, the US is offering a choice and again the rulers are forced to accept it. This time around, the US offer appears to more on the lines of realism than dogma.
The US support is vital in changing the Pakistani society as they have complete control over the Pak army and as long as the US continue to push the army for reform, despite its natural reluctance to do so, the army would follow the US line.
There is no doubt that the enlightened people like you in Pakistan need strong support as they have been weakened enormously during the last 20 years. The US is coming forward to provide the support. It is pushing the rulers to change their outlook and bring the realism back in the society.
India is another country that can provide enormous help in changing the Pakistani society. The conflict with India always helps the echobooms of our society. That’s why in the worst of times, the Pakistani left, liberals and democrat have always supported better relations with India. The current Indian government understands that without supporting the modern, liberal, and secular elements in Pakistan, it will not be able to remove the long-term threat that is the bread and butter of the obscure elements on both sides of the border.
#36 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:28:43 am
Re: # 33
What the fuk?
It seems like talking to people like you is like throwing water on duck`s back...
What the fuk?
It seems like talking to people like you is like throwing water on duck`s back...
#33 Posted by bongdongs on March 20, 2005 10:32:57 am
Well done Yasser, it is nice to see you broaden your reading. I too purchased a copy of ``Sources of Indian Tradition`` last time I was in India. It`s freely available in paperback. Vol 2 has a nice section on Ram Mohan Roy.
Since I grew up in Maharashtra Phule, Ranade, Tilak et al had a prominent place in school textbooks. To study the conflict between reform and tradition the classic faceoff to study is between Jotirao Phule and Vishnushastri Chiplunkar.
Since I grew up in Maharashtra Phule, Ranade, Tilak et al had a prominent place in school textbooks. To study the conflict between reform and tradition the classic faceoff to study is between Jotirao Phule and Vishnushastri Chiplunkar.
#34 Posted by dost_mittar on March 20, 2005 10:43:32 am
Kaalchakra:
``The person to study alongside Sir Syed would be Raja Rammohan Roy - the father of modern India. Like Sir Syed a few decades later, RRR had faced opposition from his orthodox co-religionists.``
I wonder if this is a valid compariosn. Sir Syed was perhaps the father of the two nation theory, in that he thought of Indian Muslisms as a separate entity. RRR, on the other hand, was purely a religious reformer. In fact, it is doubtful if he could even be called a Hindu reformer, for he wanted to break away from Hinduism and start a new religion, Brahmo Samaj. For a time, many hindus would refuse to enter into marriage with Brahmo Samajis. An excellent description of the friction between the two was described in the novel Gora by Tagore, who was a Brahmo Samaji himself.
A note about hindu revivalists. Yes, they were fundamental revivalists, but they could also be called social reformers. The best example is Daya Nand Saraswati, the best known of revivalists who started the shuddhi movement. They argued in fact that many of the social ills of the hindu society were because it had moved away from the message of vedas. They were by no means obscurantists but also reformers in their own way, even the concept of shuddhi, or ``reconversion`` to hindu religion was an anathema to hindu orthodoxy. They opposed sati, idol worship and tried to reinterpret caste from one based on birth to one based on occupation. Followers of Dayanand opened DAV schools for girls in every city and town, at least in Panjab.
They were opposed by the brahmin orthodoxy but the reformers were also from upper brahmin castes with better education and this, combined with the ancient Hindu respect for scholarship, meant that the Hindu middle class followed them instead of the orthodoxy and the message trickled down to the lower rungs of the society in due time and is indeed still trickling through.
On Sir Syed Ahmed, I wonder if a more appropriate comparison would be Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the founder of Banaras Hindu University, who I believe took the water from Ganga with him when he went to Europe in order not to be polluted.
``The person to study alongside Sir Syed would be Raja Rammohan Roy - the father of modern India. Like Sir Syed a few decades later, RRR had faced opposition from his orthodox co-religionists.``
I wonder if this is a valid compariosn. Sir Syed was perhaps the father of the two nation theory, in that he thought of Indian Muslisms as a separate entity. RRR, on the other hand, was purely a religious reformer. In fact, it is doubtful if he could even be called a Hindu reformer, for he wanted to break away from Hinduism and start a new religion, Brahmo Samaj. For a time, many hindus would refuse to enter into marriage with Brahmo Samajis. An excellent description of the friction between the two was described in the novel Gora by Tagore, who was a Brahmo Samaji himself.
A note about hindu revivalists. Yes, they were fundamental revivalists, but they could also be called social reformers. The best example is Daya Nand Saraswati, the best known of revivalists who started the shuddhi movement. They argued in fact that many of the social ills of the hindu society were because it had moved away from the message of vedas. They were by no means obscurantists but also reformers in their own way, even the concept of shuddhi, or ``reconversion`` to hindu religion was an anathema to hindu orthodoxy. They opposed sati, idol worship and tried to reinterpret caste from one based on birth to one based on occupation. Followers of Dayanand opened DAV schools for girls in every city and town, at least in Panjab.
They were opposed by the brahmin orthodoxy but the reformers were also from upper brahmin castes with better education and this, combined with the ancient Hindu respect for scholarship, meant that the Hindu middle class followed them instead of the orthodoxy and the message trickled down to the lower rungs of the society in due time and is indeed still trickling through.
On Sir Syed Ahmed, I wonder if a more appropriate comparison would be Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the founder of Banaras Hindu University, who I believe took the water from Ganga with him when he went to Europe in order not to be polluted.
#37 Posted by amit on March 20, 2005 11:36:02 am
Re:ferozk
With all due respect, it is escapism to suggest that since Islam cannot be reformed, muslims can never have any reform. If you look at the Islamic world today, you see a large range of systems between say Malaysia or Indonesia at one end and Saudi Arabia at the other end. Malaysia is a dynamic, modern country with a booming economy while Saudi Arabia is a backward, vile place where women cannot drive. This difference depends on how people interpret Islam and setup their political/social structures. Why can`t Pakistan move in the direction of Malyasia or Indonesia in terms of the political/social system? Who says that all muslim countries must copy Saudi Arabia?
The reason Pakistan has resisted modernization is less to do with Islam and more to do with the imaginary fears or pranoia. Prior to 1947, the paranoia was hindu domination and post 1947, the paranoia has been Indian domination. The reaction against these imaginary fears has been the tendency not to embrace modernity since it would somehow dilute the hold of Islam, leading to domination by the neighboring country. After 60 years, most Pakistanis hopefully realize that such fears are absurd. Hence given the good relations developing between the two countries, more Pakistanis would be bold enough to come out and say that they would rather see Pakistan become like Malaysia rather than a copy of Saudi Arabia.
With all due respect, it is escapism to suggest that since Islam cannot be reformed, muslims can never have any reform. If you look at the Islamic world today, you see a large range of systems between say Malaysia or Indonesia at one end and Saudi Arabia at the other end. Malaysia is a dynamic, modern country with a booming economy while Saudi Arabia is a backward, vile place where women cannot drive. This difference depends on how people interpret Islam and setup their political/social structures. Why can`t Pakistan move in the direction of Malyasia or Indonesia in terms of the political/social system? Who says that all muslim countries must copy Saudi Arabia?
The reason Pakistan has resisted modernization is less to do with Islam and more to do with the imaginary fears or pranoia. Prior to 1947, the paranoia was hindu domination and post 1947, the paranoia has been Indian domination. The reaction against these imaginary fears has been the tendency not to embrace modernity since it would somehow dilute the hold of Islam, leading to domination by the neighboring country. After 60 years, most Pakistanis hopefully realize that such fears are absurd. Hence given the good relations developing between the two countries, more Pakistanis would be bold enough to come out and say that they would rather see Pakistan become like Malaysia rather than a copy of Saudi Arabia.
#38 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:46:52 am
If there has been some confusion about it... I apologize, but with all due respect to Gandhi, I don`t consider him an agent of reform... I consider him an agent of revival. He is roughly the same as Hassan Al Banna ... of India.... and like Hassan Al Banna... his modern followers have gone beyond Gandhi`s revivalism....
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
#42 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:53:12 am
Re: # 39
PS... those saying that Jinnah was some sort of an elitist... let me put forth some excellent evidence to contradict that...
According to a new book published by Permanent Black publishers Delhi ``The Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`` ....
1) Jinnah was the only politician who consistently tried to get universal adult suffrage for all of India... he tabled the bill several times...
2) Jinnah was the only politician in the legislative history of the Delhi assembly in the British times who tried to get free education for all of India...
If this is what an elitist does... then I am afraid I am happier siding with an elitist then running on the beach with salt in one hand and a stick in the other ... putting up token displays of resistance .... while dressed as an ancient Jain priest...
PS... those saying that Jinnah was some sort of an elitist... let me put forth some excellent evidence to contradict that...
According to a new book published by Permanent Black publishers Delhi ``The Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity`` ....
1) Jinnah was the only politician who consistently tried to get universal adult suffrage for all of India... he tabled the bill several times...
2) Jinnah was the only politician in the legislative history of the Delhi assembly in the British times who tried to get free education for all of India...
If this is what an elitist does... then I am afraid I am happier siding with an elitist then running on the beach with salt in one hand and a stick in the other ... putting up token displays of resistance .... while dressed as an ancient Jain priest...
#39 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:47:00 am
If there has been some confusion about it... I apologize, but with all due respect to Gandhi, I don`t consider him an agent of reform... I consider him an agent of revival. He is roughly the same as Hassan Al Banna ... of India.... and like Hassan Al Banna... his modern followers have gone beyond Gandhi`s revivalism....
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
My final conclusion of the matter is that Gandhiism (if not Gandhi himsef) was the worst thing that happened to the subcontinent and indeed Hinduism...
The cause of the Hindus as well as India was better served by people like Ranade, Gokhale and even Tilak, a political Hindu himself... Gandhi, with his ``largest`` movement, destroyed the very fabric of unity for his own ends, ego and purposes... and all for what.... how long are we going to kid ourselves that South Asia became free because Gandhi launched a movement in the 1920s?
The British left, because Americans made them leave. The great Gandhian movement amounted to nothing, except awakening the ghosts of superstition that exist close to the surface of the subcontinent...
Look at the kind of people Gandhi unleashed in 1920... instead of working with staunch secular Indian nationalists like Jinnah who said ``I am an Indian first second and last`` .... he teamed up Maulana Mohammed Ali who once famously remarked ``I prefer a drunkard sinner Musalman over saintly Gandhi``... this after he had compared Gandhi to Christ...
And what of the untouchables.... there is a great polemic against Gandhi by Ambedkar called ``What have the Congress and Mr. Gandhi done to the untouchables``.... I suggest all of you read it... clearly to Ambedkar the word ``Harijan`` was an insult and a gali....
Ladies and gentlemen.... I don`t deny Gandhi his intentions... whether driven by some innate egocentric desire to do good for humanity as Christ, or Buddha or Mahavira... but people The road to hell is paved with good intentions and so is true of Gandhiji`s movement.
-YLH
#43 Posted by MantoLives on March 20, 2005 11:55:39 am
Re: # 41
Thank you... a sane and reasonable post.
Thank you... a sane and reasonable post.
#41 Posted by KaalChakra on March 20, 2005 11:51:17 am
IMHO we mustn`t `blame` anyone for ``not understanding`` Hinduism.
That will be most unfair. It will take us away from addressing our own internal problems. It will also not save us from repeating our tragically costly historical mistakes.
Hard elementary facts need to be acknowledged. It was not Muslims` fault that the concept of Ram Rajya scared them. Many Christians and even our own dalits could not be blamed in any shape or form for expecting a more successful and secure democratic experience in post-independence Pakistan than in post-independence India.
Hindu leaders never bothered to put themelves in the shoes of others. They made abolutely no attempt to convey to any Muslim, Christian, or even dalit, any sort of integrated vision of what a democratic, yet essentially Hindu, nation would be like. They actually believed the very idiotic, but completely Hindu myth that others should be as little concerned with the `accidental fact` of their Hinduism as they themselves were.
Even today, the Hindu contribution on Chowk to actually explaining Hinduism in any systematic manner (not counting endless rantings against Islam) is minimal. In fact, the author took the most remarkable step of going back in time and questioning a basic assumption of one of his heroes WITHOUT, to the best of my knowledge, ANY HELP FROM OTHERWISE HYPERACTIVE HINDUS.
We shape or don`t shape our own history.
The blame for all avoidable disasters and missed opportunities rested (and rests) entirely on the shoulders of half cowardly and half greedy liberal Hindus: men and women who were (and are) in the enviable position of being in the inter-faith situations, and for whatever personal and social reasons, did not (and do not) tell the truth as they know it.
That will be most unfair. It will take us away from addressing our own internal problems. It will also not save us from repeating our tragically costly historical mistakes.
Hard elementary facts need to be acknowledged. It was not Muslims` fault that the concept of Ram Rajya scared them. Many Christians and even our own dalits could not be blamed in any shape or form for expecting a more successful and secure democratic experience in post-independence Pakistan than in post-independence India.
Hindu leaders never bothered to put themelves in the shoes of others. They made abolutely no attempt to convey to any Muslim, Christian, or even dalit, any sort of integrated vision of what a democratic, yet essentially Hindu, nation would be like. They actually believed the very idiotic, but completely Hindu myth that others should be as little concerned with the `accidental fact` of their Hinduism as they themselves were.
Even today, the Hindu contribution on Chowk to actually explaining Hinduism in any systematic manner (not counting endless rantings against Islam) is minimal. In fact, the author took the most remarkable step of going back in time and questioning a basic assumption of one of his heroes WITHOUT, to the best of my knowledge, ANY HELP FROM OTHERWISE HYPERACTIVE HINDUS.
We shape or don`t shape our own history.
The blame for all avoidable disasters and missed opportunities rested (and rests) entirely on the shoulders of half cowardly and half greedy liberal Hindus: men and women who were (and are) in the enviable position of being in the inter-faith situations, and for whatever personal and social reasons, did not (and do not) tell the truth as they know it.
#44 Posted by echoboom on March 20, 2005 12:03:20 pm
MantoLives:40
You just proved you are a skimmer, a charlattan, and a true representative of the westernised scum now at the helm and trying to unravel an Islamic-Pakistan.
Very RAND agenda is in the works. just a coincidence? Is it wagging the dog here or a Musharrf U-turn was his own prayers answered at the most opportune moment.
But muslims will never let it work.
You just proved you are a skimmer, a charlattan, and a true representative of the westernised scum now at the helm and trying to unravel an Islamic-Pakistan.
Very RAND agenda is in the works. just a coincidence? Is it wagging the dog here or a Musharrf U-turn was his own prayers answered at the most opportune moment.
But muslims will never let it work.
#65 Posted by macgupta on March 20, 2005 3:20:28 pm
Re: # 45
Actually, what has changed is the belief that we know what India was like 200 years ago. The answer is that we don`t know very well.
Was Holi celebrated 200 years ago? Dharampal writes:
The great levellers of the society - holi festival, Jagannathapuri,etc. - The holi festival is perhaps a great leveller in the society…as you are not supposed to say no to any one applying colours even on the roads, regardless of who the person is you are to accept the greetings and reciprocate…this is similar to the Jagannatha puri temple, where prasad is served to everyone who walks in and while you are having your prasad if someone passing by puts his hand in your prasad to take some, you are not supposed to stop the person from doing so…this is also a great social leveller. There have been quiet a few such levellers in the society which seem to bring together all sections of the society.
Actually, what has changed is the belief that we know what India was like 200 years ago. The answer is that we don`t know very well.
Was Holi celebrated 200 years ago? Dharampal writes:
The great levellers of the society - holi festival, Jagannathapuri,etc. - The holi festival is perhaps a great leveller in the society…as you are not supposed to say no to any one applying colours even on the roads, regardless of who the person is you are to accept the greetings and reciprocate…this is similar to the Jagannatha puri temple, where prasad is served to everyone who walks in and while you are having your prasad if someone passing by puts his hand in your prasad to take some, you are not supposed to stop the person from doing so…this is also a great social leveller. There have been quiet a few such levellers in the society which seem to bring together all sections of the society.
#66 Posted by macgupta on March 20, 2005 3:33:22 pm
Re: # 45
More from Dharampal:
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/resources_dharampal.html
Read the part about how revenue was used. Then see these (derived from
Dharampal)
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1204/50.html
http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/sk003.html
http://www.indiatogether.org/education/opinions/btree.htm
``In the districts of Madras Presidency and two districts of Bihar for which data is available, it was found that children from communities termed `Sudras` and the castes considered below them predominated in the thousands. In the Tamil-speaking areas of Madras Presidency, `Sudras` and `AtiSudras` comprised 70-80 per cent of all school going children. Among the Oriya-speaking areas of the same Presidency, the percentage of children belonging to these two castes was 62 per cent; in Malyalam-speaking areas it was 54 per cent; and in Telugu-speaking areas it was 35-40 per cent. There were 11,575 schools with 1,57,195 children in Madras Presidency and there were 1,094 colleges. Nearly 25 per cent of all children used to go to school and a large percentage of children studied at home. The number of children doing home schooling in Madras district alone was 26,446 while in the city 5,523 children were going to school.``
Not the sign of a people obsessed with purity, religion, etc. And remember,
the British survey was made well after the British revenue system had drained
the indigenous system of its vitality.
-Arun
More from Dharampal:
http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/resources_dharampal.html
Read the part about how revenue was used. Then see these (derived from
Dharampal)
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1204/50.html
http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/sk003.html
http://www.indiatogether.org/education/opinions/btree.htm
``In the districts of Madras Presidency and two districts of Bihar for which data is available, it was found that children from communities termed `Sudras` and the castes considered below them predominated in the thousands. In the Tamil-speaking areas of Madras Presidency, `Sudras` and `AtiSudras` comprised 70-80 per cent of all school going children. Among the Oriya-speaking areas of the same Presidency, the percentage of children belonging to these two castes was 62 per cent; in Malyalam-speaking areas it was 54 per cent; and in Telugu-speaking areas it was 35-40 per cent. There were 11,575 schools with 1,57,195 children in Madras Presidency and there were 1,094 colleges. Nearly 25 per cent of all children used to go to school and a large percentage of children studied at home. The number of children doing home schooling in Madras district alone was 26,446 while in the city 5,523 children were going to school.``
Not the sign of a people obsessed with purity, religion, etc. And remember,
the British survey was made well after the British revenue system had drained
the indigenous system of its vitality.
-Arun
#67 Posted by macgupta on March 20, 2005 4:09:08 pm
Some more articles on pre-British or early British India:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_crops.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_agraw_dharampal.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_dy/t_dy_Q14.htm
Read about ``samudayam villages of Tanjore`` ~1800 here, and
surmised Mughal non-rapacity relative the British, about education, and all else:
http://www.indpride.com/dharampal.html
This one is well in the middle of British rule:
http://www.samanvaya.com/frames/knowledge/articles/census1881.htm
That is why I say, Amit, the picture you have of the India of 200 years ago is
wrong. (And why would anyone want to conquer the India of your imagination,
anyway?)
-Arun
#45 Posted by amit on March 20, 2005 12:05:41 pm
Re:HP#32
The reformers of hinduism came in different shades in the 19th century. Some were elitists, some wanted gradual change, others wanted radical change. However, their collective impact was a complete transformation of hindu society. You cannot imagine how hindu society was 200 years back and how it is today. We all know about sati which got banned early on. Hindus were obsessed with ``purity``. Touching this, eating that would make you impure. You could not go abroad since that would make you ``impure`` and an outcaste. The obsession with caste was at its peak, where even the shadow of a lower caste person would make you impure. Girls at the age of 6 years were married off. If the groom died, the 6 year old would become a widow and stay that way for the rest of her life. My own great-grand mother`s sister was a child widow who got widowed at 8 years age and remained that way till her death at 82 years age.
This was the rotten caracass of hindu society which has now completely transformed. When you look at India today, at the urban centers, religion is more like an extra-curricular thing, like enjoying festivals such as holi and diwali. That is it. Otherwise, no one gives a rat`s a$$ about religion or religious practices. Once in a while people will do a Puja where some pundit will say some mumbo-jumbo and leave. No one cares about it. As far as political system, economy or other sectors are concerned, it is unimaginable to bring in religion. When the BJP tried to revive some of that nonsense, people kicked them out uncermoniously. Recently the Shankaracharya got arrested and the entire country yawned. This change is seeping through in small towns and rural areas as well, as people`s outlook towards religion is changing drastically. The new god is materialism and having a good time and I say, lets bring it on.
The reformers of hinduism came in different shades in the 19th century. Some were elitists, some wanted gradual change, others wanted radical change. However, their collective impact was a complete transformation of hindu society. You cannot imagine how hindu society was 200 years back and how it is today. We all know about sati which got banned early on. Hindus were obsessed with ``purity``. Touching this, eating that would make you impure. You could not go abroad since that would make you ``impure`` and an outcaste. The obsession with caste was at its peak, where even the shadow of a lower caste person would make you impure. Girls at the age of 6 years were married off. If the groom died, the 6 year old would become a widow and stay that way for the rest of her life. My own great-grand mother`s sister was a child widow who got widowed at 8 years age and remained that way till her death at 82 years age.
This was the rotten caracass of hindu society which has now completely transformed. When you look at India today, at the urban centers, religion is more like an extra-curricular thing, like enjoying festivals such as holi and diwali. That is it. Otherwise, no one gives a rat`s a$$ about religion or religious practices. Once in a while people will do a Puja where some pundit will say some mumbo-jumbo and leave. No one cares about it. As far as political system, economy or other sectors are concerned, it is unimaginable to bring in religion. When the BJP tried to revive some of that nonsense, people kicked them out uncermoniously. Recently the Shankaracharya got arrested and the entire country yawned. This change is seeping through in small towns and rural areas as well, as people`s outlook towards religion is changing drastically. The new god is materialism and having a good time and I say, lets bring it on.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- jang: you raze some good... The Palestinian Puzzle
- Romair: the biggest threat to... Terrorism Unveiled
- Romair: anil #: "both of... Terrorism Unveiled
- simply61: Re: # 7What a... Swat Calls For Civil
- tahmed32: hamidm: and how does... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- ellora: "Every Pakistani shares and... Babel
- hamidm2: tahmed mian, .... you can... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- TahirQazi: Dear Dr. Gill Sahib: Thank... The Palestinian Puzzle
