Amrita Pritam

Re: # 279
DM ji,about the times you are talking,there were no clearcut boundaries between hindu and sikh religeons.In many hindu famlies,it was tradition to make their eldest son sikh.This whole separation process started after Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha`s book,``Hum Hindu NahiN``.
Guru Teg Bahadur sacrificed his life for protecting Hinduism.Still most of sikhs say that the ninth guru gave his life for the sake of hinduism.Now tell me honestly,was Aurangzeb a dumb person who accepted someone as a representative of a religeon to which he did not belong?
I am a critic of the communal agenda of BJP and its mentor RSS,but on this account,they have some valid arguements which are not easy to dispute.

Re: # 291
Drlokraji,
Problem lies when Hindus started asserting that Sikhs are Hindus, because at that time Hindus realized that Sikhs are not needed anymore.

Kahn Singh`s book was a reposnse to Arya Samaji movement, please read the Arya Samaj`s founder`s words about Guru Nanak
``Idhar Udhar se JorR ke Chalaya hai Panth``.
Even Aurengzeb did not write so negatively about Guru Nanak as Arya Samajis did. What do you expect Sikhs to do, cut their hair and become Arya Samajis and join Hindus after doing Shudhi and wearing Janoyes?????
You are only paying attention to a subset of time, not the whole picture.
Singh Sabha movement was started when Arya Smaajis have started churning the poisson in Punjab against the Sikhs.

I also have Hindu and Sikh relatives in my own family but your assesment is totally wrong about Kahn Singh`s book.

I am totally against the innocent Hindus being killed in Punjab in 80ies, even though I almost lost my own life twice. But please do not undermine the Sikh`s entity in your words.

Guru Tegbahadur, certainly was a representative of the Kashmiri Brahmins, though he was himself against the philosophy of Manu Smirities.

Would you call Christ as a Jew and Christians as Jews?
or for that matter, Hindus as Adivasis, who lived in India prior to Aryan invasion?

Re: # 303

``Would you call Christ as a Jew and Christians as Jews? ``

thats an interesting point. I would call him a jew. Reason:

early christianity was nothing but a jewish sect. when jesus died (was crucified) the people leading the sect were jews, his brothers John, James. It remained a jewish thing until Paul (originally Saul) who himself was a jew, came to the scene. In his early life Paul was messiah-hunter (killing those following jesus) in the roman army. One time he had a ``vision`` and became a christian and started propagating christianity. As a part of this Jewish ritual a person had to be circumcised. It was Paul who argued against it and made it possible to convert peoople to Christianity without undergoing circumcision. He started missionary activites and started talking about the messiah who would come to liberate the people off their suffering. Then the process started, which I would describe as Multi Level Marketing, whereby each convert started converting others. And the christian faith started. Eventually Paul was hunted down and crucified, up side down (at his request). But Christianity had grown from a jewish sect into a religion by itself. It took a few more centuries until Constantine claimed Christiniaty as the state religiona and gave it an official status. There was no going back then. If christianity had remained a jewish sect, may be rest of the europe would have become muslim. Strange are the way things work.
I hope i answered you.
Hence, in u.s. theya re talking about Judeo-Christian values and ``jews for christ``

Re: # 308

netizen:
i would have to disagree with you slightly on your assertion that christianity remained a jewish thing until paul arrived on the scene. christianity began the day the risen christ appeared to his disciples as is indicated in the book of acts. . . in the first chapter. i will not post the entire chapter, but christ`s words to his disciples are worth noting:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth..

judeo-christian is used in the sense that much of christian practice is derived from jewish ritual and custom for lack of better words, but the differences were established on the day of pentecost. . . christianity is not a jewish sect, and thus not part of the jewish faith. christianity shares similarities with the jewish faith, while diverging from it as well. baptizing in the name of the father, the son, and holy spirit is one of the ways. . . circumcision is another. (even though there are cultures where christians still are circumcised, such as in pakistan). and there are other ways.

jesus was a jew. but jesus`s followers were not. the twelve disciples, peter, andrew, james, john, philip, thomas, bartholomew, matthew, james of alphaeus, simon, judas (not iscariot) and matthias who replaced judas iscariot became christians by baptism with the gift of the `holy spirit`, and those baptized in the name of christ were not followers of a jewish sect. they were by baptism christian, witnesses to christ, and a new way of life.

just thought i`d bring your attention to this. you seem to be the carrier of all sorts of information. . . but your interpretation is not wholly representative of how and what we believe as christians.

Re: # 326

``i would have to disagree with you slightly on your assertion that christianity remained a jewish thing until paul arrived on the scene. christianity began the day the risen christ appeared to his disciples as is indicated in the book of acts. . . ``

Two copies of Acts have been preserved. Most ancient manuscripts are of the shorter version, which is apparently close to the original writings of ``Luke.`` At some later date, an unknown writer modified the text in a number of places. They made changes and additions to the original, in order to match the then current beliefs of the mainline Christians. For example, Acts 15:20 originally referred only to Jewish ritual demands concerning allowable foods. It was later changed to refer also to sexual immorality - an increasing concern of mainline Christians. The longer, adulterated version appears in modern-day western Bibles.

Acts describes only two groups within the Christian movement:

Jewish Christians: the Jewish reform group organized by Jesus` disciples (only during its first 15 years). They followed the traditions of circumcision and the Law.
The Jewish Christian movement, also known as ``The Way,`` was headed by James. John and Peter were very influential in the group. It initially included the eleven surviving disciples and many of Jesus` other followers. This group was centered in Jerusalem and viewed itself as a reform movement within Judaism. They required their members to follow Jewish dietary laws, arrange for ritual killing of animals as sacrifices in the temple and to have their male children circumcised.

Pauline Christians: an independent religious movement made up of the membership of the mainly Gentile churches founded by Paul and co-workers during three missionary journeys
The Gentile Christians were led by Paul who went on three missionary journeys, founded many churches, and preached the gospel throughout much of the Roman Empire. ``Luke`` describes Paul`s conversion to Christianity in Acts 9. Throughout his career, Paul experiences a great deal of conflict with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Paul was spreading the gospel to Gentiles, but without requiring that they be circumcised or follow the dietary and behavioral rules of the Mosaic law.


``judeo-christian is used in the sense that much of christian practice is derived from jewish ritual and custom for lack of better words, but the differences were established on the day of pentecost. . . christianity is not a jewish sect, and thus not part of the jewish faith.``

The point that I was making is without Paul, Chirstianity would have remained just a Jewish sect. Today Christianity is not, it has out grown Judaism and is the largest religion in the world. But all this because of the missionary activites of Paul.
For more than a century some scholars have claimed that Paul should be understood as the “second founder of Christianity.” What they mean is that Christianity is more than just the religion that Jesus preached. It is also the religion that preaches about Jesus. And more than any other person, it was the apostle Paul who shifted the focus of the religion from the proclamation of Jesus to the proclamation about Jesus. One could in fact make a case that without Paul, Christianity as we know it today would never have been possible, and that the Western world--which continues to be, nominally, at least, Christian--would never have adopted this faith, and would have remained firmly committed to the various polytheistic religions of the Roman empire.
Paul’s importance to Christianity, and hence, to world history, can be seen in three areas. First, with respect to the book that stands at the foundation of the Christian religion, the New Testament. Without Paul, the New Testament would be radically different, if it had come into existence at all.
What would have happened had Paul never lived? One could argue that the vast majority of people who today call themselves Christian would still be worshiping the gods of Greece and Rome, and Christianity would be one of the small sects within Judaism, with little impact on the world around it.

link: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14323_1.html

Re: # 279
funny thing is that on one hand govt says bad words about aurengzeb, whereas govt names streets in delhi after Aurengzeb, Babur, Humaayon, akbar, Shahjahan, roshanara, Lodhi, Sher shah and the list is endless.....

Tahmed: Does Pakistan have street named after above mentioned?

Also, I tend to agree with DM, Alamgeer is considered as the most pious Muslim by all the Muslims. You were the first exception, who even considered it as a possibility.
Of all the Mughal Empereors Akbar and Humayun are probably the only ones that Hindus respect.

Re: # 280

``funny thing is that on one hand govt says bad words about aurengzeb, whereas govt names streets in delhi after Aurengzeb, Babur, Humaayon, akbar, Shahjahan, roshanara, Lodhi, Sher shah and the list is endless.....``

there is a city named after Aurangzeb, Aurangabad. There was a demand by Shiv Sena to change it to Shambaji Nagar. Ahmadbad in gujarat to Karnavati.
Afzal khan, a general of Bijapur sultanate who was killed by Shivaji has a memorial built for him on gov. donate land.
There is a policy in leftist-dominated academia: do not mentoin muslim intolerance as it might lead to communal tensions. But when BJP gov. decided to erase certain remarks descrining a Sikh guru as a brigand there were protest against distortion of history.

Re: # 332
when we were reading history in our school days(70s),none of the moghuls/muslim rulers was seen as ``negative``apart from Aurangzeb.It was taught that moghuls came to India as invaders but they made India their home and India accepted them as her own.Same was true about other invaders starting from aryans.Emergence of hindu fundamentalist forces and their stint at the centre is responsible for the emergence of communal agendas in all possible forms.Even congress has tried to hijack some of their agendas and this has happened ever since independence.Hidus declaring hindi as their mother tongue in 50s in punjab was totally hijacked by congress.
Historical names of cities go on living unless some ruling power decides to change them because of their own poltical agenda.Thre are several places after the names of britishers as well and people have no problems with them.

Re # 275

I see your point and do agree. But why do you think the conversions are not happening now or since last 200 years on the same scale? Why did they mainly happen between 712AD and 1700s. There are still plenty of non Brahman and non Kshatriya and non Vaishyas in India.

And would the same reason apply what happened in ancient Persia, after Arab conquest?
I do not think zoroastrians had caste system! After all did not Parsis flee Iran for the same reasons Hindus fled northwest/north India since 1000AD?

Netizen: Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps those who converted to Islam did so because they did not care to be looked down upon as ``low caste``? I hope I had a hindu ancestor who was low caste, in which case I would be very proud of him for telling the brahmins and kshatriyas and other ``upper caste`` people to go to hell and he was outa here and becoming a muslim who is told to neither look up to any man nor to look down on any man and to have the humility to understand that all men are equal in the eyes of God.

Thanks for trying to explain the ``bravery`` of your ancestors and the ``treachery`` of mine (treacherous converts, in your view) - the plain fact is that neither you nor I know what exactly what our ancestors did over the past couple of thousand years. And given this preoccupation with ``ancestry``, I suggest you read the book by Bill Bryson ``A Short History of Nearly Everything.``. It will open your eyes on how meaningless this term becomes if you go back a few centuries, and thus the entire basis for race-based nationalism or religion-based nationalism of the kind promoted by BJP.

The plain fact is: Hindu nationalism is a major factor in India (as evidenced by the vast constituency of BJP), and minorities - particularly muslims, but also christians - are routinely demeaned as being descendants of ``converts`` (which is taken as a derogatory term to mean traiter or coward, as your post clearly indicates) and their religion routinely insulted. One can see this on chowk every day. Fortunately, hindu nationalism ends where the Pakistani border starts. And we can thank Jinnah (the guy most Indians hate) for that.

Re: # 275

``Netizen: Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps those who converted to Islam did so because they did not care to be looked down upon as ``low caste``? I hope I had a hindu ancestor who was low caste, in which case I would be very proud of him for telling the brahmins and kshatriyas and other ``upper caste`` people to go to hell and he was outa here and ``

what if he was a upper caste ;) You don`t have to answer this.

On serious note, what are your views on what buddhism, jainism , christinaity, sikhism or even judaism offers. I think all of them have the same view ``equality of men`` . Ever thought about them?


``becoming a muslim who is told to neither look up to any man nor to look down on any man and to have the humility to understand that all men are equal in the eyes of God.``

even the dhimmis. Dude may be you know half Koran, the one used for conversion purposes. can you explain me the concept of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-haram. will a kafir still go to heaven and get houris or needs to be beaten up and converted to Islam to get them.

``Thanks for trying to explain the ``bravery`` of your ancestors and the ``treachery`` of mine (treacherous converts, in your view) - the plain fact is that neither you nor I know what exactly what our ancestors did over the past couple of thousand years. ``

does that mean that you don`t look at what happened or shaped the subcontinent over a couple of thousand years? i think i have touched a raw nerve here.

``And given this preoccupation with ``ancestry``, I suggest you read the book by Bill Bryson ``A Short History of Nearly Everything.``. It will open your eyes on how meaningless this term becomes if you go back a few centuries, and thus the entire basis for race-based nationalism or religion-based nationalism of the kind promoted by BJP.``

My friend, this is seen everywhere in the world. chinese hating japs, greeks hating turks, armenains hating turks, ukrainians hating polish, polish hating russians, russians hating germans......
BJP is not the only nationalist party in the world. even the communist chinese are as nationalist as BJP guys. each country/province/region has its own. Islam is considered as Arab nationalism. Ponder over it.
I have already read that book. thanks though. so after reading it, what are your views on koran? is it the ultimate truth? let me clarify, i am not here for ``hindu good islam bad``, i am not a hindu by religion, i don`t even believe in the existence of god.

`` Fortunately, hindu nationalism ends where the Pakistani border starts.``

good for you. but mullahism keen on taking you guys back to 7th century arabia starts. Asman se gire, khajur pe atke .....

Re: # 275
Tahmed,
In my opinion there is truth in both the sides. Most likely majority of the Hindus who converted to Islam under there freewill were under the influence of Sufis.
Rest of the conversions were by force.
I have read old poems written 200-300 yrs ago, where they are stating that a Muslim soldier if he had to spit, he would ask a hindu to open his mouth, if refused then he would be killed. Hindu woman had to be sold depending on their beauty or age to Muslims soldiers.

Another thing that I have not figured out from Pakistani perspective is that they even praise the invaders who clearly raped and plundered Punjabi muslims, I can think of Nadir Shah and Abdali as the worst abusers of Hindus and Muslims in Punjab.
Yet Pakistani army takes pride in naming them as their heroes. I can understand Ghazni and Ghauri but these??????

Re: # 275

you have a good point. I will be back tomorrow with my inputs.

Re: # 253
DM Uncle,
Like my old English Boss used to say ``It is always about control and power, My Man``.

Hindus want Sikhs to be considered Hindus because otherwise they would loose Punjab and a chunk of land. I remember not a day used to go by in 1980ies when my Hindu friends would torment me to goto ``Khalley Sthan``(Empty Place). Someone even suggested that let us buy land Equador and make Khalistan there, apparently there are many Sikh Cowboy ranchers already live there.

Ahmediayas are a small percentage in Lahore belt with their HQ based in Qadian-India, and they are not asking for seperation or extra land secession. That is why there movement is non-political(however in CIAs fact book, they are considered as oppressed).
Some of the Ahmediyyas even beat other Mullahs in ther dedication to Shariat.

In 80ies and 90ies, it was a common talk to discuss why don`t all of the Muslims goto Pakistan from India if they like Pakistan so much. Pakistan would not take them because there is no land coming with them. Look at the treatment of Afghani refugeess in Pakistan.

In the end it is all about control of the land and other resources.

Re: # 274

``Hindus want Sikhs to be considered Hindus because otherwise they would loose Punjab and a chunk of land.``

Not true. Sikhs have been considered as hindus as jains/buddhists are, and for a long time even before the khalistani movement. Untill the 19th century, sikhs were counted as hindus in the census. Early sikhs in america were described as ``hindoos``. Nationalist hindus regard Guru Gobind as a national leader just as they would regard Rana Pratap or Shivaji. Savarkar was the first hindu (probably last) who was honored by SGPC for writing a biography on Guru Gobind Singh. Savarkar wrote that during his tribulations in Andaman, he sought inspiration from Guru Gobinds sacrifices and struggle against the tyranny of the Moghals.
If land was the issue, hindus would have tried to cajole the kashmiri muslims to accept that kashmiri islam is also a part of hinduism.
Lastly, i remember uma bharatis sentence, ``Khalistan kya maangate ho sara hindustan thumara hai``

Re # 268

I think the book you are talking about is ``Chhava`` (literally, Cub) by Shivaji Sawant.
I do not know whether it was translated in other langauages from Marathi though.