Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Apologists for the British Empire: where did they crawl out from under?



Short answer: Post WWII American exceptionalism

Long answer:

In the previous decade or so , I had been pre occupied with U.S, Indian and Middle Eastern politics and history so I had sort of missed the boat on the revival of Empire apologists

We see respectable scholars like Niall Fergusson, Robert Kaplan, Andrew Roberts and William Dalrymple waxing nostalgic about the lost glory of Britannia and her dominions.

Is this a last gasp reaction to the ongoing Londonistanizing of Britain?  Is it because the native Brits are unable to stand up to third world thugs in their backyard that they have to resort to such lionizing of what was a very dubious past?

Or were they always closet imperialists(albeit increasingly emasculated post 1945)but their impulses received a shot in the arm from the U.S neocon and neocolonial(but then I repeat myself) adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It most likely is a combination of both.The neocon role though is very interesting. Prominent neocons such as Jonah Goldberg,Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell to name just a few have swallowed hook line and sinker the cheap propaganda that the British Empire was the good Empire with its values of liberty, democracy, freedom of expression and so on


The Right admires it for instituting in India

  • Rule of law
  • Women's empowerment(banning sati)
  • Religious freedom
  • Forceful display of Western civilization(ie power for its own sake)
  • Economic liberty
The Left sees merit in the British Raj for

  • Womens empowerment
  • Success of keynesian economics
  • Upending a traditional society with modernist secular values


I think others such as Varnam, Sandeepweb,Koenraad Elst and Jambudvipa have successfuly disproven the above tired tropes and exposed them hollow. Notable mention should also be given to Ms Lila Rajiva, and though I disagree with her on many many issues(she suffers from an Ajit Vadakayil type disease of blaming all the worlds ills on the Jews) she has done yeoman's work on disproving that the British Raj stood for economic or any other type of liberty but was a crass exploitative monster which was overwhelmingly a net destructive force

I would also like to bring to your attention the excellent work done by Arun who noted the sharp objections of William Jennings Bryan to the British presence in India

Somehow these sneaky cretins have crept into American media, universities, think tanks and even Hollywood. They have been doing this I suspect long before 9/11 but really it is that horrific event which empowered this lot as they were more than willing to play the Chanakya to the American Chandragupta  Maurya or the Kissinger to their Nixon if you prefer.

And why not? Americans who were once were admirably wary of the British Empire and its "experiment" in India have in the process of fighting the Cold War and administering the peace following their victory become susceptible to pro Empire platitudes. And what better role model than the "mother country". There is interesting parallel is that this notion of "mother country" : Any lingering familial connection pretty much dissolved in the bitterness of 1776-1789 and the War of 1812 where the "mother country" along with the Canadians literally burned the White House to the ground.Not to mention Britains role in stoking the flames of the Civil War and all sorts of dirty tricks and propaganda to get the U.S involved in WWI and to a lesser extant WWII. But no, insist the pundits at National Review- it is France which is the real enemy across the pond!

So the Americans discovered this faux affection for the "mother country" about the same time the British imperial apologists healed their wounds and started strutting again on the world stage bragging about Pax Britannica. Something that Eisenhower didn't much care for.

Its hard to pinpoint exactly when this odd synergy but most likely it  commenced shortly after WWII where Americans were somewhat unwittingly thrust the responsibility of "ruling the world" but probably it acquired considerable strength during the Reagan Thatcher era especially the latter who was quite nostalgic for the Empire while the Irish Catholic born Reagan was understandably somewhat suspicious but tolerated such anachronistic Anglophilia among his chief Allies as well as the heavily Waspish CIA to get the Soviet Union out of commission. Of course it didn't help that India leaned heavily towards the Soviets during the Cold War.

It is during this time Churchill worship which was somewhat subdued really picks up steam. Hitchens though an empire apologist was no fan of Churchill notes that his popularity and stature in U.S grew since WWII. This implies that Churchill wasn't really the bees knees in U.S during WWII itself. Apparently he was viewed as a considerably more desirable and stalwart ally than Stalin but that's about it. And even that is really due to the admittedly rather effective government propaganda under FDR who privately thought Churchill was a drunken prima donna and considered it perverse that the English had a "400 years old acquisitive instinct" and that the English would even wish to covet a sandbar. Upon his insistence that Churchill liberate India , the blowhard British premier behaved like in a characteristically infantile manner by asking if FDR would like if it if a group a international inspectors would investigate the plight of blacks in the American South.

When it comes to blacks and slavery, the British are also glorified in ending slavery as lot earlier than them cruel Americans who had to fight a civil war amongst themselves to settle the issue. Or so the myth goes. To this end various American commentators and historians irrespective of ideological persuasion self flagellate themselves in such a manner that one would imagine would compel Shias to sue for copyright infringement.

What they don't realize is that British very reasonably(to their minds) saw the writing on the wall that enslaving blacks was bad PR and it was just more prudent and convenient logistically to enslave Indians by rebranding them as indentured servants.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan may have been a catalyst in reviving Empire nostalgia as it mustve been rather cathartic for the Brits to return to this "graveyard of empires" as liberators even as more than a hundred years ago their dreams of Central Asian addition to their Indian holdings were squashed by the much romanticized Pathans.

My particular concern however with their view of the British role in India so I will restrict myself to this. The other regions which suffered from British are outside my area of expertise so apologies to them.

Of course the argument is often that the U.S.A is a outgrowth of "mother" England. Best expressed in The Seeds of Albion. Not to mention common language and a core ethnic group even if not the majority still projects in presence in politics,military, universities and popular culture

All too often the American Revolutionary is dismissed by Anglophiles on both sides of the "pond" as scuffle between brothers or cousins. It is also insisted that the Continental Army were simply fighting for their rights as Englishmen. Oddly the analogy of an English Civil War found greater ground among historians with another war in the Eastern seaboard a 100 years later where the Yankees and Confederates were said to be filling for the Roundheads and Cavaliers respectively.

In a similar manner initially the upper class and Anglicized Indian Congress party member wanted the appropriate respect and representation from British government which sang all the right notes about its civilizing mission of bringing the "natives" upto the level of an Anglo Saxon through immersion in English language, culture, clothing, habits and education but in practice the racial hierarchy of the time did not conform to this lofty standard.

One interesting aspect to the independence movements both in India and the United States is the dynamic of rebellion forming not so much due to the oppression of many but the slight of a privileged few. Even in this case they find an example in England.

Since 1066, England was beholden to France and no self respecting aristocrat for next two hundred years would be caught dead speaking English. However when these semi Anglicized elite would attend the University of Paris for their education they would be mocked mercilessly for their sub par French. This compelled Henry II to ban "English" students from attending Paris and was the catalyst for establishing Oxford University and sowed the seeds of English nationalism and provincialism even if the latter were filtered through a Francophone and Francophilic lens until the 100 year war.

When Loyalists to the Crown pointed out that the rebels should stay ,well, loyal to the British government because they themselves were British, it was the English born Thomas Paine who acridly pointed out the British populace and rulers were usually of Germanic and French stock respectively. So therefore by the Loyalist logic ,they should be beholden to those nations.

Curiously while the search for Indian spices and gold was the genesis for the discovery and establishment of America , there was relatively little interest in that particular region. A habit that has persisted to this very day, much to the chagrin of Indian nationalists of all stripes. This along with the understandable misperception that the U.S was a successor to the British colonial project contributed to Indian distrust for the United States throughout the Cold War.

On both right wing (paleocon,neocon and libertarian) as well as left wing blogs most notably Christopher Hichens, we see an admiration for the Empire and what it had accomplished in India.

Particularly curious is the libertarian support for the British "project" in India. Otherwise eloquent and astute individuals like Michael Moynihan. and Hans von Spakovsky.

Not to mention the more extreme individuals like Glenn Beck and the usually sensible Dinesh D Souza. On the eve of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq,Dinesh D Souza went so far as to joke about getting Jodhpur breeches and other regalia associated with a colonial officer in India.(This quote has since been scrubbed from the internet).

Glenn Beck in particular is an incredibly confused , perhaps deranged individual. On one hand he praises Churchill, then turns around and lists Gandhi as an inspiration(going so far to include his image in the intro to his Fox News show) and then again mocks Hinduism and India in general.

Unfortunately there are many such ideologically confused and historically illiterate folks not on the Right and of course the Left. But since my sympathies are with the Right, I hope to fix what ails them rather than deal with the Left who are wrong in just too many ways for me to even bother with them.

As a supporter of the Iraq war at the time, I found neo colonial commentary such as D'Souza's utterly distasteful and disturbing. Surely, I thought , this is a one off crude comment mention in the heat and exhilaration of being on (what seemed to be at the time) the winning side. How wrong I was on all counts

Rajiv Chandrashekharan perfectly captured the colonial mentality in his book The Green Zone where he accurately portrayed esconsed diplomats, beureaucrats and senior military personnel's behavior resembled that of senior colonial officials of the British Raj. Now to be sure Chandrashekharan's political instincts are more towards the left than I prefer but then that is more of the problem with the American Right and their myopia.

The retributive invasion of Afghanistan and strategic removal of Saddam from power didn't "morph"
into monstrous neocolonial nation building projects as apologists claim. That seemed to be the plan from the get go.

George W. Bush may have been inclined to pursue a more sensible and possibly more effective version of Obama's foreign policy of non interference as promised in 2000 campaign but 9/11 changed it and it brought a lot of these people with their anachronistic views of the world back into power.

It is worth mentioning that Bush upon taking office had returned an FDR bust and replaced it with Churchills and on his 2006 trip to India, he had audacity to mention the U.S commitment to India's independence by bringing up FDR

Like all right wingers , I am not enchanted with FDR and the fairytale about how he single handedly brought the economy out of the great depression. But let us give credit where it is due, his foreign policy instincts were sound.

The entire neocon crew of Bill Krystol, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Robert Kaplan were all enchanted by the British empire and what it represented to their mind and so quickly went to work remoulding American foreign policy and military establishment even further in the "mother country's" image. One should've been very wary of Kaplan's support for the Iraq project. He was the author of "Balkan Ghosts" which was decisive in the U.S needlessly getting involved in the Balkans and this turn squandered whatever good will U.S had among the Slavic peoples and strongly contributed in the rise to Vladimir Putin who continues to use Iran and Syria as a cat's paw against U.S interests.

While Kaplan has recanted and expressed remorse for his support for the Iraq War, he doesn't seem to have learnt the fundamental lesson in the process- be wary of the allure of British imperialism. Indeed in his last book Revenge of Geography , he actually doubles down and praises Victorian era geopolitical thinkers whose nakedly racist and discredited views he unwittingly promotes all the while claiming not to

As one can see the "democracy" projects went as well as they did. And thank god! I often wonder about conservatives who rightly claim that human beings aren't infinitely malleable suddenly drop this ancient wisdom and cheer for American troops bringing "democracy" to a tribal ,religious and cruel region as Mesopotamia and Afghanistan.

And as expected these neo imperialists prove to be fair weather friends to conservative ,most of them jumping on Obama wagon once the Bush star turned into a blackhole.

And again propagating war for the sake of war. After all how else will they as well as the new establishment class majoring in Transgendered Fijian poetry from Harvard,Georgetown, Yale earn their six figure incomes as colonial officials sorry administrators in far flung regions such as Libya, Yemen and Iran.

Indian Americans who voted overwhelmingly for Obama are as politically dim witted as Asian, Jewish and Arab Americans.

They don't see him for who he is- a willing blank slate for the powers that be as long as he can feed from the trough.

Do they not see any similarity between the casus belli for the British Crown in India with Sati and the recent PR psy ops against India with the heavy breathing coverage of frequent rapes? As if India is the only country which has a high rape rate.

Ditto the American evangelical missionaries who in rhetoric if not in action are laying foundations for a potential fifth column which would undermine Indian sovereignity thereby providing a rich resource pool for these pseudo American globalists. In this American evangelicals are richly hypocritical in that they are suspicious of globalists as they believe the Anti Christ to be one and encourage nationalism amongst their followers but undermine patriotism of those foreigners who are not Christians.

It is interesting to note if Americans praise Indians for any merit only in the context of British influence be it the English language, educational qualifications or work ethic. All of which are attributed to British institutions rather than traditional Hindu emphasis on learning.

After all the sclerotic economies implemented by the Fabian inspired Nehru were described as the Hindu rate of growth. Now suddenly 70 years after independence, Indians are supposed to thank their British overlords for the notions of free markets and entrepreneurship for their rapidly improving GDP

This would be alien to the godfathers of Anglo American conservatism- Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. Adam Smith though the East India was not just anti capitalistic but amoral. Edmund Burke went as far as to impeach the Governer General of India Warren Hastings for his hand in looting the country of wealth and resources but also to squander its native's blood in wars and genocide.

Thankfully the American populace is wary of its neocolonial puppet masters and is resistant to any more counter productive liberal interventions elsewhere.

What does often frustrate the pro Raj lot is that anti colonialism is very much in the British DNA and there are very astute Indians ,especially among forums such as pro free market and traditionalist Centre Right such as Sandeep and Kaal Chiron who bring these two strands together to help Americans further their own interests rather than those of imperial enthusiasts.

There is still hope for the last best hope of mankind. In 2016 hope and change will be hopefully more than just a campaign catch phrase.


















86 comments:

  1. ysv u suld have not have deleted the some comments of milind patel though
    he would have been been good source of entertainment like vadkayil blogs. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sonam, first learn some English. There are too many grammatical mistakes in your last comment. LOL. BTW, my name is Milin, not "Milind". Earlier when I had a discussion with ysv rao in December 2016, and it turned to the topic of incest, his bias was exposed when I provided some research showing that incestuous couples are more attracted to one another than non incestuous couples. Ysv rao made a very mediocre attempt to refute the evidence... He said something like "well, the parents of incestuous couples force them to have more children then those of non-incestuous couples"... Obviously he too realized how stupid he was sounding, and since then decided to delete my comments and propagate that he defeated me in a debate...

      BTW, if you don't mind let me ask you a few questions...

      1. Why do you keep bringing up Vadakayil's blogs in almost every discussion? Why the obsession with him?

      2. By now you should have realized that ysv rao does not have a really high opinion of you. He probably thinks of you as a stupid person (maybe ysv rao can step in to confirm?) and even threatened to block you... Yet you continue to suck up to him. Why? Don't you have some basic dignity?

      Delete
    2. hey milin patel mr Loduram I can ask u same question a
      (1)why do u troll ysv blog ?
      (2)what is ur obsession with him?
      even after deleting ur comments and spamming u ysv rao even threatened to block you... Yet you continue to suck up to him. Why? Don't you have some basic dignity?

      Delete
    3. u should not worry about my grammar and spelling etc .ur brain is smaller than ur dick .

      Delete
    4. Sonam,

      Loduram? I guess you got that from Vadakayil's blog?

      1) I don't troll ysv rao's blog. Instead, he attempts to troll me by making silly, false claims like I engage in incest, et al...

      2) I am not obsessed with ysv rao. Had I been obsessed with him, I would have mentioned him in my blog (and possibly made a post on him), when some of his followers came to abuse me on my blog. But I don't think he is worth it... What can you expect from a person who takes pride in supposedly debunking the claims of Agniveer, a fellow Hindutvadi crackpot...

      I just come on ysv rao's blog to reply to the comments that mention me. If you or your friend ysv rao do not want me to come on the blog, then just don't waste your precious time by mentioning my name or attempting to abuse me... If you have such confidence on your opinions and want to debunk my claims, why not debate me on my blog instead on throwing abuses at me on ysv rao's blog and hoping that ysv rao reciprocates?

      Go and search up what "sucking up" to an individual means. With every new comment you just show me how stupid you really are. Tolerating one's abuse and insults just to be on the good side of that person is called sucking up to the person... Clearly your comments reveal that you are doing exactly that... Go get some self respect...

      Delete
    5. "ur brain is smaller than ur dick"

      Was I supposed to feel insulted by that? LOL...

      Delete
    6. @milin he (ysv) attempts to troll me by making silly, false claims like I engage in incest, et al... truly hilarious i will let ysv to reply on this

      u say ur not obsessed with ysv yet show up like a uninvited guest with slightest reference to ur name

      ysv has not abused me nor do I suck up to him we were having some disscuss about a topic he doesn't want me to quote complete blog so I gave him my stance on this.

      lastly about the insult I will leave that to @ ysv @jam to fulfil ur wish.
      many of ur comments and replies got delted isn't that not enough for u?

      Delete
    7. @milin I have suggestion try to save all ur comments u have made and reply insults frm @ysv @jam for future reference .

      Delete
    8. @milind why not contribute to my previous discuss on topic, instead of wasting time on insulting each other .even captain learnt it hard way he has decided to quit. u can always share ur knowledge to us

      Delete
    9. it seems milin is incapable of doing so.he would go round and round on a few core points,like YSV or incest :) but if he chooses to contribute some genuine constructive points,I am all ears for that,its always good to learn,from whatever source possible.

      Delete
    10. @jam I completely agree with u

      Delete
    11. @jam ysv and other what do u think of latest dera sacha sauda gurmeet baba arrest he has been sentenced to 20yrs prison . Who could take over reins of Dera Sacha Sauda? will captain vadakayil be next successor as he is now both retired navy merchant and blogger. ROFL........

      Delete
    12. @JAM,

      Actually, our debate never started with the topic of incest. It was originally why I didn't consider Rama a good person. I gave many reasons for that and ysv rao just did not like one of them and called it rubbish without giving an adequate rebuttal... Then when I asked him about the rest of the points, he refused to discuss on that. I think the topic of incest was simply a passing reference in our debate... Ysv rao called people who engage in it as sex addicts and I disagreed...

      Anyways, ever since he "banned" me I don't enter his posts to give my views on some topic. Instead, I just reply to whenever someone mentions my name. That being said, if you have something in particular that you want to discuss, then I am open for that...

      Delete
    13. @Milin

      "As we can see here, Hanumana describes Rama as having an undersized, thin, fine, sharp penis. Now the main question is that how Hanumana would have been able to see and feel Rama’s penis in such detail, so as to describe its size, shape and texture. It would not have been possible unless Hanumana was having an intimate, sensual relationship with Rama."

      Hahaha.. I.. I just can't man. How do you come up with this stuff? The contents of your blog sound like religiously themed erotica more than anything. You might actually earn some serious money if you advertise it as such.

      Delete
    14. @premChand

      U dont always chime in,but when u do,u ensure someone is demolished :D :D _/\_

      Delete
    15. @Prem Chand,

      You might also want to go on to explain how someone can explain the size, shape and texture of someone else's male sex organ without having a sexual relationship with them? There are other references to Hanumana having had called Rama equal to "Kamadeva" and taking great pleasure thinking of the beauty of Rama's limbs. I would like to hear your explanation for that.

      @JAM,

      So simply quoting from my blog and saying that he does not agree and that it sounds like erotica is equal to "demolishing me"? Hmm... If you seriously believe that, then I pity your thought process... :)

      Delete
    16. @Milin

      It is quite common for ancient Indian poets to describe the physical beauty of both male and female characters in exquisite detail. For example, a poem in the Tamil anthology Purananuru vividly describes the physique of a king. This shouldn't be taken to mean homosexual interest! It is quite possible for Hanuman to make an objective observation of Rama's beauty without being attracted to him.

      As for the penis, look Hanuman could have seen it on any odd occasion. Why not when they bathed together in a river? Why does it always have to be about sex for you?

      Delete
    17. @Prem Chand,

      If we look at Mahabharatha/Ramayana, the description of the female body in much detail is common, but the same cannot be said for the male body. Read the descriptions of the body of characters like Rama, Arjuna, Krishna, Bhishma, etc... by Vyasa/Valmiki. Why do you think the poet sexualizes the female body and not the male if he does not feel some sort of attraction to her body?

      As far as the quote I mentioned on my blog, it is a direct reference by Hanumana spoken through Valmiki's narrative. It is not a direct reference by Valmiki because Valmiki speaks from Hanumana's perspective. He is simply reciting all that Hanumana had said...

      You said that it is possible for Hanumana to make an objective observation of Rama's penis. Agreed! That is a possibility, but I don't think that description was free of sexual attraction. The reason for that is that in the same speech to Seetha, Hanumana addresses Rama as handsome and an equal to "Kamadeva (cupid)" in beauty:

      सत्यवादी मधुरवाग्देवो वाचस्पतिर्यथा।
      रूपवान्सुभग श्रीमान् कन्दर्प इव मूर्तिमान्।।5.34.30।।

      "He is truthful in speech like Brihaspati, prosperous (like Kubera), sweettongued, handsome, graceful like Kamadeva.

      Calling Rama handsome and likening him to Kamadeva is a subjective observation, not an objective one, and shows some attraction to Rama's body...

      Prior to writing the post, I actually did consider the possibility that he may have seen Rama's penis when Rama was bathing. But that would not explain how Hanumana was able to describe the texture of Rama's penis as fine/delicate/thin (तनु)...

      Delete
    18. The Epics as well as Vedas were quite descriptive with regard to the attractive features of its characters as Premchand pointed out. This is an aspect of Shringara Rasa, the aesthetic that permeates Sanskrit ,Prakrit, Tamil and later various regional literatures.
      Heck there is a description of the ideal daughter in law in a Tamil poem(I forget which one) which describes how her breasts and even labia should look like! This doesnt mean that the prospective in laws will examine the girl in question like gynecologists but just a poetic conceit using erotic elements.

      Regarding Hanuman I have heard a Thai version where he was not at all a celibate(brahmachari) but rather a casanova and had a good time with many women in Ravana's kingdom while he was there. But even in that version there is no such relation with Sita or Rama implied.
      In which of the 300 Ramayanas(which got Sushma Swaraj's knickers twisted) do you have this theme of Rama and Hanuman as gays. I want a scholarly backup for your research not your pet agendas alone please.

      Delete
    19. @Milin

      This is what happens when u go for rote learning without understanding the broader implications :) Try to get this point,in the epic Hanuman describes Sita as SuMadhyama or slender waisted,now ramayan is an epic poetry composed by Valmiki,and in poetry,the poet allows his imagination to run free,when it comes to construction of dialogues or quotes.Sometimes the metering and rhythm also has a role here,but generally as YSV says,it was about the shringaar rasa of ancient indic poets.bengali poets had heavily sexualised the Radha Krishna relationship(for which vadakayil is pretty angry and attributes the same wrongly to poor Rothschild :D ) ,and bengali readers or society is perfectly ok with that,infact all indic vaishnava communities mostly go on with such depictions,barring one or two scholars here and there,maybe.The point is that most vaishnava scholars understand that the sexual allegories of Radha and Krishna as included by poets like Jayadev were firstly to enhance the poetic beauty of the composition,and then there was a deeper philosophical layer,the interaction of the Purusha and Prakriti element as indic philosophy says.Infact even in 19th century bengal,the bengali saint RK Paramhamsa had to face question from one of his devotees on this thoughts as to whether Radha really existed and whether the Radha Krishna relationship has been unduely sexualised by premedieval poets.So I cant call this questioning and chastising of Radha Krishna wholly a Hindutva Vadi phenomenon :) Even there were people in 19th century ,who seemed to have thought on this same angle.but anyway i am straying off the subject,the point on which i started is that poets in indic literature had this idea of tilting to sexual descriptions,maybe they thought this increased the depth of poetry and beauty of composition.now narrowing down to Hanuman's descriptions,the way i understand this is that it was Valmiki's imagination and craving for poetic beauty(as was the norm in those days) through such descriptions.Otherwise understand this,do u describe some person to his wife by quoting so elaborately the way Hanuman did,to Sita?Do we interact in that way?Infact in the vedas or puranas,such deviant interactions are abundant,yet i dont think the society of that time actually interacted in the way vedas and puranas have recorded it.After all,the whole body of ancient literature was meant to be more of poetry and lesser of recorded history,the way we modern people would like it to be.That is the reason why different puranas even supply u with contrasting and conflicting informations,because they were not meant to be history like in the sense we record it,100% factual and based on reliable sources.that is why poets exercised a lot of freedom in monologue or dialogue writing.I do believe Ramayana is historical in the sense that the charecters and the plot is loosely true,but i dont think all the interactions that valmiki wrote in ramayana happened exactly as they had been written.indic poetry traditions had this habit of exaggarating things,even in the erotic sense,or Shringara Rasa as it is said .Infact when i read Iliad and Odyssey,i myself could feel that while there might be some historicity in the novels,the dialogues and charecter portrayals were exaggarated in many places,and i dont hold homer guilty for the same,because that is what a poetic composition does,it doesnt care to stick to truth all the time. and most important,ancient poetic compositions were not always meant to be 100% reliable and recorded history,atleast not all the time.

      Delete
    20. @Ysv rao, although the epics are very descriptive about the beauty of females, they are not as descriptive when it comes to the description of the males. Can you propose a reason for this?

      I have not read Thai Ramayana yet, but from what I have heard, Hanumana did have sex with Mandodari. That is a parallel with Valmiki Ramayana where it is mentioned that Hanumana engaged in amorous play (क्रीडा) upon seeing Mandodari... Only when I read Thai Ramayana will I be able to comment about Rama/Seetha in it... As far as Valmiki Ramayana is concerned, it clearly mentions Seetha having sex (मुदित) with Hanumana. The dynamics of the Seetha-Hanumana equation are very complex and beyond the scope of this comment, so I won't address it here... I am currently writing my part 2 of "Did Hanumana Really Burn Down Lanka", and have addressed this in that post (which I will probably publish within the next two days)...

      Delete
    21. @Milin

      based on this word मुदित ,are u assuming Sita and Hanuman had sex?And Based on word Kreeda,u are assuming Hanuman had amorous play with mandodari?

      Delete
    22. @JAM, I guess our perspectives differ then... I will try to explain it from my perspective though, and you can then take your decision...

      I think the main difference in our opinions is that you claim the general plot of the epics is history but the specific conversations between the characters are not history. I would disagree with that because what you are doing is saying one portion of the poets words are factual and another portion are fiction, simply based on your gut feeling... If you don't agree that the conversions are authentic, then on what basis can you say that the general plot (which is a product of these conversations) is authentic?

      If the poet wanted to fantasize about Seetha's beauty (which he did at times), he would have described her beauty in depth when he was speaking only as Valmiki in the epic, not when he was reciting Hanumana's narrative.

      These epics were compiled in the Mauryan period. And as we know from Megasthenes' descriptions, extramarital relations were common and sexuality was not restrained... So, I see the behavior of the characters (i.e. Seetha not taking offence when Ravana describes her in a lusty manner) in accordance with the norms of the time...

      In the case of Radha-Krishna, as you mentioned, it seems like the poets were fantasizing about their sexual relationship and hence described them as such. But of course, we cannot expect any Radha-Krishna dialogue from those stories to be authentic as these stories were written in the medival period, not in ancient India when Krishna lived... The case is different for Vyasa Mahabharatha and Valmiki Ramayana which would have been composed around the time of Krishna and Rama, respectively.

      One last point is that the poetic descriptions of beauty in Ramayana/Mahabharatha mainly deal with females. It would be rare of find similar descriptions of male beauty... So, the descriptions are not free of the poet's and his characters' sexuality...

      Delete
    23. @JAM,

      Well, those were just the words used to describe the sexual intercourse. The buildup of the story till that point are strong pointers of sexual attraction, and those words just confirm that sexual intercourse did happen...

      In the case of Mandodari, this was Hanumana's reaction upon seeing her sleeping (my translations):

      तासाम् एक अन्त विन्यस्ते शयानाम् शयने शुभे |
      ददर्श रूप सम्पन्नाम् अपराम् स कपिः स्त्रियम् || ५-१०-५०

      That Hanuma saw among those women a very beautiful woman sleeping on an auspicious couch arranged alone at a side.

      मुक्ता मणि समायुक्तैर् भूषणैः सुविभूषिताम् |
      विभूषयन्तीम् इव च स्व श्रिया भवन उत्तमम् || ५-१०-५१
      गौरीम् कनक वर्ण आभाम् इष्टाम् अन्तः पुर ईश्वरीम् |
      कपिर् मन्द उदरीम् तत्र शयानाम् चारु रूपिणीम् || ५-१०-५२

      Hanuma saw Mandodari with a beautiful form together with diamonds and pearls, well decorated by jewellery and with her self radiance as though decorating that great building with a fair complexion and with a radiance like golden colour, who was dear to her husband the lady of women in that gynaeceum sleeping there.

      स ताम् दृष्ट्वा महा बाहुर् भूषिताम् मारुत आत्मजः |
      तर्कयाम् आस सीता इति रूप यौवन सम्पदा || ५-१०-५३
      हर्षेण महता युक्तो ननन्द हरि यूथपः |

      That Hanuma with great arms seeing the woman well decorated, out of logic thought thus: "This is Seetha by the wealth of her appearance and her youth". That warrior of Vanaras was delighted together with sexual excitement.

      आश्पोटयाम् आस चुचुम्ब पुच्चम् |
      ननन्द चिक्रीड जगौ जगाम|
      स्तम्भान् अरोहन् निपपात भूमौ |
      निदर्शयन् स्वाम् प्रक्र्तिम् कपीनाम् || ५-१०-५४

      He clasped his arms, kissed his penis he was delighted, he was amorously playful, sang, paced showing his simian nature, climbed pillars and fell down on land.
      Sundara Kanda Section 10

      I have talked in a previous post how the tail (लाङ्गूल/पुच्छ) of the Vanaras was their male sex organ:

      http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.ca/2017/07/were-vanaras-of-ramayana-humans-or.html

      Delete
    24. @Milin

      "I think the main difference in our opinions is that you claim the general plot of the epics is history but the specific conversations between the characters are not history. I would disagree with that because what you are doing is saying one portion of the poets words are factual and another portion are fiction, simply based on your gut feeling... If you don't agree that the conversions are authentic, then on what basis can you say that the general plot (which is a product of these conversations) is authentic? " ---

      With no disrespect for u or ur knowledge,i would still like to state that probably u are not accustomed to see this in creative literature around the world,where historical facts and historical charecters are kept intact,yet their interpersonal interactions and dialogues become the fruits of imagination of the author.In recent times,we call them Historical novels.One such masterpiece of historical novel is Spartacus by Howard Fast,where the author beautifully kept all historical details of Spartacus's life and Roman polity of that time intact,even the dates,yet he took the freedom to fill up the blank spaces with his own imagination,like Spartacus's convos and relations with his fellow warriors/slaves Gannicus,Criksus and also his wife Veronica.And together Howard Fast has made out a gem of a historical novel.The same can be said about ancient poetic compositions,like Homer's Iliad or ancient indic literature.And if u take whole of ramayana to be 100% accurate,i am sorry to say,u must recheck ur thinking ,because in that case u will have to include the existence of rakshashas,demons,magic,Hanuman's powers and all such things.So if u are on a path of logic,u should objectively analyse ramayana with only the relevant parts.Now i agree with u that this objective analysis and its extent would be varying from person to person,but in general i wont see homosexuality in whatever Hanuman said to Seeta,infact i doubt whether even the dialogues happened as Valmiki have described them,because i clarified this in my earlier comment,firstly Valmiki was not present on the spots to record it directly,and secondly,poets use a lot of freedom in imagination ,because at the end of the day,their target is to make better poetry.So emotional exaggarations in poetry is not uncommon,neither in Homer's works nor in Indian puranas or allied literature.Infact Milin i am getting a feeling that just because u need to establish ur own pov on homosexuality in ramayana or similar issues,u would choose to overlook the unbound nature of poetic literature :) and on ur point regarding megasthenes,not all of the observations of Megasthenes are considered historically or sociologically coherent by historians.but in general i believe that ancient indic society was sexually not a closed box type,like islamic societies,but i dont take megasthenes for granted on each and every of his claims.

      Delete


    25. @Milin

      आश्पोटयाम् आस चुचुम्ब पुच्चम् |
      ननन्द चिक्रीड जगौ जगाम|
      स्तम्भान् अरोहन् निपपात भूमौ |
      निदर्शयन् स्वाम् प्रक्र्तिम् कपीनाम् || ५-१०-५४

      He clasped his arms, kissed his penis he was delighted, he was amorously playful, sang, paced showing his simian nature, climbed pillars and fell down on land.
      Sundara Kanda Section 10

      I have talked in a previous post how the tail (लाङ्गूल/पुच्छ) of the Vanaras was their male sex organ:

      http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.ca/2017/07/were-vanaras-of-ramayana-humans-or.html ----------------------------- So Sonam was right from the very beginning,u are twisting things to suit ur own version :) Anyway i need not continue the discussion any more,things become boring when someone tries to claim and prove that the sky is red,as YSV observed :)

      Delete
    26. "One such masterpiece of historical novel is Spartacus by Howard Fast,where the author beautifully kept all historical details of Spartacus's life and Roman polity of that time intact,even the dates,yet he took the freedom to fill up the blank spaces with his own imagination,like Spartacus's convos and relations with his fellow warriors/slaves Gannicus,Criksus and also his wife Veronica.And together Howard Fast has made out a gem of a historical novel."

      But this is a retelling a historical fact documented in historical records, right? Valmiki Ramayana is not a retelling. Its the first form of the epic, similar to the historical records the novel is based off (in your above comparison).

      "And if u take whole of ramayana to be 100% accurate,i am sorry to say,u must recheck ur thinking ,because in that case u will have to include the existence of rakshashas,demons,magic,Hanuman's powers and all such things."

      Not really. All this can be explained very logically. For example, Hanumana never flew to Lanka. He instead swam to Lanka. Read the (sanskrit) descriptions of him crossing Lanka in Sundara Kanda Section 1.

      "So Sonam was right from the very beginning,u are twisting things to suit ur own version :)"

      What did I "twist" to suit my own version? If you have a problem with the translation, then why not discuss any possible errors I may have made?

      "Anyway i need not continue the discussion any more,things become boring when someone tries to claim and prove that the sky is red,as YSV observed :)"

      Sure! You do have that option...

      Delete
    27. @Milin
      But this is a retelling a historical fact documented in historical records, right? Valmiki Ramayana is not a retelling. Its the first form of the epic, similar to the historical records the novel is based off (in your above comparison). -------------- First form of the epic doesnt necessarily make it a historical one,and infact if u really consider ramayana to be historical,then all narratives in ramayana become historical equally,every superhuman feat and such things.U can always come up with alternative logic,like Hanuman swimming to lanka,but in the realm of alternative logic,there will always be someone who would claim that the sky is red :) so there should be a limit to alternative logic generation.

      Delete
    28. @Milin

      स्फिग्देशेनाभिताम्रेण रराज स महाकपिः।।5.1.63।।
      महता दारितेनेव गिरिर्गैरिकधातुना।
      The great monkey with copperred buttocks (other parts being dark) looked splendid like a cleft mountain with a huge deposit of minerals shining red.
      Sundara Kanda Section 1[3]
      We can see in the verse above how the color of Hanumana’s buttocks are described. The poet would only be able to describe this if Hanumana’s bare buttocks were uncovered and visible to see. This suggests that Hanumana was not wearing a lower garment. That also explains why Valmiki was able to describe Hanumana’s penis (लाङ्गूलम्) in that section:
      आनुपूर्व्येण वृत्तं च लाङ्गूलं लोमभिश्चितम्।
      उत्पतिष्यन् विचिक्षेप पक्षिराज इवोरगम्।।5.1.33।।
      Like the king of birds Garuda would shake a serpent, he shook his penis covered with hair in order to take off.
      Sundara Kanda Section 1[4]
      The only time I remember when the Vanaras wore a lower garment was the fight between Vali and Sugriva, where the former lost his life.[5] In that fight, there is no mention of any penis (लाङ्गूलम्), most likely because the loincloth that the two Vanaras tied had covered that body part. Furthermore, if we assume लाङ्गूलम् to be a tail, then how is it possible to tie a loincloth tight enough for a hand to hand encounter, that holds such a long body part? Most likely, it would not even be possible to tie such a loincloth. However, even if we assume that it was successfully tied, we would notice that it would be too loose for one to be able to engage in a hand to hand encounter properly... This is another hint that the लाङ्गूलम् of the Vanaras was their penis, not their tail.
      In Valmiki Ramayana, it is also mentioned that the लाङ्गूलम् (penis) of the Vanaras was very long. So then the question arises of how we can explain their long length. If we look at the narratives where their long length was emphasized, we would note one thing in common. Whenever the Vanaras performed a deed of great manly vigor and virility, and flaunted their लाङ्गूलम्, its length was emphasized by the poet. This suggests that the “long length” that was emphasized is a figure of speech, a hyperbole, employed by the poet to show the manly vigor, and virility (वीर्य) of the male Vanaras. In this case, the penis, the male sex organ is a representation of manliness, and a longer one can be taken to represent intensified manly vigor and virility. Ravana’s attempt to deform this लाङ्गूलम् (penis), of Hanumana was an attempt to suppress the manly vigor and virility Hanumana had earlier shown in terrorizing the Ashoka Grove and raping Rakshasa tribe females in Lanka. ------------------------------------------ Man this is real hilarious,Milin bro :) I was laughing as i was reading the above excerpt taken from the link u shared with Sonam :D :D Keep it up,after all we hindus are not muslims,we shall tolerate all views,even if they are as irritating and funny as urs :) i would surely visit ur blog time to time,to get a good laugh,which is also considered healthy nowadays :D

      Delete
    29. "First form of the epic doesnt necessarily make it a historical one,and infact if u really consider ramayana to be historical,then all narratives in ramayana become historical equally,every superhuman feat and such things.U can always come up with alternative logic,like Hanuman swimming to lanka,but in the realm of alternative logic,there will always be someone who would claim that the sky is red :) so there should be a limit to alternative logic generation."

      If the first form of the epic is not considered historical, then we can conclude that Rama/Krishna, etc... were all not historical. I don't understand why you have double standards... You are unwilling to call Ramayana historical, but you want to say that Rama and Ravana were humans and had a war... Stop being a hypocrite. As far as "alternative logic" goes, it is merely your imagination. The word "प्लव" is used in Sundara Kanda Section 1, which refers to swimming/leaping. Furthermore, Sundara Kanda Section 1 says that the force Hanumana's thighs exerted caused the water in the water in the ocean to be disturbed... What greater hint do you need that he swam across the ocean... But of course, this and anything else that goes against your popular belief is considered an "alternative logic". Its quite hilarious that you do not apply the same logic when you and ysv rao propose that Hanumana flied to Lanka in a hot air balloon... LMFAO!

      "Man this is real hilarious,Milin bro :) I was laughing as i was reading the above excerpt taken from the link u shared with Sonam :D :D Keep it up,after all we hindus are not muslims,we shall tolerate all views,even if they are as irritating and funny as urs :) i would surely visit ur blog time to time,to get a good laugh,which is also considered healthy nowadays :D"

      Keep laughing. After all, its healthy as you said... Critically analyzing a text is not everyone's cup of tea, and definitely not yours, as I have seen from the majority of your rather immature comments... :)

      Delete
    30. @milin

      If the first form of the epic is not considered historical, then we can conclude that Rama/Krishna, etc... were all not historical. I don't understand why you have double standards... You are unwilling to call Ramayana historical, but you want to say that Rama and Ravana were humans and had a war... Stop being a hypocrite. As far as "alternative logic" goes, it is merely your imagination. The word "प्लव" is used in Sundara Kanda Section 1, which refers to swimming/leaping. Furthermore, Sundara Kanda Section 1 says that the force Hanumana's thighs exerted caused the water in the water in the ocean to be disturbed... What greater hint do you need that he swam across the ocean... But of course, this and anything else that goes against your popular belief is considered an "alternative logic". Its quite hilarious that you do not apply the same logic when you and ysv rao propose that Hanumana flied to Lanka in a hot air balloon... LMFAO! ------------------------------------------- I gave u examples on the fact that while charecters can be historical,stories associated with them,even if they are apparently first accounts available to us,need not be so.it doesnt even take a huge brain to understand this.Puranas are filled up with conflicting stories on same charecters and conflicting achievements of a single charecters.Clearly both conflicting narratives cant be true.So the only logical solution is that even if the charecters themselves are historical,not all the details portrayed through epics and puranas should necessarily be so.i believe it doesnt take a huge amount of brain power to understand this,but then as YSV said,u are probably one of those fellows who think owning up to deviant views is somewhat cool .

      Delete
    31. It seems like you have issues gauging the authenticity of a text when compared to other texts that mention the same characters... What you are essentially saying is that both Akbarnama and a modern book on Akbar (that cites no contemporary sources) are equally authentic when it comes to the study of Akbars life.

      Anyways, I will leave it at that... Enjoy your day and keep laughing! :)

      Delete
    32. @milin

      "It seems like you have issues gauging the authenticity of a text when compared to other texts that mention the same characters... What you are essentially saying is that both Akbarnama and a modern book on Akbar (that cites no contemporary sources) are equally authentic when it comes to the study of Akbars life." ---- Now how on earth did u derive this :D ? Is it that hard to understand or comprehend whatever i have written?I am exactly saying the opposite,ie,akbarnama may not be an authentic source for the whole of akbar's life and works.but certainly some of it is true,particularly the charecter akbar.infact akbar nama is not an authentic source historically,because nowadays we do understand that akbar was not as great as akbarnama made him out.but again that doesnt mean whole of akbarnama is false.Similarly in the case of Valmiki ramayana,there are many supernatural descriptions that should be filtered out,meaning that Ramayana is not a 100% historical source.and moreover,Ramayana is an epic poetic composition.As i said earlier,in poetic compositions,poets take the independence of imagining and magnifying emotions.That has been the norm of poetry ,atleast for indic literature i can say certainly(also i felt same reading Homer's compositions).Anyway this is the last time i am repeating myself,since i felt that maybe u didnt grasp whatever i had to say in my earlier comments.I shall not repeat the same thing any more.

      Delete
    33. @JAM,

      Have you actually read the Akbarnama, or did you just join the Hindutva Akbar-bashing bandwagon? The Akbarnama is one of most authentic sources for knowledge on Akbar. The fact that it is a contemporary source makes it more authentic than other texts written about Akbar centuries later... The parts where Akbarnama mentions that all humans lived in peace and that his rule was prosperous and other such broad, vague descriptions are obviously biases of Abul Fazl. Likewise the parts of Ramayana that mention that Rama's rule was free of disease, hatred, etc... are an obvious bias on the part of the poet. But the laws Akbar made, such as banning Jaziya/slavery, and the conversations he had with his courtiers (that are described) are authentic, just like the conversations in Ramayana between the characters are authentic. And BTW, the so-called "supernatural elements" are an integral part of the epic and cannot be separated from the epic. We can explain them from a more logical perspective, but we definitely cannot throw them out the window simply because of our own biases...

      Delete
    34. As to the descriptions of male rather than females, it depends on the specific context. In general the protagonists were male and therefore it was natural to emphasize the virility of his physique. In a patriarchal setting, female sexuality was best left undiscussed but there was a way around it- you would have the antagonists such as Ravana lustily drool after Sita's apparently voluptuous physique describing it in nearly pornographic detail as is expected of villains.
      This is not a hard and fast rule. I think regional literatures were more liberal in this regard.
      However even compared to the red blooded , macho and lustful Sangam area literature, Kamban Ramayanam had Ravana only grab Sita's hair because she was so pure that if an evil man like him touched her he would burst into flames.
      At the same Kamban portrayed Rama as a victim of circumstances and an accidental hero compared to the incredibly powerful Ravana. In Valmiki, it seemed that Rama was predestined for success so it makes the finale rather anti climatic.

      Delete
    35. I believe i a higher power but at the same I believe it operates in a more subtle manner by way of weird unexplainable coincidences and opportunities than something explicit like the sun and moon changing their cycles or rather the earth stopped rotating for Joshua, Krishna or Mohd as was claimed. BTW a hot air balloon is more realistic than your crackpot claims of 5 billion or whatever people dying during Mahabharata war. Any historian would laugh at this claim.

      Delete
    36. I would explain but it is beyond your IQ level. I would recommend you go ahead and make some sexual allegory about Hanuman's jump , perhaps the mountain that rose up in his path wished to have some type of S&M roleplay with him. Please stick to these type of theories only

      Hahaha, you are still sticking 1.6 billion people dying in Mahabharata. First prove to me that 1.6 billion was even the population of planet earth in that time period. Really you are hopeless case.

      Delete
  2. @ jam ysv and other look at how @milin interprets sholkas let me give some example


    स सौष्ठव उपेतम् अदीन वादिनः |
    कपेः निशम्य अप्रतिमो अप्रियम् वचः |
    दश आननः कोप विवृत्त लोचनः |
    समादिशत् तस्य वधम् महाकपेः || ५-५१-४६
    Hearing those unpleasant words endowed with extreme skillfulness and which were spoken without fear from Hanuma, that unequalled Ravana ordered for the killing of that Hanuman (READ SHLOKA CAREFULLY DOES IT EVEN MENTION HANUMAN HE QOUTES SOME RANDOM SHOLKA WITHOUT REVEALING CONTEXT WHERE HE HAS COPY PASTED FROM)

    IN THE POST" An Analysis of Hanumana's Bhakti for Rama" HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE PROOF WHICH DESCRIBES HANUMAN BHAKTI TO RAMA WAS SEXUAL ONE. MILIN PATEDL SAYS HAUNUMAN DESCRIBES PENIS OF RAMA BUT IN HIS BLOG WE FIND HE PROVIDES NO REFENCE TO SHLOKA HE STRAIGHT AWAY CONCLUDES "Hanumana describes Rama as having an undersized, thin, fine, sharp penis" . THE LEAST I QOUTE FROM HIS BLOG BETTER .
    ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS HE MISGUIDES PEOPLE TROUGHT HIS BLOG TO JUSTIFY HIS PERVERT NATURE AND HIS INCEST LIFSTYLE BY CLAIMING THIS WAS WHAT ANCIENT PEOPLE DID AND IT WAS VERY COMMON

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will quote ysv rao for this "Look dude just because you have the hots for you mom and enjoy peeping while she is showering doesn't mean rest of the world shares your deviancy. Leave others to to their "disgusting" non incest lifestyles and you continue with yours."


      Delete
    2. @milin patel how did declare ur self INDOLOGIST ? what qualification do u have ? did u do any research on Ramayana and Mahabharata? do you posses original Ramayana copy with you? do u even understand shlokas u trying to interpret to suit ur own perversion? if answer to all above is no
      then ur just self proclaimed pervert who wants to promote incest and beastality so that other can join u in

      Delete
    3. @Sonam,

      Yes I do have a copy of the Northern Recession, Southern Recession and the Critical Edition of the Ramayana. Where do you think I got the shlokas from? As for your comment, it seems like you have never cared to read the Ramayana. Why do fools like you come to comment when you lack a basic knowledge of the Ramayana?

      Lets look at the Shloka you quoted... The context of that Shloka, as mentioned in my blog was:

      "Lets start off after Hanumana was captured by Indrajita and brought to Ravana's Sabha. Hanumana regains consciousness from Indrajita's brahmastra and gets angry that he was captured. He then sees the handsome Ravana seated in the Sabha, and the beauty of that sight diverts Hanumana's attention from the pain of his capture by Indrajita. Seeing Ravana, Hanumana was in awe of his beauty and prowess. Soon after this, Ravana's minister Prahasta asks Hanumana to give his introduction. So Hanaumana does, and introduces himself as a messenger of Rama. He also provokes Ravana by telling him that he should return Seetha, lest he will be killed by Rama. After this provocation, an enraged Ravana orders that Hanumana be killed"

      Now, I was just summarizing whatever happened ever since Hanumana was captured by Indrajita to the point where Ravana decided to give him a punishment. The reason for this was to give a context to the shloka and also because whatever relevant info I wanted to present in the post started from when Ravana decided to punish Hanumana by ordering his death... If you are unable to digest the fact that Hanumana was in awe of Ravana's beauty and prowess, then why not read Sundara Kanda Section 49 where it is clearly mentioned:

      http://valmikiramayan.net/utf8/sundara/sarga49/sundara_49_frame.htm

      First go and do some reading of Ramayana before presenting yourself as a complete fool... As far as Hanumana's sexual relationship with Rama goes, I looked at the verse where the size, shape, and TEXTURE of Rama's penis was described by Hanumana. Now can you explain me in what circumstances one would be able to describe the texture of another mans penis in such detail? I found the most logical explanation that they had a sexual relationship... That also explains Hanumana's attraction to Rama in likening him to "kamadeva"... Of course, I know fools like you who are incapable to thinking critically will ignore all this and continue to bark that I am injecting perversion into the epic...

      Incest was performed back in the Ramayana times and Kaushalya herself mentions about her incestuous relationship with Rama. But as usual you would keep on barking about how this is perversion without grabbing a copy of Ramayana and reading it... You remind me of Vadakayil who brands every form of "immoral sex" in Mahabharatha/Ramayana as poison injected by the Rothschilds... Haha!

      Lastly, can you even give a solid reason why people should not engage in incest? I don't want to hear some moral/immoral nonsense... Give some scientifically valid reasons if you can...

      Delete
    4. @milin LODURAM i asked for original ramayana manuscript not some ready made copy u buy in store .so rest of the question i asked ur answer would 'no ' right. u asked "Now can you explain me in what circumstances one would be able to describe the texture of another mans penis in such detail?"

      U HAVE YET TO SHOW ME REFERENCE WHERE POET DESCRIBES SUCH INCIDENT IN THIS CASE I ANSWER IT HYPOTHETICALLY SO I ASSUME, SINCE IN ANCIENT TIMES NUDITY WAS NOT A BIG DEAL. RAM WAS IN VANAVASA HE COULD WEAR ROYAL CLOTHES ITS NOT UNUSUAL FOR A POET TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT .AGAIN ITS HYPOTHETICAL SINCE NO DETAILS HAS BEEN PROVED BY YOU.

      Delete
    5. @Sonam,

      Its funny how you accuse me of perversion, but then go on to address me as "Loduram"? No offence, but you seem like a porn addict, especially considering your earlier comments where you spammed the blog with porn comments...

      The original Ramayana is not present with any one of us today, because it has been altered and modified over time. The closest we have to that is the critical edition, which anyone can access online...

      Rama's clothes in Vanvasa are clearly described in Ayodhya Kanda. He did not go naked. So the basis of your last paragraph is incorrect... Its surprising that you took the time to go through my blog but totally missed the references to when Hanumana was describing Rama's penis. Anyways, here are the references:

      त्रिवलीवांस्त्र्यवनतश्चतुर्व्यङ्गस्त्रिशीर्षवान् |
      चतुष्कलश्चतुर्लेखश्चतुष्किष्कुश्चतुःसमः || ५-३५-१८
      "He has three folds in the skin of his neck and belly. He is depressed at three places (viz. the middle of his soles, the lines on his soles and the nipples). He is undersized at four places (viz. the neck, membran virile, the back and the shanks). He is endowed with three spirals in the hair of his head. He has four lines at the root of his thumb (denoting his proficiency in the four Vedas). He has four lines on his forehead (indicating longevity). He is four cubits high (96 inches). He has four pairs of limbs (viz. the cheeks, arms, shanks and knees) equally matched."
      दश पद्मो दश बृहत् त्रिभिः व्याप्तो द्वि शुक्लवान् |
      षड् उन्नतो नव तनुः त्रिभिः व्याप्नोति राघवः || ५-३५-२०
      "Rama has ten lotus-like limbs (viz. the countenance, the mouth, the eyes, the tongue, lips, palate, breasts, nails, the hands and the feet). He has ten ample limbs (viz. the chest, the head, the forehead, the neck, the arms, the heart, the mouth the feet, the back and the ears). He is spread through by reason of three (viz. splendour, renown and glory). He is doubly pure (on father's and mother's side). He is elevated in six limbs (viz. the flanks, the abdomen, the breast, the nose, the shoulders and the forehead). He is small, thin, fine or sharp in nine (viz. the hair, the moustaches and the beard, nails the hair on the body, the skin, the finger-joints, the membrum virile, acumen and perception). He pursues religious merit, worldly riches and the sensuous delight in three periods (viz. the forenoon, midday and afternoon).
      Valmiki Ramayana - Sundara Kanda - Sarga 35 

      BTW, the membrum virile is the penis.

      Delete
    6. @milind "The original Ramayana is not present with any one of us today, because it has been altered and modified over time" PLZ NOTE DOWN THE ABOVE STAMENT IT CONCLISIVE THAT MANY THING U AHVE MENTIONED WERE NOT ORGINIAL
      दश पद्मो दश बृहत् त्रिभिः व्याप्तो द्वि शुक्लवान् |
      षड् उन्नतो नव तनुः त्रिभिः व्याप्नोति राघवः || ५-३५-२०

      this sloka u have quote has been completely taken out of context by u
      "Rama has ten lotus-like limbs (viz. the countenance, the mouth, the eyes, the tongue, lips, palate, breasts, nails, the hands and the feet). He has ten ample He is elevated in six limbs (viz. the flanks, the abdomen, the breast, the nose, the shoulders and the forehead). He is small, thin, fine or sharp in nine (viz. the hair, the moustaches and the beard, nails the hair on the body, the skin, the finger-joints, the membrum virile, acumen and perception).
      IT ONLY MENTION THE PHYSICAL DESCRPTION WHERE DOES IT MENTION THAT HANUMAN WAS PEEPING IN WHILE RAMA NAKED.

      AS FOR UR PORN COMMENT I WULD SAY THIS COMING FRM A GUY WHO IS OBESSED WITH MOM AND HAS INCLUDED PORNOGRAPHIC CONTENT IN HIS BLOG .NEWS IS THAT RAPIST DERA CHEIF IS ARRESTED THEY R LOOKIN FOR NEW CHIEF U CAN CHANGE UR NAME AND BECOME BABA KAAMDEV .U CAN ASLO PREACH UR KAMASUTRA TO THE BHAKTS

      Delete
    7. @Sonam,

      Do you have a problem with common sense and critical thinking? I have noticed that this is common among so many internet Hindus, so I was just wondering...

      You said:

      "The original Ramayana is not present with any one of us today, because it has been altered and modified over time" PLZ NOTE DOWN THE ABOVE STAMENT IT CONCLISIVE THAT MANY THING U AHVE MENTIONED WERE NOT ORGINIAL

      My Reply:

      LOL. No. I simply said that there is no single verse we can pull out of the present Ramayana and say it was there in the original Ramayana. This is because the entire epic has undergone changes ever since it was first written... So the verse I provided is as much under scrutiny as any other verse. You cannot therefore only target the verse I provided for being not a part of the original epic while blindly accepting the rest of the epic (that supports your viewpoint) as being original. Get it?

      You Said:

      दश पद्मो दश बृहत् त्रिभिः व्याप्तो द्वि शुक्लवान् |
      षड् उन्नतो नव तनुः त्रिभिः व्याप्नोति राघवः || ५-३५-२०

      this sloka u have quote has been completely taken out of context by u
      "Rama has ten lotus-like limbs (viz. the countenance, the mouth, the eyes, the tongue, lips, palate, breasts, nails, the hands and the feet). He has ten ample He is elevated in six limbs (viz. the flanks, the abdomen, the breast, the nose, the shoulders and the forehead). He is small, thin, fine or sharp in nine (viz. the hair, the moustaches and the beard, nails the hair on the body, the skin, the finger-joints, the membrum virile, acumen and perception).
      IT ONLY MENTION THE PHYSICAL DESCRPTION WHERE DOES IT MENTION THAT HANUMAN WAS PEEPING IN WHILE RAMA NAKED.

      My Reply:

      It is not taken out of context. The verse was spoken by Hanumana to Seetha when the former was describing Rama's physical features to the latter. It is true that it never mentions that Hanumana was peeping when Rama was naked. But then how would you explain Hanumana describing Rama's penis in detail? That is what I want to know. Rama did not roam around in vanvas naked. He wore bark garments...

      You Said:

      AS FOR UR PORN COMMENT I WULD SAY THIS COMING FRM A GUY WHO IS OBESSED WITH MOM AND HAS INCLUDED PORNOGRAPHIC CONTENT IN HIS BLOG .NEWS IS THAT RAPIST DERA CHEIF IS ARRESTED THEY R LOOKIN FOR NEW CHIEF U CAN CHANGE UR NAME AND BECOME BABA KAAMDEV .U CAN ASLO PREACH UR KAMASUTRA TO THE BHAKTS

      My Reply:

      LOL. You are an idiot. When did I say I am obsessed with my mother (incest)? You and ysv rao just made that assumption as I refused to criticize/criminalize incest... Point to me one post in my blog where I included pornographic content. Did I post a picture of a porn star anywhere? Nope. If you consider textual descriptions of sex in the Ramayana as porn, that is your problem and only reveals your immaturity...

      Next time actually think before you comment... You don't even know how many times I facepalmed when reading your garbage... I have encountered many Hindutvadis who have tried to debunk some of my claims, and you are by far one of the stupidest ones. Just tell me one thing. How much of the Ramayana have you actually read?

      Delete
    8. @milin I will say this again so that u can understand very well

      the above shloka
      दश पद्मो दश बृहत् त्रिभिः व्याप्तो द्वि शुक्लवान् |
      षड् उन्नतो नव तनुः त्रिभिः व्याप्नोति राघवः || ५-३५-२०

      and ur explantion to it was "The verse was spoken by Hanumana to Seetha when the former was describing Rama's physical features to the latter"

      "so we agree that here hanuman was speaking about rams physical appearance
      not sexually obsessing about ram "

      "The original Ramayana is not present with any one of us today, because it has been altered and modified over time".

      "plz note statement again and again .so what u claim was present may or may not be there it could a later addition or some folk Ramayana .

      u accuse me of Hindutvadi ur 4m of Gujarat which is home state of modi having hindutvadi party, where as iam just here to gain knowledge. neither iam blind bhakt like you nor a Hindu critic.

      just admit it now ur an social outcast living in a remote Rann of Kutch desert in Gujarat , u want to seek acceptance back into society, too bad its home state of modi people like u will be branded deshdrohi and sent to pakistan

      Delete
    9. @Sonam,

      In that verse Hanumana does describe the physical features. He goes on to describe the shape, size and textures of Rama's penis. That means he obviously saw/felt it prior to the narrative to be able to describe it. Get it? And yes, it does suggest sexual obsession (or whatever that means) for Rama. If I go and describe your brothers penis in much detail, what are you going to make of it?

      Folk Ramayana is different than Valmiki Ramayana. Perhaps you should read Ramanujans essay on the 300 Ramayanas to see the variation in the different versions of Ramayana.

      I am from Canada, not Gujarat. Your comments reveal you are a blind bhakt incapable of critical thought... Let that sink in... I have to explain things like 3 times for you to understand what I am trying to say!

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. hahahahaha lol... now I know what ysv must have felt debating with a fool like you . your just stubborn mold that grows on the rotten places. well anyways it seems like ur the only genius in a fools paradise ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @milin first of all above quote u keeping bringing doesn't explicitly state anything about penis of Rama of no point in me answering
      "If I go and describe your brothers penis in much detail, what are you going to make of it?"

      anyways there is so much wrong in what u quote ,I will leave debate to @jam @ysv rao @ premchand or any other person

      @ ysv I request u delete all future comments of @ Milin Patel. it seems he is incapable of contributing anything, its now turning 4m mere entertainment to torture. ysv I completely support ur earlier stance on @milin patel.

      Delete
    2. @Sonam, thanks for exposing yourself as a fool incapable of even reading... You keep on saying the verse does not say anything about the penis of Rama, even though it does. Do you know what the word membrum virile means?

      Rama has ten lotus-like limbs (viz. the countenance, the mouth, the eyes, the tongue, lips, palate, breasts, nails, the hands and the feet). He has ten ample He is elevated in six limbs (viz. the flanks, the abdomen, the breast, the nose, the shoulders and the forehead). He is small, thin, fine or sharp in nine (viz. the hair, the moustaches and the beard, nails the hair on the body, the skin, the finger-joints, the membrum virile, acumen and perception).

      Next time you go to debate with someone knowledgeable about Ramayana, you should acquire the background necessary for the debate... And please increase your grasp of the English language. It is funny seeing idiots like you trying to converse in English... Haha!

      Delete
    3. @milin we are clearly at stalemate here don't bother to argue , less this comment section will exceed 200 trying to convince me I very clear at where I stand

      Delete
    4. @ milin I leave the debate to @JAM , ysv etc let see if they can make sense of ur argument ,clearly iam fool according u right? LOL......

      Delete
    5. @milin lets change the topic why do think that RAVANA was better than RAM?
      give ur analysis.

      Delete
    6. @Sonam,

      If we look at Rama's behavior throughout the epic, he comes across as a "controlling" husband with strict gender roles. He values his wife for her beauty, but not for his intelligence, and is constantly doubting how devoted Seetha was to him. You can call him a possessive, insecure husband... When Seetha was kidnapped, he had a doubt that she went willingly with Ravana, as he felt he was not too compassionate towards her and because he felt that his virility (virya) could not satisfy her. When he speaks to a dying Jatayu, he asks for how Seetha's face looked when she was being kidnapped, thereby suggesting that he thought that Seetha may have been happy and went willingly with Ravana to Lanka... Even at the end of Sundara Kanda when Hanumana reports about Seetha to Rama, he asks him about her disposition towards him, again suggesting he had doubts regarding her fidelity towards him... When he realizes (after the war) that Seetha had sex with Ravana, he abandons her in public, thereby humiliating her in public.

      In that comparison, Ravana was a much better husband. In Sundara Kanda Section 9/10 it was mentioned that in addition to beauty, the intelligence of all the women in his harem was greatly valued... Even after Mandodari was raped, he did not have a problem in accepting her as his wife.

      It was also proven that Ravana was an able administrator, had good knowledge of politics (well Rama also had that so I can't complain), and was by far a much better warrior. Unlike Rama, he was not racist. Rama was the man that allowed Lakshmana to deface and chop the breasts of Ayomukhi off simply because she dared to propose to him in marriage...

      Delete
    7. @milin where does it state that Ravana was able administrator? after people in general say we want RAMA RAJYA IN OUR COUNTRY.

      can u a specify a shloka which justify claim that RAM was jealous husband?
      and kidnapping of sita was best thing that happened to her?


      Delete
    8. @milin i read ur previous comment which u have stated that HANUMAN had sex with MANDODARI , SITA that would make HANUMAN bisexual right?

      did any offspring arise out union of mandodari , sita ?

      clearly according ur comment HANUMAN seems to be screwing everyone here LOL..

      this is would clearly be very complex plot than original Ramayana narrative
      everyone has heard. i open to hearing @JAM AND YSV opinion here

      Delete
    9. @milind bro don't waste ur time with this intellectually bankrupt people like
      ysv rao jam etc these shameless people are like mutual masturbation society.
      milind u seem to be intelligent , they deliberately drag ur name into their arguments they are using u for entertainment purpose only.

      Delete
    10. @Sonam

      LOL this never crossed my mind :) By milin's logic,Hanuman should be a bisexual :D Milin u shld edit the homosexual word in ur blogpost on Hanuman.

      @Prakash

      That is exactly what we have been trying to explain to Milin.He is a bit too high(on weeds) for us to handle him.Btw my heart says that this prakash is a disguised Vadakayil :D

      Delete
    11. Whether or not we are a mutual masturbation society, it is clear Milin Patel is a solo masturbaion society as it is not impossible to believe he is jacking off in one hand while composing his porno posts with another.

      Delete
    12. @sonam
      I believe that as Ravana was lying dead on the battlefield, Lakshmana and Rama( I think in the Valmiki version it was only Lakshmana) sit by Ravana and request that he expound on how to govern a populace as Rakshasas considered him a good and just king. It was considered a sort of penance for his sins.
      It is possible that Rama put these principles into practice to create the Rama Rajya.

      Delete
    13. @ Milin
      In the pre modern world, if a woman was kidnapped , it was almost considered that she was raped. The famous myth of a princess from Phoenica called Europa as she was captured and taken to Greece is called Rape of Europa. Even though no rape had occurred. But it was assumed it would at some point
      It was considered noble of Ravana that he wouldnt force her until she had accepted that Rama had been killed and hence he tried all sorts of maya including producing Rama's head but she was placated by some sympathetic Rakshasi that it was not real.
      After defeating Ravana and setting Seetha free, it was difficult for Rama to simply accept her without ensuring his purity . Hence the agni pariksha which was a yogic test. In the story of Prahlada, his father tests his devotion to Vishnu by throwing him in a fire but he comes out unscathed. In a tantric perspective, a raped yogini's energy is ruptured at least temporarily and wont be able to survive a fire as her powers would normally would able her.
      Or it could just be a figure of speech. Trial by fire is a very arduous process where you have to prove yourself. It couldve been simply a very extended and tortorous interrogations session. This was the approach taken in that silly movie Ravanan where Aishwarya Rai's Sita was the subject of suspicion by her police officer husband and suggested he take a lie detector test when she claimed she was unmolested.
      Rama was simply a man of his time and didnt care for lay people laughing at him for taking in damaged goods so to speak. That he cared so much about the opinion of his subjects was at once admirable and yet at the same time a flaw.
      There was nothing racist about Rama and Lakshmana attacking Shurpanakha. SHe wished to eliminate the competition of Sita by killing her and they disfigured her merely which was a type of humiliation. If they had killed her perhaps Ravana wouldnt have been that upset.

      I realize none of this will convince you. I might as well explain quantum physics to a poodle. You can proceed with your pornography. However you have to be consistent and post the same content with regard to the Quran- that is if you dare- but of course you wont. After all you dont want to get your throat cut. It is so easy to be edgy talking crap about a religion who are not known for killing its critics isnt it?

      Delete
    14. Now Milin has recruit his brother to defend him LOL. Surely you wouldnt mind Milin wishes to have sexual intercourse with you as you are both pro gay and pro incest. Whatever rocks your boat. Go ahead and enjoy but spare me the running commentary which is channeled through his version of Ramayana etc.
      Regards

      Delete
  4. YSV, JAM: Koenraad Elst is arguing with some ppl on twitter that only Islamists (he uses code word Eskimos for Muslims) were solely responsible for partition and that Brits weren't so keen on it. Go through these links:
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/901920990145519617
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/901959709175009280
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/901960536170090496
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/902093550799785984
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/902095051454545920
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/902108434551754756
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/902143426417876993
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/903150326622162945
    For more go to his TL: https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst

    Also look at what he has to say about famines.
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/901929452032184321
    https://twitter.com/Koenraad_Elst/status/901958122310434817
    Is Elst also an apologist for the British Raj? Or is there some truth in what he's saying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is nonsense to say that British werent keen on Pakistan. British were usually pro Muslim. Check for eg. what Churchill says about Muslims vs. Hindus. And until WWII most of the recruits had been Muslims. Hindu recruits were being systematically reduced every since 1857. And as such they felt indebted to Muslims and even felt that they were the true rulers of India as a martial race.
      Hindutvadis made a false idol out of Koenraad Elst. I feel in general his best work is behind him. Nowadays he posts nonsense like Om was inspired by the cows moo.

      Another darker aspect about Elst is that he is associated with the European far right which is quite racist. And he published what can be considered partly an apologia for the Nazi regime in The Saffron Swastika. This is not to say he is a Nazi or he approved of Hitler , concentration camps etc but highlights the reasons for anti semitism such as the over representation of Jews in the Soviet Union.

      The website gatesofvienna which he is associated with consists of all sorts of racist cranks. I cant read what content he posts there as it is mostly in Flemish.
      Again he is not a racist but he is sympathetic to people who have racist views for sake of political expediency.
      All in all, his criticism of the British empire is lukewarm probably for this reason.

      Delete
    2. Koenraad Elst wasnt always a nutcase in the sense we use the term,earlier he used to write good articles on indology,but of late he has deteriorated heavily.Amd its a supreme irony that Britain today is acting like cowards in front of rapid islamic wave entering its nation.Who would have guesed the once mightiest empire of the world is feeling helpless infront of the increasing demand of minorities?strange are the times we live in.

      @Anu

      Anyone trying to whitewash british involvement in partition is either an apologist,or a fool,or maybe he just wants to make some mockery of himself in public :) british had nurtured and mollycoddled the radical islamic institutions in india.Seeing this,even otherwise secular CR Das or RN Tagore were annoyed&dismayed.Infact one of the reasons why Netaji took extra steps in attempting to instil nationalist sentiments in muslims was his mentor CR Das's warnings and observations on how british were nurturing minority radical institutions and thinking.However at this stage,seeing the aftermath like partition etc.I would say this even as an admirer of Netaji,that probably he was mistaken in his persuit of integral nationalism.YSV and others can also offer their views on this,if they like.Anyway coming back to the core point,even an otherwise secular humanist Tagore had written in a letter to Swami Shraddhanand :"The Same Mussalman they are appeasing today,would in near future pick up the Mushal against us." (Mushal is the indic word of a weapong).So clearly Hindu intellectuals of that era were largely aware of the rising radicalisation of islam,under british nurturing.Hence it is only a fallacy or daydreaming to ignore british love for separatist islamic sentiments,also keeping in mind British had always been favourable to Jinnah.However the british were alien to our land,i dont judge them anymore for whatever they did,but whats really shameful is that erstwhile preindependence INC participated actively in partition.This partition affair caused loss of literally millions of Hindu and sikh lives on the eastern and western sides .Last day i was reading an account of sikh massacre in erstwhile punjab(pakistani side).After fighting till the last man to defend their small village,when only the sikh women and children were left,they decided to jump into a well,to commit suicide,in order to avoid being raped and killed by fanatic muslim mobs.Similar horror stories are abundant on the bengal side also.infact in bengal problems started even before partition ,in the direct action day.Erstwhile british indian army and police remained mute spectators,since they didnt have orders to help out hindus or sikhs.Infact this is one reason why i believe Netaji should have reached atleast upto bengal by early 1945.Because in that case i am pretty sure the INA would have stood up in protection of the hindus on the eastern side.The largely Hindu British Indian Army was of no use to commoner Hindus.

      Delete
    3. @JAM
      Thank you for this info. I would like to point out to this British apologist clown Milin Patel that his hero Churchill once considered converting to Islam
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11314580/Sir-Winston-Churchill-s-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html

      The arch imperialist PM Benjamin Disraeli also was fascinated with Islam and the Turkish and Arabian tribes.
      The British viewed Muslims as the ruling race of India and promoted them as such. They demilitarized Hindus but not so much Muslims. On the contrary, the Punjabi Muslim hitherto was a useless specimen when it came to fight was a given a rifle by the British and deemed a martial race which must have been news to him. The menace of Pakistani militarism germinated from this nonsense as Pak military is overwhelmingly Punjabi.
      Less said about the British borderline homoerotic paens to Pathans the better(Milin Patel's ears just pricked up)
      http://www.firstpost.com/blogs/perception-vs-reality-is-the-punjabi-muslim-really-martial-473743.

      The British basically created a hostile Islamic Bengali populace out of thin air after their census where most Bengali Muslim realized that there is such a binary divide as until then most of these "Muslims" were quite happy conducting Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja and fasting during Navaratri.
      The census lead to a proto partition of Bengal which was the precursor of all the horrors to come.
      The British deserve all the abuse they receive when it comes to screwing up Hindu Muslim power equations in India.

      Delete
    4. @YSV

      Yeah what u wrote is actually what happened in erstwhile bengal,much to the dismay of Hindutva vadis. the sense of separate communities was largely a british creation,eased up by the ignorance and nonchalance of elite bengali business class of east bengal or Bangladesh as it is now known.actually even with islamic majority in the eastern part,the power was still in the hands of hindu landlords on that side,muslims happily lived under them,only to be irritated to radicalism by the british policies.The bengal partition plan of 1905 was also meant to weaken the bengali hindu community.so only fools and apologists would say british had no role in partition.Way back in 1905,they attempted their first exercise on partition.I had read about Koenraad elst's analysis on Gandhi and Netaji in one of his blogposts,even then i found he was ignorant on indian history pre independence.

      Delete
    5. I dont exactly know what is the motivation behind Koenraad Elst's whitewashing the British involvement but I think has mostly to do with his narrow focus on Muslims only and hence unable to see the entire picture.
      He falls in to the trap of the dichotomy of either/or responsibility. To be sure Muslims did want seperatism, though the people of today Pakistan werent as politically active as the Muslims as the united provinces they were certainly sympathetic to the project.
      However it was not upto the Muslims to decide what they wanted as whatever power they had is what the British gave and they could take away.
      Now consider the analogy that a teenager(Indian Muslims) wants to drink and get behind the wheel of a car(Pakistan), now the parent who has the authority to say no(British) doesnt explicityly say yes or no but leaves a bottle of whiskey and the car keys in the boys room. And of course there is a catastrophe where the boy crashes a car and kills some people(Partition and attendant violence). Now of course the boy is responsible but who gave him the ability to do what he did?
      When it comes to Pakistan, it took two to tango. Neither party escapes blame.

      Delete
    6. Now about Churchill, he was very racist, and I do not consider him my idol. But I read the letter and it does not say that he himself wanted to convert. He was fascinated by muslim bravery, and his family took that to mean an inclination to convert to islam. I may adore to Ottoman empire, but that does not mean I wish to convert to islam, right? Similar case here... In 1899, Churchill said:

      "Only one incident occurred to diversify the journey and mar the perfection of the railway arrangements. It will be remembered that although the British officers on the railway never failed, the British engines sometimes did. The men were made of better stuff than the machines; they stood a greater strain. The incident occurred at ‘No. 6’ station; and since any event in the desert is rare, remarkable, and sometimes welcome, I will set it down.

      The engine, which had been working more jerkily every minute of the preceding hour, stopped with an ominous and alarming suddenness. Everyone got out. Something was wrong. The awful thought that we might perhaps have to wait some twenty hours or so at this attractive spot arose in many minds. Then the worst was known. The engine had broken down. It was in a thoroughly bad condition. Hard work had worn it out. I will not commit myself to technical language. It appeared that everything was loose. The native engine-driver was appalled and perfectly helpless. It would not work and go forward, he said; whereas before it had worked and gone forward. Undoubtedly, there was an accident. But who should say Allah had not some wise purpose? There would not be much delay. Another engine might come, perhaps tomorrow – this last hopefully. And we were all going home!

      How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity were sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

      Delete
    7. Milin Patel- You remind me a joke from a Chandamama magazine where some kid has access to knowledge but zero common sense and analytical ability. When a person catches a fly in his fist and asked the boy to guess what it is , he said it feeds of corpses and is of dark color. Yes go on what is it, the person asked. The boy responded that "you have a grown vulture in your fist"

      That is you in a nutshell. Thoroughly lacking in reading comprehension, common sense and analytical ability but possessing arrogance and inflated sense of self worth in abundance. I will be kind and not on the various sexual dysfunctions and complexes which are undoubtedly plaguing you.
      I find it hilarious that you are spending more time here than on your own blog. You may respond if you wish but either way that and many of your posts will be spammed.

      Delete
    8. @YSV

      Regarding the letter communications of Tagore to Swami Shraddhanand,which i mentioned in my earlier comment,recently a group of bangladeshi scholars from right wing fundamentalist axis of their society are demanding that all pieces of tagore be dropped from the school and college books of bangladesh :D They are angry at how tagore was apparently not the Hindu secular type they imagined him to be till date,Tagore was not tolerant or even a silent supporter of islam.In letters to Swami Shraddhanand and some other sources,he spoke out his mind on islam and muslim society,which is now much to the dislike of a section of bangladeshi scholars .btw in another bit of unrelated news,this same bangladesh is not allowing Rohingya muslims to enter their territory from myanmar,while we have apologists among indian hindus for rohingyas.That is the tragedy of elite Hindu society.

      Delete
    9. Wasnt Swami Shraddhanand the same individual who was killed for publishing a tract calling Rangeela Rasool(or Playboy Prophet) mocking prophet Mohammad's sexual exploits.
      The very fact that Tagore was corresponding with him strikes as some circumstantial evidence that Tagore wasnt as secular as we think.
      All in all, Bangladesh to this day is quite secular. Durga Puja is organized on a massive scale by the local Hindus and there is no issue but also there is Muslim participation. This is unthinkable in Pakistan. One aspect is a cultural where Bengalis are intrinsically more multi cultural than Punjabis. Even the Khalistan movement of Sikhs involved massacre of Hindus which suggests that intolerance isnt solely a Punjabi Muslim problem.

      Another reason may be geography. Bangladesh is sorrounded by Buddhist and Hindu majority countries while Pakistan has Muslim neighbors apart from India and that too its border regions such as Kashmir ,Rajasthan and Gujarat have considerable Muslim population or cultural influence.

      Bangladesh wouldnt dare try any terrorism against say Burma in retaliation for Rohingyas, they will simply execute another 1971 style massacre and convert everyone to Buddhism.

      Elite Hindus weep for Muslims because they are media whores and thats how they get attention.

      Delete
    10. @YSV

      yeah that is the same Swami Shraddhanand u are talking about.In totality of the scenario,we can say bangladesh is somewhat like indonesia,ie,tolerant to its hindu past.Yet now i have come to understand this hard reality,ie,an islamic society in general cannot be secular in the long run,in the sense indic society is secular on minority beliefs.Indic islam is largely devoid of extremism only because it is in touch with this indic cultural base,otherwise things are just the same with islam everywhere.

      Tagore was a humanist not at the cost of Hindu identity or nationalism.This is one major difference between Tagore and Gandhians,as Tagore wrote to Gandhi on the latter's advice of spinning the charkha half an hour everyday :"If charkha spinning could gain freedom,I would spin it 24 hours a day,and not half an hour only." Tagore was inspired by noncooperation and Ahimsa movements in the early stage,but later on he was disillusioned by the same.Standing against most intellectuals,he supported Netaji in 1939 exit from congress. This is an excerpt from The Cult of the Charkha by Tagore,(i got it from one website) : "Tagore, again, in his article 'The Call of Truth" (q.v.) and 'The Cult of the Charkha' (q.v.) was especially averse to Gandhi's claim that if everyone turned the charkha for half an hour a day, India could get Swaraj in a year's time. Tagore objected to this as a form of ritual " ... if man (can) be stunted by big machines, the danger of his being stunted by small machines must not be lost sight of"(p.65). For, " ... the performance of petty routine duties ... imparts skills to the limbs of the man who is a bondsman, whose labour is drudgery; but it kills the mind of a man who is a doer, whose work is creation" (p.85). Further, " ... the depths of my mind have not been moved by the Charkha agitation ... (and) there are others who are in the same plight as myself - though it is difficult to find them all out. For even where hands are reluctant to work the spindle, mouths are all the more busy spinning its praises ... I am afraid of a blind faith on a very large scale in the Charkha in the country which is so liable to succumb to the lure of short-cuts when pointed out by a personality about whose moral earnestness they can have no doubt" (pp. 87-88). And further, "By doing the same thing day after day, mechanical skill may be acquired; but the mind, like a mill-turning bullock, will be kept going round and round a narrow range of habit" (p. 91). And " ... to call upon man to make the easiest of offerings to the smallest of gods is the greatest of insults to his manhood. To ask all the millions of our people to spin the Charkha is as bad as offering the tomato to Jagannath. I do hope and trust that there are not thirty-three crores of Gopees in India" (p. 95)7• And further still, "the Charkha is doing harm because of the undue prominence which it has thus usurped. .. " (p. 103)."

      For the most part of his later life,Tagore was an avid supporter of Netaji,as is overlooked by gandhians.He had seen through the futility of Ahimsa in driving the british away.Infact the only two times where Gandhian ahimsa went even remotely close to driving british out were the original nonviolent noncooperation in 1919 IIRC(the date may be wrong) and then the 1942 august movement or Quit India.Otherwise the whole phenomenon of Ahimsa was a major failure.But even then I do not judge Gandhian contributions to be all negative.For one thing,Gandhi,whatever may be his way of works,did manage to make the humble peasant and the struggling artisan or the labourer to think about the nation.This was an achievement in an era when we didnt have any means of communication barring print media.

      Delete
  5. YSV, my comment went into spam because of too many links, perhaps. Please publish it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ysv milin doesn't participate in incest nor does he promotes it. it just he doesn't discriminate against them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ok enough. I have tolerated enough of you two spamming the comments section with this nonsense. One more post in this vein and I will delete a whole lot just to set an example. Just stop.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ysv ad jam u can laugh at us like donkey and call XYZ abuse I believe I have sufficiently backed up with all the proof to my theory I challenge to come up with a solid reason why people should not engage in incest? without
    mentioning any abuse in between comment like I did I will stop defending MILIN PATEL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont have to justify anymore to you.
      I will now delete your useless comments. So all your efforts went to waste and if you keep spamming, I dont even have to bother, the spam filter will do it for me.
      I tried asking nicely..

      Delete
  9. ysv and jam abusing someone for their belief without u providing any counter proof
    just shows your intellectual bankruptcy. I have quoted from all reliable source I backed with solid argument I know with Iq of zero both will not understand context and meaning of the text above . but iam hoping that u both can engage in a debate in civilised form without using any vulgar and abusive language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have made it clear before why I dont wish to debate idiots like Milin and now this new retard Patel. If I say something like 2+2=4, these creatures will say 2+2=55 and I am being prudish and ill informed for not thinking the same.
      You are both as stupid as before.

      Delete
  10. @milin patel we are dealing with pms ridden egoistic person who has lost his marbles.
    ysv you deleted all our comments just like vadakayil guy censors his blogs ,this show you are thin skinned yellow belly coward. why complain about censorship in vadakayil blog when ur no different from him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no content in your posts, just lame propaganda. Neither is there any sensible counter argument. I keep giving Milin Patel a second chance and then I regret it. Enough of your crap. I dont care what you think of me. I let you run free enough . Post this crap in your own fantastic popular blog and leave me in this isolated unliked corner of cyberspace, if saying that makes you feel better.

      Delete
  11. Sir,

    Will these articles help understanding the difference between the Indian and the Thai versions of Ramayana?
    1. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue4/Version-1/G019413843.pdf
    2. http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol19-20/vol19-20_art10_DISKUL.pdf

    Milin Patel,

    Although I'm late, I'd like to tell you not to take poetry literally. Your take on Ramayana/Mahabharata raises a few red flags:
    1. Were there really 1.6 billion people back then? I believe the world population would've been a few millions max.
    2. Hanuman is an 'Amsam' of God Shiva. Who is God Shiva? Manickavasagar in Thiruvasagam describes God Shiva as "Adhiyum Andhamum Illa Arutperunjothi" meaning "The great god with no start or end, in other words no boundary". Why would an 'Amsam' (aspect) of Almighty have any kind of sensual relation with anyone, much less Lord Rama?

    Poetry in Tamil especially have sexual descriptions, but they're just the poets playing around with their imagination. Every poet/composer adds his own touch to anything. Like others here have said, Ramayana in Tamil (Kamba Ramayana) for instance is not the same as Valmiki's original one. The Ramayana in Thai language has a different interpretation. But they all revolve around a few basic pivotal points. One of them is that Lord Hanuman is an Amsam (aspect) of God Shiva and is immortal. Lord Ravana was also called Ravaneswar due to his heavy penance to God Shiva. Plus others. I can't remember now.

    Of course, I'm not too well-versed in ancient literature (actually not at all), so I can't comment on it any further. But to what I know, I can say this much.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iniyavel,

      I am not sure if ysv rao will leave this comment or delete it. But just in case he leaves the comment, you raised a few points that I should address...

      1. I am not concluding that there were 1.6 billion people. Perhaps the dead being 1.6 billion was an exaggeration. Who knows? But the akshouhini calculation only took into account the Aryan armies, not the non-Aryan ones. the akshouhini calculation brings us to about 10 million people in the war. To that we have to add the mleecha, yavana, saka, rakshasa, dravida, etc... armies that also took part in the war.

      2. Interestingly, Valmiki Ramayana does not mention Hanumana being the amsa of Shiva... But even if he was, why does that mean that he does not need any kind of sensual relation? Rama was described as superior to Shiva and the supreme lord in the Agnipariksha sequence. Despite that, his sexual life was talked about a lot by Valmiki.

      We can have a more lengthy discussion regarding this topic, on my blog, if you wish:

      http://ancientbharatvarsha.blogspot.ca/

      Delete
    2. Correction: I should've said Hanuman was believed to be the Amsa of Rudhra, not Shiva. My bad.

      Okay I'll look into your blog soon. Thanks.

      Delete