Axis propaganda leaflets targeted towards Indians
I found this very interesting site which contains a rich collection of mostly Japanese propaganda as well as some indigenous efforts working in cahoots with Axis towards the goal of removing British rule from India , mostly in Hindi,Urdu,Punjabi,English and Bengali.As well as interesting commentary on the same by and Indian and Western authors.
A fascinating glimpse into India during wartime.
A fascinating glimpse into India during wartime.
A rich documentation of pre-independence thought processes.YSV thanks for sharing this one.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Looks like Captain Tattoo was/is not all perceptive after all!" - Tell this to Capt and you are a hasbara deriving a fat paycheque from Rothschild LOL .
DeleteAs YSV says,international intrigue requires deep knowledge of the modern history and economic policies.Blaming everything on Rothschild is like creating a fantasy world out of imagination.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIniyavel before you compare your hero Putin with Feku,bear this in mind that Russian and Indian political systems are miles apart.Modi can't take decisions with the same autonomy that Putin gets.I feel that you are actually suppressing your admiration for Capt's crackpot analysis :) It is the nature of Capt to generalise everything like comparing Modi with Putin or Jinping and the slamming him for everything under the sun.If capt had been a diplomat,he would surely have destroyed India's stable international relationships with many nations.
DeleteCapt glorifies Russia for their superior defence tech and slams Indian govt for not licking the ass of Putin.But he is unaware of the fact that Russia has been failing in ensuring timey supplly for defence products to India for the last 25 to 30 years.While I admire Sukhoy 30mki for what it is,I will not outright reject the FA 18 superhornet or French Rafale just because the latters come from USA or France.
@Son Mars Mother Earth
DeleteCan you explain why are you calling Modi as feku?
BTW @ysv_rao
What are your views on Dayananda Saraswati and his views on Christianity?
Regarding your earlier blog 'Why did Zoroastrianism fall but Hinduism didnt?'
Also your views on the following
Few days ago, I came across a comment where Zarathustra claims he has been driven out of India by his half brother Asura Varuna and Ahura Mazda is basically Asura Mahisa/ Mahisaasura.
Zarathustra yearning for India has lead Persian rulers attempts to invade India((for them, they were coming home).
I personally don't hold Modi responsible for any broken promises any more than any other politician. Modi is just a slightly more business savvy and able version of a senior BJP operative
DeleteThe 2002 Godhra aside in which Modi was torn between his loyalty to the rampaging RSS and his duty towards maintain stability and security wasn't really a deal breaker for Gujarati Muslims who saw him as an ally for their mercantile culture.
It is people like captain and others who foolishly raise him to the high heavens without doing any sort of due diligence and then hurl him to the netherworld when they find out he is just human easily giving to the political and media pressures
I don't know how a human can have a diety as a half brother? And that too an entity which according to Zoroastrian religion roughly corresponds to the Biblical God
As for "ghar vaapasi" of the Persian conquerers there is little evidence fo this. Persians claim to hail from a land that extreme temperatures. That corresponds to Afghanistan/Uzbekistan where Zarathustra was supposed to hail from . Of course at the time, it was under Bharatiya military,cultural and demographic control
But during the Achaeminid and especially Sassanian invasions increasingly less so.
So they could've conquered Afghanistan(which they did) and call it a day but they attempted to go further towards the Gangetic plains but the dynasties domiciled there were too powerful and so they had contend with what is today Pakistan.
I believe Dayanand Saraswati had a mixed record on interpreting Christianity. When I read his rather blunt and pointed remarks about the Bible , it strikes me as
Deletea) He is paying back missionaries in the same coin and doesn't really care about the Bible pro or con
b) He made the same mistake that many fundamentalists, Jewish or Christian do ie take the Bible literally.
Truth is that Indians were tremendously lucky. If Axis had won, they would have done more or less the same they had done in Russia and China. And we would have had to endure a rule far more terrible than that of British.
ReplyDeleteWhy was it that most of our mainstream leaders back then did not support British? Only person of importance who seemed to have realized the terrible consequences of Axis victory was Shree Aurobindo.
But our mainstream leaders who thought with heart instead of head understood precious little. Not surprising that these same people in 1947 cause one of the largest bloodshed and refugee crisis after Second World War.
@ Sagar M
ReplyDelete"Truth is that Indians were tremendously lucky. If Axis had won, they would have done more or less the same they had done in Russia and China. And we would have had to endure a rule far more terrible than that of British." - Truth is that the axis didn't have a capable wartime leadership and united strategic plans,like the allies.But here I will not unduely bash axis,because erstwhile British empire and America were more compatible with each other than the axis powers like Japan or Germany.And I believe that the axis powers lost the war way back in 1941-42 when Hitler broke his treaty and attacked Soviet.The only hope of the axis would have been the discovery of a lethal weapon like the atom bomb,but in that case Hitler or Tojo would have destroyed the whole world barring their own territories.
"Why was it that most of our mainstream leaders back then did not support British? Only person of importance who seemed to have realized the terrible consequences of Axis victory was Shree Aurobindo." - Gandhi had always supported British against the axis powers.I don't know whether it was out of his genuine love for ideology or contempt for Netaji,who had moved out of his hold.It is hard to verify at this stage,because the three musketeers Gandhi,Nehru and Patel all had an uncanny weakness for erstwhile British govt.
Sagar you shared an interesting fact on Aurobindo.I don't know much about the political views of Aurobindo.
"Not surprising that these same people in 1947 cause one of the largest bloodshed and refugee crisis after Second World War." -This is what happens when incompetent and unpatriotic guys are put at the helm.
To my knowledge, Gandhi was dead set against the partition plan. Its not like he caused the bloodshed and refugee crisis. It was caused by the Muslim league who demanded a separate nation based on stupid religious-ideological motives. Why cant Hindus and Muslims live together in the same land? They had done so for centuries. Although Gandhi was an incompetent leader, there is no point in blaming him for all the misfortunes of the partition. Gandhi was just a human. Raising him to Mahatma status was a mistake done by Indians.
Delete@ Prem Chand
DeleteWhen I mentioned incompetent leadership I didn't mean Gandhi.Nehru had already sidelined Gandhi from his earlier position of importance in Congress party.Again Nehru wasn't completely wrong here,as I have come to know from YSV that Gandhi's economic thoughts were wild dreams which would have brought disaster for the newly independent India.
Ironically it was Netaji who awarded the title "Father of the nation" to Gandhi.As I have said in one of my earlier comments,I respect Gandhi for integrating the freedom struggle and patriotism of the whole undivided India.However his flaw was his utopian belief that the British would be impressed by morality.
Even if Gandhi had passed the baton of leadership of nonviolence to other capable and energetic leaders who had emerged at that time,India would have been freed earlier.The noncooperation and civil disobedience had almost forced the British to pack off their luggages,before Gandhi abruptly called off the mass movements in both cases.
Gandhi was far from a Mahatma but his leadership was not that bad after all,atleast in the initial stages when he was busy organising country-wide Ahimsa,though I will also have to concede the fact that he was helped by some great men in the Congress party.
A major part of what Gandhi had said on the issue of partition of India was plain lip service and nothing else.
@ Prem Chand
DeleteI forgot to add one point,ie, by incompetent leadership I particularly meant Nehru.This guy had even tried to give away West Bengal to erstwhile East Pakistan at the time of independence !
If I wanted to blame Gandhi for anything, it wouldn't be insincerity. I do believe he genuinely wanted religious harmony. But he was disrupted in this task because he had very little understanding of any religion. He claimed that he was a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jain, etc which is obviously nonsense. You cannot simultaneously be a true Hindu, true Christian, and a true Muslim because of these religions' self contradictory doctrines. He thought the Muslim league can be won over by non-violence, while they only considered non-violence as weakness which they can take advantage of.
DeleteNehru was a Cambridge-educated pompous egghead, who may have made a good prime minister for a European country, but certainly not India. He had very little knowledge of the country which he was supposed to lead.
Delete@ Prem Chand
DeleteThen you should know more about Gandhi,particularly his cowardly and Muslim-appeasing stance during the Hindu muslim riots in modern Pakistan and many places of Bangladesh,including Noakhali.
@ Prem Chand
DeleteI agree with your point on Nehru.Probably Sagar also holds a similar opinion about him.
Gandhi also felt that Jews had to commit mass suicide, in order to make the Nazis feel ashamed about their behaviour! From all these bizarre opinions, we can surmise one thing- Gandhi was motivated by his religious beliefs. He believed- really believed that people are reborn and they attain moksha, so what harm is it for Jews or Hindus, if they sacrifice their lives? They will be born again into a better life! This is logical, if you believe in religion. But as I have mentioned earlier, I am a materialist. This is my main line of disagreement with Gandhi.
Delete@Prem Chand
Delete"He believed- really believed that people are reborn and they attain moksha, so what harm is it for Jews or Hindus, if they sacrifice their lives?" - With full respect to your views on Gandhi's religious belief,I believe he was a coward of the first grade.When bengali Hindus and Sikhs were getting battered and their women getting raped,he gave speeches on communal harmony from thousands of miles away.When he went to the affected places(like Noakhali in modern Bangladesh) on his peace restoring countryside tour,the riots had already subdued,as the hindus were already eliminated.
And Gandhi avoided Kolkata altogether on the "Direct Action Day" .Kolkata had become a living hell on earth on that day.The real estimates of the death toll due to communal riots could never be properly estimated,as many dead bodies were thrown into the Hooghly river after murder.Dead bodies were lying openly like mounds on the streets and suburbs.And where was Gandhi?? saving his ass from the hell.See I am not blaming Gandhi for being afraid of coming to Kolkata on "Direct Action Day" or Noakhali after that,during the extreme heat of violence.Most people do have fear of death.But if you can't treat a living person and cure him,then what's the use in offering high-quality speech in his funeral?
Prem Chand just for your pondering,the death toll in one day of "direct action" was a minimum 30000(10000 hindus and 20000 muslims),and this estimate is from the erstwhile British police,who had initially tried to minimise it to an official figure of around 7000.Independent and unbiased reports claim that the death toll couldn't have been lesser than 1 lakh on that day,as many dead bodies were burnt in heaps ,cut to pieces or thrown into Hooghly river.But as usual Gandhi was nowhere in sight even in the distant horizon :)
DeleteI am not defending Gandhi- not one bit. Anyone who spends all day long giving speeches and moralizing is not worthy of respect. Who was this lawyer from South Africa? Why should everyone follow him? His knowledge of the world was immature and childish. He carried the Gita around with him and preached non-violence, that hypocrite. He got average grades in his school exams and studied in England because of family wealth. He was one lucky guy who used opportunity to his advantage and not only became the "father" of our nation, but also famous worldwide thanks to M Luther King Jr.
DeleteThe problem I have with Gandhi , Nehru, Patel et al is that they were pencil pushers, speech givers, lawyers and beureucrats. They never spend a single day of their life actually in combat (minor exception , ironically Gandhi who served as a stretcher bear for the British side during the Boer War in South Africa and was awarded for his gallant service)
DeleteWhat repelled Churchill about India was that the masses were pacific and their leaders reflected it? Non violence more often than not implies weakness and weakness only inspires contempt even among friends. To say nothing of enemies like the British.
Of course it was the British themselves who were responsible for disarming, demilitarizing and well deballsing the Hindus in particular.
Savarkar recognizing this sorry state wished to "Hinduize all politics, militarize Hindudom"
Read the descriptions of Tamils, Telugus and other so called non martial races by the Brtish. Apparently every other person was armed and fit for military duty.
That didn't last long as the various rebellions against the British prompted the latter not to just to squashing the rebellion and permanently disarming the culprits via the Arms Act(still implemented by the current brown sahib Republic of India) but indulging in psy ops warfare by promoting a narrative that they were never martial at all but Indian history is a constant shameful series of invasions and domination by foreign powers
It is this narrative that Gandhi internalized and assumed the masses were unable to rise up violently because well they were Indians and that's apparently not we do.
London educated Gandhi was not likely to be aware of Chandragupta Maurya, Vikramaditya, Yashodharman, Harshavardhana, Pratiharas, Bappa Rawal, Chalukyas, Kakatiyas, Vijayanagar, Marathas etc etc
Gandhi was world famous already in the 1930s I believe thanks to clever PR efforts by the Congress
DeleteHowever MLK Jr gave his reputation a boost. But MLK like Gandhi was also an opportunist. MLK preached non violence but turned a blind eye towards blacks such as Malcolm X who believed in armed insurrection and militias.
You can roughly compare MLK and Malcolm X to Gandhi and Savarkar.
Anyhow MLK like Gandhi was unaware of his own history Immediately aafter the CIvil War, blacks were given many prestigious posts such Governer and Lt Governer of Louisiana and Virginia I believe( Louisiana wouldn't have a non white governor again till Piyush/Bobby Jindal)
Of course blacks were unable to govern effectively as they didn't have proper political backing and administrative experience. Not to mention newly liberated blacks were rampaging across the south commiting (to the eyes of southern whites) the gravest of crimes ie raping white women
This led the creation of the KKK which wasn't really anti black initially but more of a vigilante force to maintain law and order and their prime targets were northern white settlers who aided and abetted the said black criminals. Indeed the founder of the KKK Nathan Bradford Forrest went to create a trades college for black women with his own funds.
This is contrast to the Northern blacks who were quite proper , relatively educated and well to do.
Pretty soon the southern blacks who tended to be illiterate, poor and prone to crime moved to north and the northern whites who were previously sympathetic to blacks also were hardened against them.
That was the situation from the early 1900s to the 1960s when Eisenhower initiated reforms in the 50s meant an end to legal segregation and discrimination of blacks. Eisenhower saw his actions as not just moral(during WWII he saw blacks fight heroically under his command and thought it was criminal they receive 2nd hand treatment back home for their service) but also a stratetic and national security issue as he believed Soviets could use discrimination against blacks as a useful propaganda tool against Americans.
The only good thing that Nehru did was founding of the IITs. And as liberating Goa, my cat could've liberated Goa. Portuguese by then weren't even a fourth rate power. Indian generals openly ridiculed the pathetic state and poor physique of Portuguese soldiers.
DeleteOur so called smooth operator completely the PR and diplomatic aspect of the liberation of Goa. India for quite some time became a pariah among the world community even though it was morally in the right.
You can roughly compare then India's situation to Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. Thankfully there was no oil in Goa LOL
Indians by submitting to British East India Company have proved beyond doubt that they have reached depths of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Delete(Do note that even Muslims at height of their power did not enjoy the kind of authority that Brits enjoyed in India - simply because Indians at that time resisted to the best of the ability, whether successfully or unsuccessfully)
No self respecting people would bow before an alien invader and meekly comply with all his wishes. But the hard fact is that most of India (barring Nepal) did that.
It proves that there is something seriously wrong with people's collective thinking.
We must not say that misfortune of India is due to one or two leaders. How is that single leader or a couple of them manage to plunge a whole nation into disaster while the rest of the leaders simply remained passive? Why is the collective response so feeble or even absent?
I think its because of civilizational decline that started eight centuries back. When a culture enters phase of decline, people who are a part of culture thinks and acts in suicidal way.
I agree there was something wrong with Indian psychology which made them more likely to enlist as mercenaries and glorified watchmen of foreign entities than carve out their own fiefdom and challenge whatever foreign power encroached on their land.
DeleteBut I will cut Indians some slack...During the 1700-1800s during the Maratha Mughal wars, there seems to be a breakdown of law and order and the economic outlook for many Indians was quite harsh. So they probably saw no harm in taking up employment with entailed protecting the interesst of what seemed at the time to be a harmless trading body.
Initially the English weren't really racist as the scientific theory of race didn't really catch on till the mid 1800s. And English were more than happy to assimilate to local customs. And Indians reached senior posts in the enterprise. However all that ended with when batches came in armed with missionary fervor, racial superiority and last but not least -English women.
When they had access to their own women , they became less immigrants and more settlers and hence barriers of all sorts started popping up between Indians and the British which ultimately culminated in 1857. The previous rebellions mostly in the south were less ideological and had more to do with taxation issues and the British getting caught in the crossfire of rival kingdoms due to their entanglements. This was the case with Tipu Sultan who was basically as running dog of the French.
Leaders reflect people for the most part. Some people are lucky to have leaders who break the cycle of defeat and despair and lead them to greener pastures. Indians over the past 200 years had mostly bad luck. But I think part of it is because the masses got their priorities screwed up.
When we admire pencil pushers and deliverers of 12 hour long lectures(VK Menon and Madan Mohan Malaviya) that is what we deserve. When we are ready to admire a man of action(SCB) he will appear.
As of now we are focused on maintaining the status quo and that is what we will get.
@ Sagar M
DeleteAs ysv has already elaborated,the brits weren't exactly bloodsuckers in the beginning of their rule in India.Infact many Indian kings and landlords were worse than the Brits had been.The "Sannyasi Rebellion" of early 19th century,which is not much talked about at present because of its shortlived impact on Indian psyche and freedom struggle ,had targeted not only the tyrant british but the landlords and petty kings also.So it was not all about self-respect of martial thinking on behalf of Indian population.
And can we ever deny the fact that it is the british rule which gave us the light of modern scientific education?I do not support cultural degeneration in the name of modernity,but still a nation requires modern education to sustain it's productivity in the present world.Without the british education flowing into India,I believe India would have been a theocratic state at present,just like the middle eastern nations.And I even doubt whether India would have been a hindu theocracy,because Indians were more accustomed to Islamic rule .But anyway the point is that the British were not as destructive in the beginning as they had become later on.
YSV sometimes I wonder how on earth Indian economy was able to sustain itself in the 17th and 18th centuries of utter confusion and chaos.What's your opinion on this?Or maybe you can write a separate post on this topic(economic history of premodern India) in the future.Economic history of civilizations fascinates me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@JAM
DeleteIf British had not conquered India, today there would be no Pakistan.
Thanks to arrival of Brits, political radical Islam, which was destroyed by Shivaji and his heirs , was revived.
India would not have become an Islamic state had not British arrived because it was Hindu leaders like Peshwa, Holkar and Sindhia who were supreme in India and they clearly were pro-Hindu in thought, sentiment and aim.
If Brits originally were not marauders, it was because when they came to India, they encountered an extremely powerful Mughal empire - an enemy not to be trifled with.
British attempt to become a power in India or to dominate India (which ever was possible) began only in 1740's --- when mistakes by Marathas gave British a chance to conquer India, partly first and then wholly.
British rule right from beginning was quite harsh - Famine of 1770 in Bengal would not have been so devastating if Brits had been a little more humane.
They had been more friendly towards locals and respected local sentiments – but that does not change the fact that their rule was good for health of Indians.
One should not come to the conclusion that martial self respect means that one should fight foreign enemies only – some times we have to fight our own also. If you upholds a noble ideal and some of your compatriots do not support your view point, and if they align with alien enemies, then they too should be treated as enemies ------- All one need to remember is how Krshna exhorted Arjuna to take up arms and fight for the cause of good, even if that means bloodshed of one’s kinsmen.
(Do note that a large part of Afzal Khan’s army that was slaughtered by Shivaji and his men were Hindu Maratha collaborators.)
It would be a fallacy to think that there would be no scientific education India without British.
Spread of scientific education and enlightenment ideas was a worldwide phenomenon and would have come to India with or without British. Ideas, if they have substance, will spread on their own.
Confusion of 17th and 18th century had been grossly exaggerated by British historians to prove that they saved India from chaos. Now my question is --- If India had been in such chaos that it needed heaven sent Britons, then how was it that they acquired one of the richest economies on earth?
DeleteI think chaos existed only around areas of campaigns and rebellions – greater part of India (remote areas especially) remained unaffected.
That is why people could flee to another area in case of war and famine.
Also ceaseless wars means that soldiers, weapons and horses were in great demand. Masses often enlisted as soldiers and weapons making and breeding and marketing of horses were lucrative businesses. Often more audacious ones – like Gurjars and Bundelas - even took to plundering invading armies and made that a source of income.
18th century India would have been an exciting though dangerous place. It was during this time that men of extremely humble origins and low caste, by virtue of their courage and enterprise carved out fiefdoms from the carcass of Mughal empire – like Sindhia, Gaekwad, Holkar, Jats of Braj area, Sikh Misls of Punjab and so on.
We do know that a thriving indigenous manufacture of weapons and ammunition (ranging from swords to heavy artillery) underwent a terminal decline with arrival of Brits. Same also with horse rearing too. In 1800, India had hundreds of thousands of war-horses (By 1920, only a fraction of that war horse population remained)
It was estimated that during Mughal empire, entire military manpower in India – which included local armies of Hindu village headmen too – was estimated at 4 million men! Do note that population of whole South Asia was only 1/10th of entire population today.
Although Marathas and Sikhs had defeated the Mughals in many parts of India before the British, still much of India was under the control of Mughal generals. These poweful generals had long since ceased to obey the orders of the emperor and they would have stopped the Maratha advance at some point. I am afraid the partition of India is an inevitable result, and the British had little to do with it.
Delete@Prem Chand
DeleteMughal governors held large parts of India, but they were weakened by ceaseless plundering raids and tribute extraction by Marathas. They had become so weak that when Marathas looted their lands, these provincial Mughal troops did not even have the capacity to fight back and retaliate.
First of all a wholehearted thanks to both Sagar and PremChand for opening up new avenues of thought on the premodern India.
Delete"Spread of scientific education and enlightenment ideas was a worldwide phenomenon and would have come to India with or without British. Ideas, if they have substance, will spread on their own." -Sagar still I have an inherent doubt that if India was left in the hands of the warring kings and aspiring emperors,we probably would never have reached the present stage of modern India.And except cultural value addition,India had progressed very little in the last millenium,rather it destroyed all its past achievements.
I am not even for a moment glorifying british rule.Infact no Sikh or Bong would,probably,as these two states were the worst sufferers.Ofcourse I will not take responsibility for Mallu sentiments :) But anyway I think it would be wrong to deny that the same british education system has produced nationalist stalwarts from India,who were both modern,nationalistic and liberal in their approach.Yeah foreign education has forced out our own cultural wisdom to a large extent,but again as I have said,India had already lost much of her wisdom by the time the Brits came.So here no point in bashing british education.
Sagar renaissance had started in the 15th century.But was India receptive to the good things renaissance brought,until they came under the British education system?
Ironically it is the British who forced the Indians of all ethnicities to unite under one banner.There are some separatists ofcourse,but they are not very strong today.I don't believe India would have been a very united nation if we were left in the leadership of Peshwas,Sikhs or Mughals.Most probably India would have broken up into 3 to 4 separate nations at present.
Apart from this I generally agree with your points on the other issues,like the chaos of 17th-18th century being overhyped to a large extent.
@JAM
DeleteIndia made great strides in learning and economy even when it was divided into many warring kingdoms. Of our recorded 2600 year of history, when did we experience real political unity prior to 1950?
If India did not progress in last 1000 years, that is because India had entered a cycle of decline around 1200 AD. All civilizations go through cycles of birth, growth, decline and death. Indian civilization is no exception.
West too was divided into many warring states – but yet they contributed much in last 300 years to human culture.
During heyday of present Indian civilization that lasted from 1000 BC to 1200 AD, we equaled and In many respects surpassed even other great civilizations. But we should also remember the fact that cycles of rise and fall are inevitable.
India's misfortune was that we did not prepare ourselves for downfall, destruction and rebirth (I guess we still are not ready for that)
I don’t think that British brought liberal viewpoint to India. On the contrary, we can safely conclude from the presence and rather peaceful co-existence of so many schools of thoughts and sects in ancient India which held diametrically opposite views that ancient India was liberal in instinct.
DeleteIndian wisdom was not lost by time of arrival of British – it was simply eclipsed. Eclipses are not permanent. If ancient wisdom had been lost fully, we would all have become non-Hindus by now.
Let us take the case of Russia and Japan – both were extremely backward in intellectual terms till 19th century – not much different from India. If they could overcome the medieval stagnation without Brits, I don’t see any reason why we could not do the same.
Democracy, tolerance for opposing views and creative thinking is a part of Indian character. It was always present in Indians even though in some phases of history, it was sidelined.
Some words about origin of modern western world
DeleteWe tend to believe that modern liberal West began with Renaissance,.
But that is not the reality.
It began with Enlightenment Era in early 18th century that followed the terrible Thirty Years War.
Germans and Italians have a history of terrible disunity like India. But they united by their own efforts. And also British did not unify India --- They rule India but never unified it. Unification was done by Sardar Patel.
DeleteSeen as whole, British rule in India had the effect of speeding up certain kinds of inevitable historical developments on one hand while delaying some other kinds of inevitable historical developments.
@ Sagar
Delete"Indian wisdom was not lost by time of arrival of British – it was simply eclipsed. Eclipses are not permanent. If ancient wisdom had been lost fully, we would all have become non-Hindus by now. " - I agree with you but this eclipse is very large and very long in duration :) My point is that modern science and modern western education is not at all bad for India if we can imbibe our cultural values along with it.For instance,Rajasthan and MP govt has announced compulsory SuryaNamaskar exercise routine to be followed in all schools.I think this is the way out of the mess,ie,taking the best of both the ancient east and the modern west.
"Let us take the case of Russia and Japan – both were extremely backward in intellectual terms till 19th century – not much different from India." - Still you missed out the major difference.Russia and Japan were occupied by Russians and Japanese people and were ruled by them,whether the rule was good or bad is a different matter.But India had seen long periods of foreign and Islamic rule.India is a mixture of so many different ethnicities and religions that I find it hard to visualise a stable and single nation without the onslaught of the British.Accept it,the fight against British brought out the true nationalism in all of us :) Othewise Indians in the past were more devoted to their individual rulers rather than the nation .
"Germans and Italians have a history of terrible disunity like India." -Any form of disunity in a small nation like Germany or Italy with a single major ethnicity can be managed.But I don't think it was actually possible for all the warring factions in premodern India to unite under one banner in the modern age .
PremChand ,YSV and others what are your opinions on this ?
re unification. But note that India really isnt currently united at all. Afghanistan was lost nearly a 1000 years ago. Pakistan and Bangladesh are gone. As is part of Tibet(mt Kailash) and Nepal. ANd we have some states like Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh which really weren't part of India at all.
DeleteIt was on this point the Chinese India war was carried out.
I believe the current India has the core cultures and regions ie Ganga Yamuna, Krishna and Godavari and Kaveri which gave birth to dynasties which had defined India for the last 2000 years. The northwest had been long been eclipsed in culture. After the destruction of Taxila University by the Huns, it never recovered its standing in Bharatiya culture.
The same way Biharis had struggled after the destruction of Nalanda.
So as far as I am concerned, the unification point is moot. Also I believe like Sagar M with or without the British we would have achieved some sort of unification as republic nationalism was the trend and we would've embraced it in due course.
Also we would be open to enlightenment ideas from Europe sans British influence but would apply our own genius to it.
I believe that European renaissance could've contributed greatly to an Indian renaissance and sati , untouchability would've been abolished with exertion by a foreign power as had transpired.
Japan and Russia seem uniform now but they didn't at time. Japan was divided in shogunates and much of Russia had many minorities including indigenous oriental types, Germans, Jews, Finns and others. And much of the land was unpopulated as it is today.
Germans and Italians also didn't care about whether they were the same ethnic groups. They were more than ready to slit the throats of their rival Italian city state or principality/Protestant Catholic sect in the case of Germans.
In contrast warring Indian dynasties always recognized a common ancestors whether Chandravanshi or Suryavanshi. And even if some of the genealogies were manufactured in the medieval era as Prem chand asserted , it doesn't matter as they were considered legitimate heirs of the heroes of Epics even by their rivals by then.
It is with the arrival of the British that these coarse divisions of Aryan/Dravidan etc took root
@ ysv
DeleteDid Indians inherently have nationalistic sentiments before the arrival of Brits?As far as I know,the average Indian mindset was always geared up towards their own kings and kingdoms.Ofcourse you can believe that India would have been united into a nation in due course of time,but as I have already mentioned in my previous comment,I feel India might have slipped again into a land which is controlled uneasily and forcefully by Islamic rule or a Maratha or Sikh dynasty.
All nations had internal rivalries,but in India the problem,I feel,was far more complex in the premodern times,with multiple powers rising up to take control of the whole tract of land,and yet none actually succeeding in doing so.
And I would attribute the present condition of India more to the ambitious and unpatriotic leadership which we got in the independence span due to our own bad luck.
Delete"They were more than ready to slit the throats of their rival Italian city state or principality/Protestant Catholic sect in the case of Germans." - I feel rivalries arising from lust of power can be controlled in time but rivalries stemming from multiple ethnicities and religions can not be controlled easily .Russia always had multiple ethnicities but note that it was previously a Czar controlled state and even in the present time it is only a partial democracy.This is why it is possible for Putin to subdue Chechens so easily.
"Of our recorded 2600 year of history, when did we experience real political unity prior to 1950?"
DeleteSeveral times. Under Mauryas, Guptas, and Mughals starting from Akbar. The idea that India was politically united for the first time by the British is a myth. But by the time the British came, the various regional powers were at each others throats so in a sense the British did unite Indians... against the British :)
I dont think Indian wisdom was either lost or eclipsed by the British. The British were not antagonistic to Indian culture, as long we didn't rebel against their rule or practiced cruel traditions like Sati. Of course there were a lot of racists back then but that was just the "zeitgeist" of the colonial age. For example, they set out to translate all our scriptures, and some of them even felt a romantic attachment to Indian culture. They didn't actively destroy native culture the way Soviets did in the countries they occupied. That is the irony- the Soviets were enlightened despots who wrecked the world in ways never attempted by greedy Britain with its unprincipled colonialism.
"We tend to believe that modern liberal West began with Renaissance. But that is not the reality. It began with Enlightenment Era"
What an apt observation Sagar :) Yes many people dont make the difference between Renaissance and Enlightenment. Renaissance is the growth of art, architecture, paintings and music while Enlightenment was the growth of science, philosophy, education and liberalism. Personally, I am a sucker for the Enlightenment. I particularly admire Analytical philosophy which grew out of the Enlightenment (while Continental philosophy was just a secular version of theology).
"Yes many people dont make the difference between Renaissance and Enlightenment." - Yeah Sagar I forgot to acknowledge this one.I admit I didn't have prior knowledge on the difference .
DeleteI also mistakenly use renaissance and Enlightenment interchangeably.
Delete@Premchand
Please note that a lot of Enlightment scholars based their ideas on Renaissance and Dark Ages personalities. I personally prefer the Renaissance as the Englightment era intellectuals seemed to be somewhat more arrogant lot and the result of putting man at the centre of everything gave us some good things like the ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith but also terrible things like French Revolution and its ideological descents socialism ,communism and fascism
Also how dark really were the Dark Ages
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U
"Please note that a lot of Enlightenment scholars based their ideas on Renaissance and Dark Ages personalities."
DeleteI have never heard that one before. To my knowledge the Enlightenment was spurred by Europe's contact with the Caliphate who had (ironically) preserved the work of Hellenistic scholars like Aristotle, Plato, and Euclid. The invention of the printing press made it possible to spread these ideas to the nooks and crannies of Europe.
Man has been the centre of his universe ever since he learned to think. That is why he has developed all this culture and technology. Enlightenment just added fuel to the fire.
Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire did influence french revolution, but it was started by the oppressive conditions of life for the common people at that time. I dont see the link between Voltaire's ideas and socialism. But I do disagree with him on point- his assumption that being rational comes naturally to human beings.
@Prem Chand
DeleteRenaissance was the beginning of the end of Christian domination of West. The conclusive end of Christian domination came with Enlightenment.
It was during Renaissance that Portuguese conquered Goa and committed horrible atrocities via Inquisition.
Also during Renaissance Europe, you cannot speak freely (even by 19th century standards) – you could be mutilated to death by Inquisition or jailed or put to death by authorities. Atmosphere in Europe during 15th, 16th and 17th centuries was one of pervasive terror. People had to be very careful about what they say or write. One wrong word and you could be a burnt on stake or tortured to death.
So what put an end to Dark Age completely? It was THIRTY YEARS WAR. This war was so destructive, so much full of atrocities that people of Europe began to wonder is religion really good for man’s heath --- that was the real end of Dark Age and beginning of modern world.
@YSV
Arrogance of Enlightenment intellectuals was because memory of Thirty Years War was still fresh and aversion for God was wide spread indeed.
And since God himself became hated, it was quite natural that people came to hate those who espoused Divine Right. And since Europeans were well trained in brutality and terror – thanks to 1000 years of training by fanatical Christianity, it was only natural that history of Europe right up to 1945 was marked by periods of savagery and bloodshed.
Dark Ages were not so dark because of primitive state of material life. It was dark because fanatical Christianity had hijacked a whole civilization and continent for over a millennium and committed worst sorts of crimes. all in the name of love and God.
Technically thirty years war took place during the Renaissance era. Dark Ages had long receeded. People didn't really lose faith due to any wars but due to scientific discoveries such as those of Darwin and Galileo where earth was no longer centre of the universe and God was subjugated to a glorified timekeeper.
DeleteThis led to a lot of despair amongst the religious folks , many of whom even committed suicide as they were unable to deal with the notion a godless universe.
Thirty Years War was as much a political war as a religious one.
Europeans were trained in terror by atheistic regimes such as communism and fascism far more than they were by Christianity. Indeed by ditching Christianity and running for scientific materialism they jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The brutalities of a 1000 year of Christian rule cannot compare to the 100 year reign of godless ideologies of fascism communism and socialism.
If you see the documentaries, many of the leading intellectuals and astronomers were themselves priests and studied in monasteries. In Europe the monastery is father of the university. Similar to Nalanda being initially a conglomeration of Buddhist sanghas
I am not a fan of Christianity's record but I am not a knee jerk critic of it either like many Hindutvadis are who tend to be ignorant of European history.
Germany had a history of disunity and foreign intervention worse than India.
DeleteSince the time of Romans until Bismarck, they remained divided and fought with one another for supremacy.
Disunity of Germans was such that many German states ended up as pawns in the hands of their enemies like France, Poland, Bohemia and Sweden.
For centuries, much of Germany was a virtual battlefield. Her population suffered terribly due to stupidity, selfishness and treason of their princes and invading armies of predatory foreigners who did all sorts of cruelty towards Germans.
Reformation by Luther caused Protestant-Catholic divide. Savagery, intolerance and hatred between Protestants and Catholics in Germany was such that it delayed German unification by three centuries and caused a North South (Protestant North and Catholic South) divide in Germany that persists to this day.
Germans who were the largest national group in Europe had no voice in European affairs proportionate to their numbers till 19th century.
Germans who suffered terribly due to disunity and devastating invasions nursed a deep seated sense of victim-hood. Their centuries of repressed anger and craving for revenge burst out during two World Wars.
We tend to think of Germans as imperialists - but reality is that they are victimized lot.
That was why Treaty of Versailles evoked such emotional response in Germany (while similar treaties signed by France in 1940 and Russia in 1918 did not evoke such strong reaction by their peoples). For them, it was a return to terrible old days.
Victimization create inferiority complex which only lead to bizarre claims of superiority. In this blog, a man like Captain AV is condemned for his preposterous claims. But in 19th and early 20th century Germany, there were many persons like our Captain in Germany who sold fantastic theories about Germanic superiority. And a people who had a long history of suffering readily accepted them.
We should know that Hitler in his younger days was an avid reader of crackpot theories.
But Hitler also was acutely conscious of what Germans lost as a result of their disunity. He did lament that if Germans had been united, whole of Northern Italy and a most of France would have become German and that North America would have become a German speaking continent. This spurred in him a desire to recover every inch of land that Germans would have owned if they had remained united.
@ Premchand
DeleteIt is Newton who said that "We stand on the shoulders of giants" in reference to Dark Ages scholars as well as Graeco Roman intellectuals.
Later luminaries would adapt the adage to include Newton himself
Voltaire was Deist who elevated Reason to a higher level than it deserved. That was compelled the cut throats of French Revolution to declare Notre Dame as a temple to Reason
However the French Revolution really got its ghastly impetus from the silly but dangerous Rousseau notion of the noble savage and that man is born free but everywhere is in chains.
He popularized the sentiment that every "natural" instinct of man is somehow good. This gave free reign to barbarity of all sorts. And given a academic gloss by Rousseau spouting intellectuals
So when people like Supreme Court Justice Katju proudly express their admiration for Rousseau and the French Revolution, I can only look on in horror that such individuals are the final say in maintaining law and order.
Hitler was always interested in politics. But his interest in propaganda started with World War 1 when he noticed that Allied propaganda was much more effective than German propaganda, both at home and abroad. In fact, he lists on of the main reason for German defeat due to Allied propaganda and failure of German counter-propaganda.
DeleteHitler excelled in propaganda right from the beginning of his political career in 1920. Had it not been for his rabble rousing, his small party which was founded due to a conspiracy by German Army and a small occult group would not have developed into a mass movement.
He identified men like Goebbels who were skilled in propaganda and gave them a free hand. Unlike other right and centre parties whose propaganda failed to rouse the masses, Hitler copied propaganda tricks of Social Democrats and Communists. This combined with a willingness to wage street battles meant that Nazis emerged as a formidable mass movement with strong presence on streets in contrast to Conservatives and Liberals who virtually had no street presence.
And this presence on street meant that Liberals, Conservatives and Catholics joined hands with Nazis to deal with growing threat of Communism. Here too Nazi propaganda worked well --- German upper and middle class was persuaded that Nazi violence was good since it will save established order.
Nazi propaganda reached new heights once Hitler becomes the dictator - Radio speeches, Triumph of Will movies and so on. And once war started, Hitler made sure that none of the propaganda mistakes made during World War 1 will be repeated and to the end, German propaganda made sure that people by and large remained loyal to government.
But Hitler's propaganda abroad during World War 2 was quite weak since he had no real interest in winning over hearts of foreigners. Even when his accomplices pleaded to him to adopt a more effective propaganda to win adherents outside Germany, he rejected it.
"It is Newton who said that "We stand on the shoulders of giants" in reference to Dark Ages scholars as well as Graeco Roman intellectuals."
DeleteWhich dark age scholars? There weren't any secular scholars during the dark ages for Newton to emulate.
I need to address this very mistaken notion that the dark ages were called that because they were dark and depressing. A big fat NO. Here dark means "obscure" as in "We were in the dark about what questions would appear in the exams". Even this perception is changing among historians as more and more documents are discovered about that period of European history. The dearth of historical records was caused by the collapse of Rome and the bureaucratic order it had maintained.
"Voltaire was Deist who elevated Reason to a higher level than it deserved."
And what level does reason deserve? Because reason is so bad? They were fanatics who objectified their political idealogy in the form of "Cult of Reason". The words Cult and Reason occurring in the same phrase constitute an oxymoron. Yes, Rousseau mistakenly believed that humans are inherently rational but if you think that is the reason for tragedies that occurred during the French Revolution, you are ignoring the thousands of years of bloodlust, powerlust and violence that has marked human history. Much of the massacres happened during the tyrant Robespierre's "Reign of Terror" than because of an eccentric nerd like Rousseau.
"Europeans were trained in terror by atheistic regimes such as communism and fascism far more than they were by Christianity."
Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were atheists. Stalin was an atheist, yes, but he was a power-hungary neo-Czar who killed even his friends out of paranoia. Reason much? From the Czars through Stalin, Khruschev and Putin today, the tragedy of Russian history has been tyrants of every colour and political belief.
I never said Newton referred to specifically to secular scholars. Newton himself wasn't secular but a Christian fundamentalist by todays standards.
DeleteSee the Youtube video I posted about the Dark Ages which states pretty much the same thing.
Reason is bad or rather insufficient because it is religion which defines morality like it or not.
Yours is the usual lame apologetics athiests give for secular regimes
If atrocities were done in the name of religion , it was because the viciousness of religion but if its done by a secular regime then by god it must due to prevailing culture and general nature of man
Rousseau was not an eccentric nerd but moved among nobility and the aristocracy.
Robespierre did not fall from the sky but was thoroughly immersed in this wonderful Reason you speak so highly of.
Let us call a spade a spade. Athiest regimes were monstrous because they considered themselves rational and rationalism at the time demanded that some sections of humanity be declared unfit to live.
These are not my words but that of George Bernard Shaw , a committed rationalist, who envisioned a committee which oversaw who was fit to live and who to die.
Hitler and Mussolini made great use of religious iconography and had support of church leaders but led an atheist regime based not on the Holy Roman Empire but neo Pagan motifs which were useful as art and propaganda.
Both subscribed to racist views which were considered quite REASONable at the time.
Using your logic I should declare Stalin a religious murderer as well because he spent some time in an Orthodox seminary planning to be a priest.
And please don't indulge in the cheap trick of dismissing the bloodlust of communist regimes as simply Russian culture. There was no record of brutality in Cambodia until the communistPol Pot and the Khmer Rouge which instituted Year Zero!
In fact, he lists on of the main reason for German defeat due to Allied propaganda and failure of German counter-propaganda. "
DeleteHe would be more on the money if he attributed his defeat to the foolish and catastrophic decision of invading the Soviet Union.
Intolerance and dogmatism are hallmarks of fanatic Christianity and world became familiar with both as fanatic Christianity (and its child Islam) spread across the world and it caused death, torture and persecution of millions over span of 1400 years.
DeleteEurope rejected fanatic Christianity but unfortunately did not throw away dogmatism and intolerance fully until fall of Soviet Union. And matter of real shame was that dogmatism and intolerance found its way into all radical ideologies that came after Xtianity - like Jacobinism, Bolshevism and National Socialism.
Cruelty in the name of religion was replaced by cruelty in the name of Liberty, followed by cruelty in the name of Proletaritat and Aryan Man.
"""He would be more on the money if he attributed his defeat to the foolish and catastrophic decision of invading the Soviet Union"""".
DeleteI would say that declaration of war on USA was the fatal mistake Hitler made. He could not attained his goals without destruction of Soviet Union.
"I never said Newton referred to specifically to secular scholars."
DeleteAs long as we talking about the Enlightenment, religious scholarship does not matter. Newton was an alchemist as well, but we dont include alchemy as part of the Enlightenment.
"Reason is bad or rather insufficient because it is religion which defines morality like it or not."
Treat others the way you would expect to be treated yourself. This is from the bible, but it is a simple piece of logic. I dont have to believe in an eternal skydaddy to understand this.
"If atrocities were done in the name of religion , it was because the viciousness of religion but if its done by a secular regime then by god it must due to prevailing culture and general nature of man"
Hmm lets see..
He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
— Quran 16:106
There's more where that came from, but now lets hear from the other side.
Definition of Atheism: Disbelief in God. Where is the need to kill or injure people? So if an atheist kills people its because he doesn't believe in religion.. eh? If you give a telescope to a chimpanzee, and he uses it to bash the next chimpanzee's skull, the telescope is a bad thing?
What is your definition of rationalism? It is not a political ideology to change with the time. Rationalism at no point advocated the people to be unfit to live. From Shaw to Hitler, these early 20th century racialist theories were pseudoscience, not reason. Also, Stalins purges were entirely political in nature and had nothing to do with them being unfit to live.
How can they lead an atheist regime, if they are not atheists themselves? Hitler used propaganda to be sure, but he was also a devout Catholic. Where do you think his anti-semitism came from? Or that of Mel Gibson? Christian theology, from the Gospel of Matthew to Martin Luther were the source of this particular evil.
"Using your logic I should declare Stalin a religious murderer as well because he spent some time in an Orthodox seminary planning to be a priest."
Eh? Stalin was trying to get into a seminary BEFORE he became an atheist.
"There was no record of brutality in Cambodia until the communistPol Pot and the Khmer Rouge which instituted Year Zero!"
You are confusing pure reason with communism. Why, I dont understand.
"And please don't indulge in the cheap trick of dismissing the bloodlust of communist regimes as simply Russian culture."
DeleteI was talking about Russia's political climate, not their culture. There is a difference between these two concepts. You do know that the Czars weren't exactly upholders of justice right? A fact conveniently ignored by American conservatives in their red scare.
I am not talking about religious scholarship itself but religious people who were also astronomers scientists etc.
DeleteAthiests who didn't need skydaddy for their morality committed the most horrendous atrocities in the history of humanity.
Show me an enlightened vigorous society ruled by athiests. The fact is that you cannot
You athiests in your arrogance presume that there are no chimpanzees amongst you but take a look at the academic faculties in the humanities today. They fling feaces in a rhetorical manner at their opponents all the time.
What we call pseudoscience today was hailed as reasonable by your fellow travelers. Sweeping it under the rug in order to make your side look pristine is not going to cut it here. Does this look like Salon.com or Huffingtonpost?
Please check your sources Hitler and Mussolini lapsed from Catholicism as did Stalin
And again constructing strawmen left and right with misreading my claim about Stalin
Atheism has no values because it AMORAL and amorality tends to immorality.
THe golden rule comes from the Bible. Every wonder why an atheist couldn't come up with it?
The issue with the "Red scare" was not the Czarist culture LOL but the infiltration of communist agents in American government, media and academia which was a FACT.
DeleteAmerican conservatives were within their rights to counter such a malign influence. The fact that American liberals played footsie with the Soviets is a shameful legacy which they attempting to sweep under the rug the same way you are desperately trying to dismiss the murderous regimes as not representative of atheism
The crimes of the czars do not excuse or diminish those of the Bolsheviks or Stalinists. Another cheap trick used by communist apologists. You keep saying you are not a communist or atheist but keep making excuses for both groups
DeleteThe same way some cranks claim not to be Vadakayil supporters but go ahead and defend each and everyone of his rubbish claims.
Furthermore Hindus who concentrate on internal dieties don't believe in skydaddies which is more to do with Biblical theology. I am defending religion in general , not anyone in particular. If you want to score some cheap points with these lame, snarky and snide comments which is the hallmark of doctrinaire leftists, then knock yourself out. I will just not take you seriously anymore- intellectually or morally.
Delete"I am not talking about religious scholarship itself but religious people who were also astronomers scientists etc."
DeleteAlmost everyone who lived during Newton's time was religious, so Newton being religious has nothing to do with him being a scientist. Same with all other scientists of his era. Note that among modern scientists, around 90% are atheists or agnostics.
"What we call pseudoscience today was hailed as reasonable by your fellow travelers."
Again, what is hailed as reasonable doesn't diminish the meaning and importance of reason. If a scamster sells fake Ayurvedic medicines, and it doesn't work does it mean that the system of Ayurveda is fake? This is how I am seeing your argument.
"And again constructing strawmen left and right with misreading my claim about Stalin"
Please explain what you were trying to prove regarding Stalin. I never claimed that religious people are all horrible. I said some religions have inspired people to commit atrocities, like the unreasonable tenets in communism. And no, I am not trying to defend communism. I started out with reason and religion and you expected me to defend communist regimes even though communism constitutes many unreasonable beliefs. For the last time, if a muddled mind is incapable of thinking straight and comes up with lazy ideas in the name of logic and reason, that doesn't detract from the value of reason.
"The golden rule comes from the Bible."
I acknowledged that in my post. I believe that religion is a package of ideas with good and bad. The moral values are good. Personally, I think unproven metaphysical claims are unnecessary and bad. That is what I meant by that skydaddy comment. It was rhetorical. I didn't mean it to be snarky or hurtful. If I caused any hurt because of that, I apologize.
Hitler was definitely religious throughout much of his formative political years. He said 'Providence' was guiding him through his actions. What he meant by that is open to interpretation. He later developed unfavourable views of Christianity, but still wanted some combination of religions to be the state policy. If someone had confessed to be an atheist/agnostic he would thrown his ass in prison for being a Bolshevik.
My point is that reason can be used to justify things that are quite immoral. Because reason by definition is AMORAL. Science of course is Amoral as well. That doesn't make it bad obviously just as reason doesn't become bad in of itself but reason has been literally been elevated to a Goddess since the French Revolution and there is a strong correlation to that the worst atrocities that occurred in its name.
DeleteAccording to all the evidence at the time, racism and slavery were considered quite reasonable. Of course there were those like Adam Smith and John Locke who thought the same things were quite unreasonable and immoral
As to why I single out communist atrocities and attribute then to reason. Well they are the ideological descendents of the French Revolution. All these individuals claim to be rationalists. The rationalists in the 20th century who WERENT socialists, communists or fascists were few and far between
Of course there are exceptions, there was Ayn Rand and today Reason magazine(Reason.com) who were capitalist,libertarian and for free speech and freedom in general. But the general trend in the 19th century was for reason worshippers to be totalitarians
Hitler found the anti Semitism is some of the gospels to be useful as a rallying point. At some point he anguished that if the Germans had converted to Islam, they would be better anti Semites as well as a more ruthless fighting force.
It shows he thought of religion as a tool to advance his interests.
Agnosticism/Atheism wasn't really considered anathema at the time as Germany was one of the most urbane sophisticated places on earth. But yes it was better not to be atheist as you were more likely to be considered a communist saboteur but you were just as likely to be German racial supremacist who were also often atheist.
Just to clarify. Obviously I am not against reason as a force in guiding human affairs as reasoning is the foundation of scientific thought.
But just scientific discoveries were used to create everything from torture devices to chemical warfare, just so seemingly reasonable ideas such as communism and fascism(quite a few intellectuals were in awe of these ideologies) can be used to justify the more horrendous and immoral dogmas
"Show me an enlightened vigorous society ruled by athiests. The fact is that you cannot"
DeleteToday's Scandinavian nations and Japan. Not to mention Julia Gillard, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, François Hollande the list goes on. These are just the famous ones that came to my mind.
"Show me an enlightened vigorous society ruled by athiests. The fact is that you cannot"
DeleteToday's Scandinavian nations and Japan. Not to mention Julia Gillard, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, François Hollande the list goes on. These are just the famous ones that came to my mind.
DeleteToday's Scandinavian nations and Japan. Not to mention Julia Gillard, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, François Hollande the list goes on. These are just the famous ones that came to my mind."
These are individuals with their personal beliefs.I am talking about where it is part and parcel of the state apparatus and ideology. I never said atheists are by default bad people or inept rulers but of atheism as a national doctrines. I shoudve been clearer in that regard
Gurion, Golda Meir, Rabin etc were Zionist (of the socialist sort sure) but Zionism itself has strong roots in the Bible which they respected though of course not as much as an Orthodox Rabbi
Julia Gillard and Francois Hollandes rule is a disaster. This is presumably more to do with their socialism than their atheism. The economy under those socialist Zionist leaders was terrible too.
Scandinavia is a large umbrella, some of whom include kings who are technically caretakers of the church(Norway) and still espouse bourgeoise morality and go to church every Sunday
The Japanese PM again is technically an underling of the Emperor who is the upholder of the Shinto Buddhist order.
"Because reason by definition is AMORAL."
DeleteI quite agree. If morals are taken as first principles, and reason is applied, what follows is a moral worldview. Reason cannot function without first principles, whether it is morals or the axioms in Euclid's geometry or physics. First principles are part and parcel of how reason works. If we dont have fuel to start a vehicle, we cant blame the vehicle's design for our predicament. Ok I am going on an overdrive with analogies.
"reason has been literally been elevated to a Goddess since the French Revolution"
That very act is an affront to reason. I hope I dont have to explain why.
"According to all the evidence at the time, racism and slavery were considered quite reasonable."
Racism and slavery were considered ACCEPTABLE. There is a huge difference.
"Of course there were those like Adam Smith and John Locke who thought the same things were quite unreasonable and immoral"
Smith and Locke were the lapchilds of the Enlightenment.
"The rationalists in the 20th century who WERENT socialists, communists or fascists were few and far between"
That is called Zeitgeist.
Ayn Rand literally wrote a book titled "The virtue of selfishness". According to her, the role played by common people in society is that of sponges feeding off the leaders. Her cult Objectivism has aged and dissipated in recent years. She is not one of my role models.
Antisemitism is not found by chance in the Gospels. The very fountainhead of antisemitism is the charge of deicide, officially accepted by the Church until 1962 after the Holocaust had happened.
"But just scientific discoveries were used to create everything from torture devices to chemical warfare"
This is why I gave that chimpanzee example. But I am done with analogies since clearly I am not getting my point across.
DeleteThis is why I gave that chimpanzee example. But I am done with analogies since clearly I am not getting my point across."
oh I got your point along with the 2001 Space Odyssey reference :) I am just not convinced for aforementioned reasons(heh)
"These are individuals with their personal beliefs.I am talking about where it is part and parcel of the state apparatus and ideology."
DeleteI dont want any religion or the lack of it to form part and parcel of the state apparatus. That is called separation of church and state, yet another gem of the Enlightenment.
The political Zionism espoused by these leaders was more pragmatic than religious.
The Scandinavian king and Japanese emperor are paper tigers. The last time a Japanese Emperor tried to uphold the Shinto Buddhist order, World War 2 happened. I am not saying they were motivated by religion, just that Shintoism was the bride and Japanese militarism was the groom. Another evidence that undermines the argument that atheism per se is responsible for the 20th century atrocities. The Emperor even renounce a small part of his Shinto beliefs after the war.
When I expressed concern about athiests ruling the roost it is not a plea for theocracy that I made but that individuals who come from traditional bourgeois backgrounds whose have a religious upbringing and have respect for religion whether they practice it or not
DeleteWhen I speak of political Zionism, it is the economic aspect especially which undermined Israels abilities while not to make war or engage in intelligence but to stand on its own feet as due to its dependence on U.S aid , it had to dance to tunes from Washington and until the 1950s the Soviet Union as well.
The socialist Zionists actually elbowed out even moderate religious folks from their ranks and the gap was inevitably filled by Jewish fundamentalists and extremists like Meir Kahane.
I would be hypocritical if I did not attribute the Japanese atrocities to Shinto Buddhism during WWII. NO less a figure than DT Suzuki gave his blessing to the Japanese military machine.
Even today Buddhists in Burma, SL and Thailand are not exactly shrinking violets when it comes to violence.
The Emperor renounced his Shinto beliefs because the Governor McArthur mistakenly thought it was Shintoism rather than Buddhism that compelled them to make war.
It was similar to deNazification of what transpired in Germany after WWII.
In Norway, England and Netherlands too I believe the Queen/King is the head of the church and hence techinically there is no separation of church and state. And these countries today are not known for religious bigotry.
DeleteIronically minorities are less persecuted in theocratic Iran than they are in the monarch of Saudi Arabia. But that also may have to do with Iranian vs Arab cultures.
As you see there are many factors to consider in these particular matters.
Respect for religion.. do you mean the just the values taught in most religions like honesty, sense of community etc or its fellow travelers like unproven, metaphysical beliefs that go against the grain of scientific evidence? I dont see why the latter deserves respect just because it occupies space in the world. Of course people who believe in them, like everyone else in the world deserve a decent life in which they can believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone. But the beliefs, the ideas per se dont deserve respect until they have gone through the agnipariksha of logic and evidence. Many would of course call this nitpicking.
DeleteShintoism combines the folk religion of Japan with classical Buddhism. For example, the Japanese belief that people who sacrifice life for the Emperor will go to the Yasukuni shrine (a great honour) can only be traced to the folk religion, not Buddhism.
"And these countries today are not known for religious bigotry."
Come on, we both know that the only reason these countries even have a monarch to be the head of anything is because people don't care either way. The monarchs are a glorified fancy-dress competition whose duty is to entertain people with the occasional wedding or coronation. How many people from outside even know that Norway and Netherlands have a reigning (haha) monarch?
Iran already had a progressive, if socialist government under Mossadegh whose rule was brought to an abrupt end by a CIA inspired coup. Similar situation in Afghanistan also before the Soviets invaded it. What we see in both cases is a bellicose world power wrecking a prosperous, beautiful nation.
We should have respect for religion because it created these values for the world. I never said that people SHOULD follow this or that religion. As a libertarian minded individual, people are free to do whatever they wish as long as it doesn't harm another.
DeletePeople are free to believe what they wish, whether it survives the ordeal of logic and evidence or not. There are lot of secular belief systems that fail such tests- the earth is warming due to human activity, raising taxes and trade wars lead to growth , men and women have the same abilities and interests are examples of what you see in universities
Buddhism for all its glories has a gaping hole which is how to deal with the life of this world. Christianity another world denying religion atleast had render unto Caesar what is Caesar. Buddha himself cheered for his Sakya federation when it declared war on the rival Licchavi.
Buddhist monks take a page out of this monk and tend to ally themselves with the most militaristic regimes out there. The Buddhist support for military junta is not the exception but the rule. So I wouldn't dismiss Buddhist role in Japanese militarism that quickly
Austria Habsburg empires and the Caliphate were pretty religious and minorities were treated better there than most other places. Indeed the secular Turkish republic carved out of the Caliphate slaughtered Armenians and Greeks which the Turkish caliphate didn't do atleast since the siege of Byzantium.
Iran was between the devil and the deep sea. On one hand Mossadegh had the point about the Anglo Iranian oil companies but then we have seen that socialist government is often a stepping stone to a full fledged Soviet takeover as seen in East Germany, Hungary and later Afghanistan.
In the end the CIA sponsored coup of Eisenhower was the right thing to do when you examine the alternatives.
The Shah was hardly an angel but his rule would've been far better than Mossadegh and the very same people who were ecstatic over Khomeini(including a Jewish homosexual intellectual Michel Focoaullt!!!) would be later be disillusioned by less than liberal style of ruling and yearn for the Shah!
This may sound mean spirited but seeing how Afghanistan was the base of pretty much every large invasion ,massacre, genocide(physical and cultural) of India , I feel absolutely nothing when their country goes to hell.
As long as they honor Babur ,Ghazni and Timur, they deserve this fate. I will not shed a single tear on their behalf.
Religion co-opted these values for its own survival in a civilized society. If you teach a kid that he must not steal and also that he must sacrifice a dove to get rid of the plague, he will teach both these beliefs to his children and so on.
Delete"People are free to believe what they wish, whether it survives the ordeal of logic and evidence or not."
This is exactly the point I have made. I have also added (not clearly) that others must have the freedom to criticize those beliefs.
Regarding global warming, I would disagree with you but why don't we leave that one for another day? ;)
The Armenian genocide was perpetrated by the caliphate, but the persecution of Greeks was perpetrated by the secular republic. Lets not mix that up.
"The Shah was hardly an angel but his rule would've been far better than Mossadegh" Really? Even with the difference of Mossad- trained SAVAK?
"I will not shed a single tear on their behalf."
This is why I make the difference between condemning people and condemning their beliefs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShree Aurobindo was a bitter critic of Western powers as well as Western civilization. But he opined that Indians should support British war effort because he rightly saw Hitler as a far greater threat.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks Iniyavel. It's also called Gudi Padva in Goa and Maharashtra.
DeleteThanks Iniyavel. I believe the Tamil equivalent is a nearly month later?
Delete@ Anu Come now you should know better than to observe such Rothschild concoted festivals :)
It is obviously a fraud cooked by Chitpavan Jews!!
(Ill spare you the scrolling and just go for Ctrl F)
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.ae/2014/09/navratri-festival-durga-puja-capt-ajit.html
"Gudi Padwa ( first day of Chaitra Navratri in March / April ) was unknown before the white invader came to India—and was celebrated first by Chitpavan Brahmins ."
Maybe it is easier to ask him what ISNT Rothschild these days?
"Gudi Padwa ( first day of Chaitra Navratri in March / April ) was unknown before the white invader came to India.." - YSV,Anu how much exactly did Indians know before Rothschild came and helped them out with a vast body of literature ?? Going by Capt's logic,it seems India was actually was a very ordinary and dull nation before R came and imparted his wisdom to Indians !
DeleteChitpavan Brahmins have also contributed a hell lot to the diversity of Indian culture and wisdom,it seems .So by this logic,Indian culture was not as glorious as we think it to be.Most of its ancient glory and wisdom was actually the handiwork of Rothschild and Chitpavans in the modern ages.
As Iniyavel says,Capt is nothing but a monument of self-contradiction.
In medieval Europe, when ever something went wrong and there was no easy explanation, blame was either put on Satan or Jews.
DeleteBigoted Christianity may have declined, but their habit of scapegoating is far from dead.
But these days, people would laugh if you say that Satan caused this or that. In a world dominated by business houses, people find it more acceptable to put all blame on Rothschild rather than on Satan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYSV, Iniyavel, JAM, I was aware of capt's Gudi padwa and Rothschild connection. :). Since during Gudi Padwa, the gudi (kalash) is hung upside down, the capt. terms it as inauspicious. See this picture. http://www.cinejosh.com/telugu-actor-photos/7455/7/0/gudi-padwa-festival-celebrations.html) Anyway, we don't follow that custom; only Goans and Maharashtrians do that.
DeleteCaptls logic is that kalash represents fullness .But at the highest level of Sat Kosha,fullness and emptiness(supervoid) mean exactly the same thing.Atleast this is the opinion of accomplished yogis.This idea of capt pretty much reveals his level of spiritual knowledge !
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIniyavel, if it was custom from his state, he would have found some way to defend it.
DeleteEven though Karva Chauth is a North Indian festival and never celebrated in the South or in Goa or Maharashtra, he gave so much importance to it just because it symbolizes a wife subservience to the husband. BTW, JAM is it celebrated in West Bengal?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnu Karva chauth was not celebrated in West Bengal traditionally.Now some bong women are taking it up ,being influenced by cultures of other North Indian states.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIniyavel, since you have read almost all his blogs, did you come across this one where he mentions that teenage girls still swoon over him. LOL It must be a post from 2013, I think. I don't remember the name of the post or else I would have shared the link. He said that when he was boarding a public transport bus, some college girls tried to grope him. I mean, come on, why would college girls be attracted to a 58 year old man when there are other young men around. And I'm surprised that capt. mentions such a thing at this age, when he is old enough to be a grandfather! YSV must have read that post; that's why he wrote "He thinks he's very handsome" in the deranged lunatic post. JAM, did you read that post?
DeleteI think Capt's obsession with KC has more to do with its patriarchial nature of enforcing austerity on women.What I have felt from my own dealings with women is that we males actually hamper the development of the complete potential in a woman when we become authoritative over them and try to enforce medieval social norms.However in general it's just plain impossible to subdue a general bong woman with social customs without her own free will,and hence such things like KC have very poor fanfollowing here in WB :) Now capt has got the fodder for writing his next post on Rothschild hand in WB society !
DeleteOfcourse I have least admiration for whores and modern seculars(from both genders),who think religion is bullshit.
If the the whole of Indian society had thought on the lines of Capt since the independence(I am not taking pre-1947 into consideration) , we wouldn't have got so many women leaders in all spheres of economic and other activities in modern India.Ofcourse Rothschild invisible hand theory aside !
I have even seen him mentioning dirtier things,leave aside college girls swooning over him :) I think these things can be expected from someone working in merchant navy throughout his life.Atleast that is the perception of society on sailors.
DeleteAnd his narcissism now makes me wonder whether he himself respects the principles of Sanatan Dharma or has read Gita at all.
Anu I feel that it is Capt who swoons over his own selfies :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIniyavel Bong women are not the best among Indians(and so are bong men).However I was discussing with Anu on the KC issue in WB.KC is not popular in WB because Bong women do not like to remain subdued under the pressure of rituals like KC.If they do it on their own free will,it's ok.If not,then hell will break loose if we try to force it on them :P
Delete"Even in February 2012, 5 students smuggled arms into the state, 4 from Bihar, 1 from West Bengal (sorry JAM)." - So what's my problem here? When in history had Bengal been a land full of pious saints and virtuous women?? And for that matter,even 4 biharis getting shot at for smuggling in your state don't add up to anything concrete.In my college life I had Bihari friends who were very studious and even religious to a large extent.I would any day choose such Bihari friends over some of my happy-go-lucky womanising bong mates.My point is that you should not generalise anything on the basis of stray news.But one real caveat on Biharis is that they work as labourers in large numbers with meagre wages in other North Indian states(probably south Indian states also) .Thus they reduce the general wage rate of industrial areas in many states.This becomes a source of resentment of indigenous population against Biharis.
Iniyavel I was almost forgetting to mention that YSV has penned his opinion on Bong women in his post " Why so much sexuality in Bengali fims" most probably in october 2014 .You can read that ,as I feel YSV is not a bigot when it comes to expressing opinions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Don't worry, Bengali films are only a miniature size when compared to Malayalam porn films. " - I am least bothered if Bongs ever start a flourishing porn industry .Such things always remain restricted to a small group of people and not the general masses.I will not judge a Mallu on the basis of productivitu of the Kerala porn factory :) However I feel like getting biased against Keralites after seeing the nature of Capt and some of his Keralite followers.Their attitudes and comments force me to agree with your observation " They are either too good to be true, or too intolerable.." :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Iniyavel, he wasn't talking about his younger years but about his recent experience. Regarding truthsayer, I think truthsayer was saying that sarcastically.
DeleteJAM, I have no problem if women pray or fast for the well-being of their loved ones. I only brought it up to show how capt. selectively slams certain festivals based on his fancy and preferences as Iniyavel said. I'm sorry if I hurt you, Sagar or others who read this blog.
And KC has become commercial these days with beauty parlours offering exclusive Karva Chauth makeup for the day or boutiques selling exorbitant Karva Chauth apparel or card companies marketing it as 'husband's day'. The amount of money spent during Karva chauth will probably shorten the husband's lifespan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnu even I have no probs as long as the woman herself is enjoying KC out of her own free will :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Iniyavel, the capt. is certainly losing his mind. Some commenter in IHM's blog rightly called him a grade one psycho. And his faithful followers are thinking that he's serving India. Serving India, by bashing all other ethnic groups, castes. philosophies and deities from other states? And can you believe this, some moron had even recommended 'Bharata Ratna' for him.
DeleteOk Anu I will be fair here :) The bharat Ratna has been doled away to completely undeserving persons in the past ! So why not capt now ? I believe the award has already lost it's charm and stature.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe 33 crore dieties is a mistranslation apparently. There are just 33 as it is a sacred number. And these 33 can be found in the Vedas and include Agni,Indra, Varuna etc though not Brahma,Vishnu, Shiva who came later
DeleteDifferent schools have different sets of gods to fill up 33.
330 million is highly unlikely because Vedic people were fanatic about naming gods and ascribing their attributes. And this was not done ( and also I guess couldn't be done) for 330 million.
Oh yes I forgot Brahma,Vishnu, Shiva in the other post. To my knowledge, both Vishnu and Shiva (as Rudra) are found in the Rig veda, but as minor deities. I am not sure about Brahma. The puranic traditions later expanded on them and made them major deities, and Indra lost his importance, although he did become the king of the Devas.
DeleteOh yes I forgot Brahma,Vishnu, Shiva in the other post. To my knowledge, both Vishnu and Shiva (as Rudra) are found in the Rig veda, but as minor deities. I am not sure about Brahma. The puranic traditions later expanded on them and made them major deities, and Indra lost his importance, although he did become the king of the Devas.
DeleteIndra still has importance as senses are considered relevant in all manners of worship be it pooja, havan or bali
DeleteWhen you burn incense, design an altar or decorate a mandapa you are honoring Indra and Prakriti with which Indra is associated
But Indra's role today is nothing compared to the protagonist of the Rig Veda.
DeleteBut Indra's role today is nothing compared to the protagonist of the Rig Veda.
Delete@All
DeleteAre the gods, kings, peoples and events mentioned in Vedas to be interpreted literally or metaphorically?
I take a literal interpretation, but I am given to understand that ysv and JAM take a metaphorical approach.
Delete@ Sagar M Kings are literal. Gods are metaphorical. Rivers can be terrestrial rivers or branches of the circulatory system.
DeleteSame for Mountains like Mt Meru which is not a terrestrial mountain but exists on a heavenly plane.
@ Sagar
DeleteIn one book on Kundalini I had read that the vajra of Indra didn't refer to the real thunder .When your Ojas Shakti starts rising,you will see huge flashes of light in your meditation which comes from the higher chakras.These flashes are actually an indication to your consciousness that newer layers remain to be unfolded in the upper chakras.These flashes are similar to the thunder.Indra's vajra refers to these.
In all probability gods in rigveda were not real entities.When Rig Veda worships agni it probably worships the inherent consciousness of the energy in fire.Heat is the primordial form of energy with which creation started.So it might also refer to the entropy that is at the core of the sustainance of creation.Anyway this last interpretation of entropy being associated with Agni worship is my own concoction. I will not defend it with authority :) It comes from my belief that rig vedic yogis had understood nature and creation better than us.
Ysv, JAM, Prem Chand, thanks for your views.
DeleteYSV, I had always wondered how Vedas became our sacred books while it has hardly any reference to Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti and Ganesha. But once literalist interpretation is dumped in favor of a metaphorical interpretation, the problem is solved.
JAM, your interpretation of entropy being associated with fire worship is interesting. I have read somewhere that Vedic fire worship originated because Vedic folk originated in cold area -- But unfortunately, we dont have any evidence to prove it. If guess your theory makes more sense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Sagar M
DeleteThanks for showing interest in the musings of a lazy mind ;) Anyway I believe that when Vedic seers worshipped Agni ,they didn't just worship the flames of fire. They had probably shown their gratitude to the principle of heat of creation,which is the most primordial form of energy.And fire is the closest representative of heat energy that is directly available to us.It is entropy arising from heat that is at the root of the diversity of universe.Actually there's a metaphysical hypothesis which argues that God created entropy and entropy is sustaining universe.The concept of "heat death" of the universe also comes from hypothetical maximum entropy state in the future.
@Anu I don't remember which post which contained the claim about teenage girls swooning over him LOL but he made other claims about being attractive and requested women not to get over excited when posted his sexy selfies. No he was not being tongue in cheek but quite sincere.
ReplyDeleteHe spoke of his escapades with women on foreign shores and how attractive he was to firangi women. Little did he realize that these women could simply be prostitutes as he was a sailor going about the town. Or maybe he did at one point and left that detail out.
There is a type of woman who is attracted to a man in uniform no matter what, so he may have had his fair share of those women. Mind you such women are not neccesarily very attractive.
He also spoke about his wife's yearning for rough sex which he delivered and hinted that this was the basis for the success of his marriage along with the demands for hot tea be delivered right after he wakes up within4 minutes courtesy of Karva Chauth culture
I frankIy these claims are nonsense. I doubt his wife reads his blog at all and maybe quite unaware of the nonsense he posts
In Telugu we have a saying about hen pecked men "Veedhilo puli intilo pilli" which means "A Tiger in the streets, a kitten in the household".
I know quite a few medium to high ranking military men (mostly Indian and American) who are decorated war heroes who fit this description. I don't think our blowhard captain is any exception.
He is most likely venting his frustration as being treated like neutered cat at home post retirement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKarva Chauth I believe is followed mostly by Punjabis ,Gujaratis and Rajasthanis.
ReplyDeleteAnd since these communities are prevalent in Bollywood they portray this custom in movies and it got popularized that way.
@SMME JAM
ReplyDeleteYes it is pretty hard to blame Rothschild for mallu porno as Kerala was out of the Indian mainstream. Notice their preference for football to cricket for instance
I remember as a young boy waiting to great anticipation a mallu porn which my friend smuggled from his fathers cabinet LOL. Boy was I disappointed, everyone was clothed though scantily and the sex scenese were comical. It involved the guy rubbing his nose on the womans neck for 5 minutes haha
And for gods sake they showed a woman taking a shower with her towel on. Hahaha I don't think they understood a point of a shower scene
Of course I came across a few which were much more explicit and contained actual nudity but then I progressed to western porn like the Rothschild agent that I am :) Anyway as an aside I don't watch anymore as such because I believe it makes the real thing seem disappointing in comparision and would counsel the young to stay away(as if they would listen LOL). In the same vein, I would advise young women to stay away from romance novels as that the same corrosive and anti social effect on females that porn does on males.
" I believe it makes the real thing seem disappointing in comparision and would counsel the young to stay away.. " - LOL YSV you might not believe but I haven't watched a single porn throughout my college life :) I don't know why but other people enjoying sex doesn't appeal to me at all.But as you said porn addiction brings many psychological(and sexual :P ) in the future.Infact one of my friends had forcefully withdrawn himself from porns completely after he understood that it was hampering his studies.Now he was the chief supplier of European porn in our college :) So you can guess his power of celibacy :P
DeleteYSV btw what type of porns does Rothschild enjoy at present :) ? I bet it is Mallu ,or else he wouldn't have so hard an interest in reviving the mallu porn industry :P
Forgot to mention yes most of the procurers of this porn were usually Punjabis for whatever reason LOL
ReplyDeleteThis is not a random phenomenon and actually has a logical reason.The green revolution had enhanced the incomes of Punjabi families by leaps and bounds.As a spin-off,even their wards started getting handsome money from the parents :) This led to the increased buying of high-cost porn comic books throughout Punjab.Bhrindanwale had wholeheartedly tried to address this social degradation of Punjabis (particularly Sikhs) by trying to infuse religious sentiments in them.
DeleteProlonged alien rule in Punjab had corrupted moral character of Punjabi people. Sikhism tried to revive lost virtues but the success was limited and temporary.
DeleteIrrespective of my differences of opinion with SMME, Prem Chand and occasionally JAM,Sagar M and Anu. I would like thank all for a series of stimulating discussions.
ReplyDeleteI am pleased that the blog has gone in this somewhat cerebral direction which attracts interesting ideas of all sorts by these knowledgable posters. Forgive me I forgot any others. But these are the most prolific.
Even I am glad to see this.Take my words,your blog will not be a lone wolf in one corner of the net.You will get many more serious readers in the future :) However the major credit for this lies on you for writing high quality literary articles with good amount of knowledge.
Delete