it wasn't. low-caste hindus were quite into the idea of india. the defeat of india happened because we were at a civilizational low. after all civilizations go through cycles. now we are on an upswing.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ven <ahvenkitesh@gmail.com>
Date: May 18, 2008 1:46 PM
Subject: Was caste a decisive factor in India's defeat?
To:
Was caste a decisive factor in India's defeat?
http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/
By M.S.N. Menon, Organiser
By M.S.N. Menon, Organiser
No, I do not think so, Why? Because the caste system was not so oppressive as is being made out. Let us see what A.L. Basham has to say on the matter.
He says: "In no other part of the world were the relations of man and man and of a man and the state as fair and humane" as in India. (The wonder that was India). He was perhaps comparing the lot of the Scheduled Castes in India with the lot of the slaves in Greece and Rome.
It is, therefore, wrong to say that the caste system was responsible for the defeat of the Hindus at the hands of the Muslim invaders.
He says: "In no other part of the world were the relations of man and man and of a man and the state as fair and humane" as in India. (The wonder that was India). He was perhaps comparing the lot of the Scheduled Castes in India with the lot of the slaves in Greece and Rome.
It is, therefore, wrong to say that the caste system was responsible for the defeat of the Hindus at the hands of the Muslim invaders.
There is no evidence that the Scheduled Castes were ready to join hands with the invaders against their so-called "tormentors".
It is also wrong to say that Vaishyas and Shudras did not take part in battles. They did.
It is also wrong to say that Vaishyas and Shudras did not take part in battles. They did.
Vastupala, the great warrior under the Chalukya king Lavanaprasada, declares with great pride: "It is a delusion to think that the Kshatriyas alone can fight and not vaniks (merchants). Did not Ambada, a vanik kill Mallikarjuna, the warrior, in battle? I, a vanik, am as well known in the shops as in the battlefield." (Art of War in Ancient India by Prof. P.C. Chakravarty)
The Kashmiri and Hoyasala (Mysore) kings recruited Shudras for their armies. Shudras could attain imperial positions under the Rajput rulers. The ruler of Sind during the visit of Juan Chwang, the Chinese pilgrim, was a Shudra. The Nandas were Shudras.
And in order to protect Hinduism and the Hindu society, Shankara created ten Saiva acetic orders, made up largely of Shudra recruits. He also freed these para-military forces from the caste system.
What can we infer from all these? We can infer that the Vaishyas and Shudras had not accepted the caste system, that they were as good fighters as the Kshatriyas, that the kings had no objection to the recruitment of Shudras as soldiers, that Shankara did not believe in the caste system, that the orders he created had no caste.
Not only these. The lower orders of Hindu society could hold high positions in the state. Thus, Kumarapala, the Chalukya king, appointed Sajjana as governor of Chittor, He was a potter. It is such recognition of their worth that kept the Shudras within the Hindu fold.
The Kashmiri and Hoyasala (Mysore) kings recruited Shudras for their armies. Shudras could attain imperial positions under the Rajput rulers. The ruler of Sind during the visit of Juan Chwang, the Chinese pilgrim, was a Shudra. The Nandas were Shudras.
And in order to protect Hinduism and the Hindu society, Shankara created ten Saiva acetic orders, made up largely of Shudra recruits. He also freed these para-military forces from the caste system.
What can we infer from all these? We can infer that the Vaishyas and Shudras had not accepted the caste system, that they were as good fighters as the Kshatriyas, that the kings had no objection to the recruitment of Shudras as soldiers, that Shankara did not believe in the caste system, that the orders he created had no caste.
Not only these. The lower orders of Hindu society could hold high positions in the state. Thus, Kumarapala, the Chalukya king, appointed Sajjana as governor of Chittor, He was a potter. It is such recognition of their worth that kept the Shudras within the Hindu fold.
Jawaharlal Nehru said that the caste system was flexible before the Muslim advent, which is why it was bearable.
There is an impression that the caste system was deeply entrenched all over India. Not true. It was prevalent only in some parts of the country. Thus, it had no deep roots in the South, in Sind, Magadha and Anga. In Kerala, the entire army was made up of the so-called Shudras. The Himalayan territory was mlecha region.
The ultimate damage of the caste system, says Nehru, was what it did to the self -respect of the lower orders of Hindu society. It degraded a mass of human beings and gave them no opportunity to get out of their predicament. This feeling of degradation might have warped their outlook and their willingness to fight for their country. But we can only speculate on these matters.
It is time to ask the question: did caste cause our defeat? I believe caste was only a marginal factor. It was not for want of brave men that the Hindus got defeated. It was not even because the Muslims were superior.
There is an impression that the caste system was deeply entrenched all over India. Not true. It was prevalent only in some parts of the country. Thus, it had no deep roots in the South, in Sind, Magadha and Anga. In Kerala, the entire army was made up of the so-called Shudras. The Himalayan territory was mlecha region.
The ultimate damage of the caste system, says Nehru, was what it did to the self -respect of the lower orders of Hindu society. It degraded a mass of human beings and gave them no opportunity to get out of their predicament. This feeling of degradation might have warped their outlook and their willingness to fight for their country. But we can only speculate on these matters.
It is time to ask the question: did caste cause our defeat? I believe caste was only a marginal factor. It was not for want of brave men that the Hindus got defeated. It was not even because the Muslims were superior.
It was because, for the first time, the Hindus, a highly civilised people were facing a barbarous enemy who had no rules of war and were prepared to take to unheard of brutalities.
Thus, we have Haajaj, the governor of Iraq, exhorting bin Qasim to follow the injunction of Allah in the Quran (47.4) that is to strike off the head of any infidel. No wonder, when Debal, capital of Sind, fell to bin Qasim, he ordered the massacre of the entire population. The killing went on for three full days. And the loot went on for even longer.
Serge Trifkovic writes (The Sword of the Prophet): "The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are without parallel in history."
Thus, we have Haajaj, the governor of Iraq, exhorting bin Qasim to follow the injunction of Allah in the Quran (47.4) that is to strike off the head of any infidel. No wonder, when Debal, capital of Sind, fell to bin Qasim, he ordered the massacre of the entire population. The killing went on for three full days. And the loot went on for even longer.
Serge Trifkovic writes (The Sword of the Prophet): "The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are without parallel in history."
This is confirmed by Ziyauddin Burani, a contemporary of Khusrau. He says that "wars against Hindus were not ordinary wars. They were massacres of extermination." There are many such instances.
Amir Khusrau writes: Had not the Shariah granted exemption from death by payment of the poll tax (Jaziya), "the very name of Hind, root and brach, would have been extinguished."
And Al-Biruni himself writes that the invasions of Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country. "The Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions." The invaders singled out the Rajputs and their families for massacre. This must have demoralised the Rajputs.
Remember, dear Reader, during the Second World War, the Japanese, surrendered to the Allies, although they were far more superior to the American men. Why did they do it? Because the ruthless Americans were ready to exterminate the Japanese.
The Hindus were in a similar plight. They were face to face with an enemy who observed no rules of war, who were determined to exterminate the Hindus. Resistance would have brought extermination.
I think it was this dilemma which forced the collapse of the Hindu resistance. Not because of caste factors. (But I am not making any "final statement") http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=236&page=12
Amir Khusrau writes: Had not the Shariah granted exemption from death by payment of the poll tax (Jaziya), "the very name of Hind, root and brach, would have been extinguished."
And Al-Biruni himself writes that the invasions of Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country. "The Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions." The invaders singled out the Rajputs and their families for massacre. This must have demoralised the Rajputs.
Remember, dear Reader, during the Second World War, the Japanese, surrendered to the Allies, although they were far more superior to the American men. Why did they do it? Because the ruthless Americans were ready to exterminate the Japanese.
The Hindus were in a similar plight. They were face to face with an enemy who observed no rules of war, who were determined to exterminate the Hindus. Resistance would have brought extermination.
I think it was this dilemma which forced the collapse of the Hindu resistance. Not because of caste factors. (But I am not making any "final statement") http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=236&page=12
Income of Brahmins @
http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/02/stories/2008050251711100.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/02/stories/2008050251711100.htm
Brahmins & Dalits @ http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/may/23franc.htm
OBC's crutches @ http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/09guest.htm
Caste and Merit @ http://ia.rediff.com/money/2006/apr/12ram.htm
Creating Dalits among Dalits @
http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper331.html
http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper331.html
British Caste System @ http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/the-british-caste-system-vs-the-indian/
Interview of Evangelist @
http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/interview-of-anevangelist/
http://indiasecular.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/interview-of-anevangelist/
Dalit Christians @ http://www.hvk.org/articles/0197/0023.html
Caste & Non-Hindus @ http://www.hindunet.org/home/social_contemporary_issues/hinduwoman/casteism.html
5 comments:
Islam seems to be different. It is a destructive force, a shadowy power collecting organization in name of religion. Even in 1990s they didn't feel offended to sponsor terrorism. Their religion supports killing people in Kashmir and Pakisthan...they don't call it terrorism, and it doesn't seem to be aberration of a time.
How to compete with these people? The defeat would have been unlike anything that hindus would be facing from each other...a defeat from Islam would have meant whole lot of slaughter...These were barbarians.
Caste fables as race is a recent phenomena by rather equal people, who are just a little superior because of the phony degrees from colonial subjects. They hide the real criminals.
There is a lot of pretension there too...
I think the hindus were different people, who could convince the illiterate population of absurd numbers like billions of years for the universe...absurd concepts of relative time.
It should be true that the Shudras were part of military in most places...They were allowed to keep weapon .
But articles like this one makes mistakes :-The Nandas were Shudras. - What is the purpose here ? Why Nandas are Shudras ? Is it because they are racially Shudras ? Are not these conclusions of idiotic history analysis ?
Simillarly what does it means- We can infer that the Vaishyas and Shudras had not accepted the caste system, that they were as good fighters as the Kshatriyas By saying Vaishya one means a caste for general use...It should be sufficient to say Vaishyas are good fighters...and there should be millions of examples if history has any sense.
Simillarly this line seems to be political - And in order to protect Hinduism and the Hindu society, Shankara created ten Saiva acetic orders, made up largely of Shudra recruits. He also freed these para-military forces from the caste system.
And Neheru ....
The ultimate damage of the caste system, says Nehru, was what it did to the self -respect of the lower orders of Hindu society. It degraded a mass of human beings and gave them no opportunity to get out of their predicament. This feeling of degradation might have warped their outlook and their willingness to fight for their country. But we can only speculate on these matters.
But the Neheruvians are worst culprits... Neheruvian remained silent when millions of hindus were slaughtered in neighboring countries....What took away their willingness to fight ? We need to speculate on these matters too...
I didn't read the whole post or the comments, but I did read a statement that the Hindus were defeated because of barbarous tactics by the Muslims. While I would not deny that the Muslims used such tactics, isn't there another reason that should be mentioned?
That Hindus did not stand together?
Hector: When you say "Hindus" did not stand together, the accusation is essentially about the hindus didn't form a national socialist society. The reason for that would be separate.
Why would you think Hindus didn't stand together ? The kingdoms some times made alley, but there has never been an instance of standing together for 5 centuries of loot. The Indian society was supposed to be defended by the kings, and in many instances kings did last until british arrival. When a Brahmin fought, he fought as an agent of the king...there is no identity politics.
If you read some of the old descriptions, very precise reason would be there for some of the defeats...But these days are worst... an idiot like Sachhar forces UGC to get muslims appointed to BHU...hindus have not been allowed to own institutes.
This whole situation was anathema to national socialists, whose survival depends on identity and class politics. Here also hindus of all castes stood together for a long time, except major exceptions like the Dravidian fanatics.
Hector Diego thats partly true but note that Muslims fought among themselves too, there were tons of intercine struggles among them.
In the end the Hindus won the war politically and militarily but did not win religiously, let me make it clear what I mean, before the British gained power, the supreme power in India were the Hindu Marathas who had the Mughal emperor as their puppet, in Panjab (later expanded to afghanistan under Ranjit Singh) the Sikhs ruled, Rajasthan was under various Rajput rulers and Jats ruled Bharatpur, also don't forget that places like Assam and Nepal never had Muslim rule.
So 3 areas were left to Muslims, Bengal, Nizams kingdom, Tipu Sultan. Of these the Nizam paid tribute to the Marathas regularly, Bengal was soon to be liberated by Marathas and later annexed by the British, Tippu the Muslim fanatic was finished off by a combined alliance of Marathas+British+Nizam.
So politically Hindus were in power after militarily crushing Muslims.
Going by various estimates, the Muslim % in Undivided India at the start of 1800s was 15%, so 85% of India was Hindu (sikhs and xtians were negligible), today 35-40% of the same territory is Muslim, you may wonder why?
It's simple, Muslims usually breed more and with each successive generation the world is being islamisized.
Would we have inherited this problem today if Hindus did not follow stupid ideas like chivalrous war, no reconversion etc, most probably no. If after crushing the Mughals the Marathas told all the Muslims that either have to reconvert back or leave India or face death like the Christians did in Spain there would be no Islamic problem today, fortunately for the Muslims and unfortunately for the Hindus, foolish Hindu ideas of pollution through reconversion, all religions being essentially good etc have become ingrained in their minds, and that is the reason for the present state of affairs.
Post a Comment