Pillars of Truth

A Reply to Jean Dreze's ramblings on BJP Manifesto on Times of India

2009-04-28T02:21:00.000-07:00

Summary:

Jean Dreze has made several false and misleading statements in the article

‘Interpretation of Dreams’. Almost all her claims were wrong except the one

regarding Macaulay’s statement. The following essay is an answer to Jean Dreze

on the various misstatements made by her.

Essay:

The author has made several false as well as misleading statements in the article.

The author seems to think that ‘occasional famines’ translates into ‘economically

poor nation with hunger being common’. This is a very misleading statement. All we

need to do is to go through Fa-Hien’s as well as other such travelogues to know

that India was definitely a very rich nation. Just because there were a few famines

in a century, a nation will not be a poor nation. After all, famines were ‘exceptions’

and the normal condition was that there were bountiful crops and hunger cases

were very rare. Mahabharata and other Itihasa-Puranas do state about occasional

famines which are few and far in between. But they also categorically state that the

nation was otherwise very rich and state that people lived without the fear of hunger

and chronic poverty. The author as well as Romila Thapar seems to suffer from

selective blindness in that only famine-related passages appear visible to them. If

you consider a text to know about the economic situation in India, you must

consider the text completely but unfortunately, today’s ‘historians’ do not seem to

think so. The fact is that India was a wealthy nation and it is substantiated by both

the Indian and foreign sources.

The author seems to disbelieve the claim that plastic surgery was practiced in India

before 400 CE. I would advise Dreze as well as the readers to go through Sushruta

Samhita. Rhinoplasty was performed in India even in the 18th century when the art

was dying out. In fact, Joseph Carpue used the Indian rhinoplasty method to

perform the first rhinoplastic surgery in Britain in the early 19th century. The method

came to be known as “Carpue’s operation” (sic) in the western world.

Next, Dreze does not seem to give much importance to the testimonies of

Megasthenes. That is perfectly justified. But one cannot simply wish away his work.

After all, the very foundation of Indian historical eras is based on the identification of

Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya. It is true that Megasthenes

wrote many fanciful stories but his testimonies in those cases have to be accepted

where we have local evidences pointing towards the same. If such rigorous

methods as prescribed by Dreze are applied to ancient ‘history’ texts, most

contemporary records prior to 1st century BCE have to be completely ignored which

is both impossible as well as foolish to do. Also, Dreze’s statement that Joshi has

not cited local sources makes me laugh. It is a case of ‘die if you do and die if you

don’t’. When local sources are cited, these ‘historians’ pooh-pooh the evidence.

When foreign/neutral sources are cited, they ask for local evidence. BJP’s

manifesto is not a paper on history. It is illogical to expect Joshi to cite each and

every source. In fact, his insistence on neutral sources seems to be a conscious

effort to overcome unnecessary scepticism but even then, people like Dreze

continue to make careless statements.

Similarly, Dreze does not seem to know about the state of mathematics in medieval

India which substantiates the claim that India was far advanced in knowledge due

to Bharatiya tradition. The Kerala school of Mathematics was far advanced than its

contemporary Europe. Many mathematical ‘discoveries’ of the 17th century Europe

were already known in India before the 16th century. This school came to an end

due to the Portuguese, Dutch and Islamic invasions of the 16th, 17th and 18th

centuries. One can see that the discoveries seem to stop with the 16th century

when peace in Hindu Kerala was disturbed by external forces. The book by Dr

Gopalakrishnan of IISH, ‘We Claim These Are Indian Discoveries’, lists the sources

for various such mathematical discoveries made in Kerala. Prof. Dreze will do well

to look at this book once as well as similar books published by IISH. The book

makes us wonder whether the European discoveries were not a case of

‘unacknowledged’ borrowings. After all, there was a huge European presence in the

subcontinent and the chances appear to be very large. Therefore, the claim made

about Indian knowledge is not completely wrong. The author seems to have been

carried away in a European mindset that the Indian nation was neither rich nor very

intelligent during the pre-British era. The mistake of the author in adopting this

stance is even more clearly proved in the statement about Indian literacy rate.

The author seems to think that Mahatma Gandhi was wrong in stating that India

became more illiterate under the British rule. I would ask the author as well as the

readers to read the book ‘The Beautiful Tree’ written by Sri Dharampal. Dharampal

has cited the British archives to conclusively prove that every village had a school

in the Madras as well as Bengal provinces and that India’s literacy rate was higher

than that of England during the early 19th century. What is more important is that he

has shown that these schools were open to all castes and students from every

community including the lowest castes who were allowed to learn at these places.

Jean Dreze has made a huge mistake by simply parroting European fantasies

rather than the ground realities. The truth is that in the first half of 19th century, India

was stripped of her village schools by the British administration and hence, it

contributed to an increase in illiteracy. In fact, the increase in the literacy gap

between the higher and lower castes was due to this British vandalism. The author

will do well to read the sources before stating ‘opinions’.

Finally, Prof. Dreze has got one issue right. Macaulay did not make any such

statement in the British Parliament. Sri Joshi seems to have been carried away by

its ubiquitous presence on the Internet. But this does not excuse Joshi’s act of

quoting this fabrication. Any person should be careful about the sources and verify

them before quoting them. Joshi has definitely made an error in this case. But then,

Prof. Dreze in haste to prove Joshi wrong seems to have forgotten the fact that it is

absolutely necessary to check the sources before stating ‘opinions’. Dreze has

made the same mistake as that of Joshi and that too, in a far huge manner.

I wonder whether we will ever get any ‘real historian’ outside these Habibs,

Thapars, Drezes etc. We need a historian who does not impose his/her beliefs on

the sources/evidences but actually cite the evidences and go with the inherent logic

conveyed by the same.

Ravilochanan G

(A student of MBA from Institute of Management, Nirma University, Ahmedabad)

21, Rupal Park Society, ESI Hospital Road, Near Gothri Road, Vadodara.

Jiziya imposed on Sikhs by Pakistani Taliban

2009-04-18T03:27:00.001-07:00

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=5f3598b0-86cc-47cc-845e-c4f0d2dfa283&Headline=Sikhs+in+Pakistan+pay+Rs+20+mn+to+Taliban

Pakistan’s Sikh community in Orakzai Agency has been forced to pay Rs. 20 millions as Jiziya (religious poll tax on non-Muslims) by the Pakistani Taliban. They have been threatened that, unless they pay Jiziya, their lives and property will be forfeit and no security shall be provided to them.

The Sikh community in Pakistan has faced the reality of an ‘Islamic’ nation. While it is true that many Islamic nations have anti-minority policies, this is the first time that Jiziya has been imposed in a country claiming to be a democratic nation. The current Government of Pakistan has not raised its voice against this extremism which shows that they are partners in the crime or they simply do not care about the non-Muslims.

This episode is a warning bell to the entire world. If we do not heed to it, we may be forced to see a rule similar to that of Aurangzeb where jiziya on non-Muslims and destruction of temples will be the rule of the land.

May India wake up to this reality and protect herself so that such things do not occur in India’s Muslim majority areas. After all, similar incidents are already taking place in India.

There is a municipality in Tamil Nadu called Melvishaaram and it is a Muslim majority locality. The municipality has a division called Raasathipuram which is populated by the Hindus. This ‘Hindu area’ is not provided with basic amenities like road, water etc by the municipality. The Muslims have openly stated that those people should convert to Islam if they wish to have access to basic amenities. A legal case has been filed by the Hindus of the area to demand the partition of the municipality so that the Hindu area becomes a separate Panchayat unit. Political parties in Tamil Nadu do not even speak about this issue for the ‘fear’ of losing ‘minority votes’.

Such situations will occur again and again until we, Hindus, wake up to the reality and stop such atrocious activities. We are being victimised in our own nation. When will we wake up?

May Goddess Bharati lead us to a peaceful future where we may live in pride and without fear.

Jiziya imposed on Sikhs by Pakistani Taliban

2009-04-18T03:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=5f3598b0-86cc-47cc-845e-c4f0d2dfa283&Headline=Sikhs+in+Pakistan+pay+Rs+20+mn+to+Taliban

This is exactly what Islam is. I had thought that such practices have been destroyed by the advent of the 21st century. Unfortunately, these Islamic mullahs seem to have never come out of the medieval ages. Reforms in religion are very important. Religion must be moulded to suit the society’s needs. The Muslim leaders do not believe so and whenever any one of them becomes ‘progressive’, the radicals bring him/her down and re-impose the Shariat.
The Sikh community in Pakistan has faced the reality of an ‘Islamic’ nation. While it is true that many Islamic nations have anti-minority policies, this is the first time that Jiziya has been imposed in a country claiming to be a democratic nation. The current Government of Pakistan has not raised its voice against this extremism which shows that they are partners in the crime or they simply do not care about the non-Muslims.

May India wake up to this reality and protect herself so that such things do not occur in India’s Muslim majority areas. After all, similar incidents are already taking place in India.

Such situations will occur again and again until we, Hindus, wake up to the reality and stop such atrocious activities. We are being victimised in our own nation. When will we wake up?
May Goddess Bharati lead us to a peaceful future where we may live in pride and without fear.

Islamic Intolerance in India - Another Example

2009-03-15T13:41:00.000-07:00

http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090314/808/tnl-procession-sparks-communal-violence.html

A Religious procession sparks communal violence in Nanded, Maharashtra.

A Hindu religious procession consisting of a deity and the devotees was attacked by the Muslims because it passed by a street where a mosque stood. Stones were pelted at the procession from inside the mosque. Note that the procession occurred on the street and that no one entered the mosque. The Muslims seem to believe that wherever a mosque stands, the entire street belongs to them. Can we apply the same rule to Hindu temples? Then almost no Muslim procession can ever occur in most streets of India. Why should we have this double standard?

The most deplorable issue in this case is that the mosque is only about 100 metres from the police station. They had no fear of police stopping them or taking stern action against them. This is because of the vote-bank politics in this country. Somehow, when Muslims indulges in communal violence and hurts or kills Hindus, the ‘secular’ parties do not view it as acts of ‘vulgar communalism’ or ‘intolerant Islam’. They seem to become blind towards these issues. Even when more than 100 people (mostly Hindus and Christians) were killed and thousands were driven out of their homes by the Muslim mobs in Assam, no one seemed to care about it. Even media does not give coverage to such inhuman brutalities.

Why do we see this effort to ‘whitewash’ all the acts of Islamic intolerance in this country? It is time to stop this annoying drama and face the truth. Let us make it clear that such intolerance does not have a place in our nation. This is not Pakistan. This is secular India with a Hindu character.

Save our Wildlife; Don't kill them

2009-03-10T12:56:00.000-07:00

http://dailypioneer.com/161792/Jalpaiguri-villagers-lynch-leopard.html

- - Jalpaiguri villagers lynch leopard (The Pioneer, 10 March 2009)

In another unfortunate incident, the villagers of Jalpaiguri (in West Bengal) have clubbed and lynched in a brutal manner because they saw that as a ‘threat’. Meanwhile, the Meghalaya forest officials are ‘hunting’ for an elephant which went ‘berserk’ and killed four people. The wildlife of India is in a great danger of extinction. The way we are killing our endangered species, we might make all these animals extinct in a decade or so. The ‘justification’ given by the villagers and the government officials (who sometimes order the killing of ‘dangerous animals in human areas’) is that these wild animals enter ‘human inhabited areas’ and as such, these ‘dangers’ have to be executed.

But then aren’t we, humans, trespassing and occupying the areas inhabited by our brothers and sisters (wild animals) of forests? Shall we say that those species, which are threatened by our occupation, have the right to kill (or eliminate) us – ‘dangers to their environment and living conditions’? Shrinking forest cover and deforestation are the major reasons for these occasional ‘wild’ trespassers. Instead of taking measures to stop such things, the government is focussing on even more destroying the ‘natural wealth’ of the nation.

The situation in India right now is explained by the line ‘Throwing the baby out with the bath water’. Let the government and the people get their heads out of the sand and do something constructive to protect the wildlife. Else, I am afraid that our grandchildren will be shown only pictures and videos of the majestic lifestyle of tigers, leopards etc.

‘Optimist Obama’ takes steps towards absolute destruction

2009-03-08T07:13:00.000-07:00

Obama has decided to reach out to the ‘moderate’ elements of Taliban and ask them to ‘reconcile’ with the Afghan government. Can anything be more dangerous and ‘recklessly optimistic’ (that it borders on utter foolishness) than this?

Taliban calls for a ‘global Islamic empire’ in the 21^st century. What does he Obama mean by ‘moderate Taliban’? Does he mean that if some ‘Mujahedeen’ are ready to remain satisfied with an ‘Islamic Asian Empire’, they can be called ‘moderates’? The timing of this call is also an invitation for utter disaster. Just now, Taliban has deepened its claws into Pakistan. Swat Valley has come under its control. The government and the army have capitulated to the Taliban extremists in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) in Pakistan. Obama’s call will be seen as a sign of ‘weakened’ USA. This is certainly not desirable for the humanity as it is another nail in the coffin of ‘freedom of thought and expression’ in the Afghan land. The Taliban extremists will be emboldened to increase their efforts for ‘world domination’ as they will see this capitulation of USA as a ‘gift of Allah’ for the Mujahedeen.

The Democrats of USA seem to have lost their brains regarding how to deal with Islamic extremism. Leaving behind half-baked cakes (unsolved problems) will not serve anyone’s purpose. In fact, such decisions will come to bite US’ arse in future. The threat of Taliban is more acute than that of even the erstwhile Nazi Germany. Nazism was restricted to Germany alone. Taliban is using conservative Islam as its ideological weapon. Muslims form about one-fifth of the world population. As such, if Taliban succeeds, we will be forced to deal with a billion ‘extremists’ (which is a very huge number compared to a few million Nazis). The problem with the politicians of both the West and the East is that they are unwilling to see the reality. They are afraid to accept the imminent huge danger. They seem to think that if they close their eyes to the problem, it will go away. Unfortunately, such childish wishes do not make any difference in this world.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, has welcomed Obama’s call. Karzai is currently facing a huge problem from the popularity of the Taliban. He thinks that if the ‘moderates’ are brought to the side of the Afghan government; he will be able to exercise considerably more authority in the nation. But it seems that he has not considered the effect of having these ‘moderates’ working in the government. Afghanistan will see another Swat Valley sort of government. Is that what Karzai wants? I hope he has not stooped to such an extent that he will give up his ideals for the sake of power.

Any attempt for dialogue with the Islamic extremists will be seen as a sign of ‘enemy’s capitulation/weakness’ by the Jihadists. Obama will do well not to take this extremely ridiculous step in the name of ‘peace’. If goes through with this step, he will become nothing but a modern Chamberlain.

Reference:

Karzai welcomes Obama call to reach out to the Taliban - The Associated Press

url:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21MfoYhjZJQD96PRI0O1

Bring Saudis to the 21st Century - Abuse of women is NOT pious

2009-03-07T06:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece

February 7, 2008

- Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest mother for sitting with a man

(from 'The Times')

A lady has been arrested, strip searched and abused by the 'Mutaween' (religious police of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) because she sat with an 'unrelated' male (who happened to be her colleague) in a Starbucks coffee bar. The police called her a sinner and proclaimed that she will rot in hell for this sin.

Does it appear even a single bit sensible? What sort of police and courts are there in this country? Do they think that they are still living in the 7th century CE when Islam was invented by Muhammad? Where are the Human rights groups and the United Nations? Why are they allowing such practices to continue?

It is high time that such 'ultra conservatives' are brought kicking and crying into the 21st century. Neither the police nor religion has anything to do with a person's individual behavior. No one has the right to curtail the personal freedom of an individual. It is deplorable that the women of Saudi Arabia are forced to live in a medieval world. If we allow this to continue, it is a shame on the entire humanity.

Nagaland - Is it a part of India or not?

2009-03-06T06:16:00.001-08:00

The leaders of Nagaland do not seem to be consider the state as an integral part of the Indian Union. The CM of Nagaland pleads for a peaceful dialogue with India as cannot be defeated in a war. Perhaps, he has forgotten that he is the Chief Minister (CM) of the Indian state, Nagaland not a leader of some 'alien Nagaland'. A recent article in 'The Pioneer' opens our eyes to the political reality in Nagaland. It is the height of hypocrisy that those parties which harp on secularism do not even think about condemning such secessionist activities which are clearly based on religion (Muslim majority Kashmir Valley, Christian Majority Nagaland - the Baptist Church of Nagaland is an active supporter of such anti-national activities). Perhaps, for these 'sickular' parties, secularism means 'anti-Hindu' and nothing else. The hard truth is that despite being a secular country, people do view this nation as a 'Hindu nation' - be it various Islamic nations or our own 'minority dominated' states. It appears that the best way out is to recognize India as a Hindu nation (not necessarily as a Hindu theocratic state but recognizing its Hindu nature and as such the need for its preservation as such). After all, this nation of great diversity is held together by the common thread of Ramayana and Mahabharata binding the people together. When people lose the touch of this thread, they wish to make themselves separate from the national stream. May God help the eyes of the idiots in this nation to open. May this nation remain united. If we do fail to wake up to the realities staring at our face, we may to too late to save the nation from another partition.

Refer the article below:

http://dailypioneer.com/160719/Give-peace-a-chance-Naga-diaspora.html

"...... Nagas have three clear choices before them, the Chief Minister said. The first option is to wage war against India, defeat her and achieve sovereignty; second option may be approach a third country to intervene and pressurise India to recognise the political rights of the Nagas; and third option is: Negotiate with India through peaceful dialogue and political negotiations based on mutual trust and understanding to achieve a lasting and honourable settlement acceptable to the Naga people."

Racial Disparity in Human Rights? Kosovo and Pakistan

2009-02-26T21:10:00.000-08:00

5 Top Serbs found Guilty of War Crimes in Kosovo

- New York Times, 26 February, 2009

url:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/europe/27hague.html?_r=1&ref=world

About 700,000 civilians (ethnic albanians) of Kosovo were expelled to Albania. Many were killed, raped and robbed by the Serb forces. Justice has been delivered in this case. But whatever happened to the war crimes committed by Pakistani troops in 1971? The Hindu minority population of East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh) was literally massacred. Millions fled to India as refugees. It is estimated that more than few million Hindus were killed. May I know the steps taken by the international community to bring these criminals to justice? Perhaps, skin color and nationality does matter. Despite repeated statements to the contrary, we see that the lives of whites and citizens of the Western world do have a greater value than that of Oriental and African people.

As far as I can see, the so called equality of all humanity is a farce. It is certainly not practiced in India. The plight of Kashmiri Pandits has not attracted the attention of the international community. Even within India, the same kind of attention, given to Muslim victims of Post-Godhra riots in 2002, is not given to the Hindu victims nor do the Sikh victims of 1984 get that much attention in media/politics.

Perhaps it is time for the 'international community' to wake up. Either they must act like they say or they must accept that 'certain lives are more equal than others'.

Terrorism in Bible – John

2009-02-18T06:38:00.001-08:00

John

3.36 – If you do not believe in the ‘son of God’, you shall suffer the wrath of God forever. (If God wants everyone to believe only Him, then why the hell did He allow so many religions to come up? Why the hell does He allow people to be born in the families of non-believers? I can't believe these to be the words of God. They sound pretty sadistic to me.)

12.48 – If you don’t believe in Jesus, you have a ‘one way ticket’ to hell.

15.6 – If you do not believe, you will be cast into fire and burned.

15.22 – As Jesus has come, the non-believers have no right/excuse not to believe in the ‘true doctrine’ preached by Jesus. (Great statement!!! One man visits a tiny desert country and preaches some ‘doctrine’. It wipes away the ‘right to use the brains’ from the entire humanity.)

Rampant anti-Semitism is found in the following areas of this Gospel:

5.16-18, 7.1, 7.13, 8.44, 11.8 and 20.19

The whole chapter 19 is hell bent on blaming the Jews for the ‘crucifixion’ of Christ. These ‘statements’ have lead to the persecution of Jews over several centuries. Let us use some common-sense in this case. If the Jews did crucify Jesus, didn’t they do a favour to humanity as per the Christian doctrine? After all, they ensured that the ‘Son of God’ dies and thereby, washes away the sins of humans. So, why should the Jews be condemned? Shouldn’t their work be praised? But then, the ‘authors’ of the Gospels do appear to lack ‘common sense’ and ‘rational thinking’. Therefore, it is too much to expect from them.

Terrorism in Bible: Mark and Luke

2009-02-11T23:26:00.000-08:00

Mark:

6.11 – If your city does not receive the message of Jesus’ apostles, it will be destroyed in a manner worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. What a great mercy!

16.16 – If you do not get baptized and do not believe in Christian doctrine, you will be damned (i.e. sent to hell).

Luke:

3.17: “.....the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” It is stated that Jesus will burn the damned souls with unquenchable fire. It certainly does not appear merciful. Anyone who is not baptised is damned and then, they will be thrown to hell for eternal suffering. So, even His Holiness Dalai Lama, who has not harmed a single life, is damned to such a suffering according to this book.

10.10-15: Once again (like in Mark), the cities that do not receive the apostles’ message are damned to a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah (whose entire population was butchered by God).

11.23: “He that is not with me is against me...” Doesn’t the so called God speak like the leader of a terrorist gang??

13.24-28: Very few people will go to heaven. Others will suffer eternal damnation in hell. It certainly does not appear to be a ‘merciful, loving God’ to me. If this is the meaning of the words ‘mercy’ and ‘love’ according to the Christian scholars then there must be something very wrong with their thinking process.

19.27: The parable of talents – God orders that those who do not accept ‘His reign’ over them shall be slain before His eyes. It looks like an order to kill unbelievers.

Terrorism in Bible – New Testament Gospels – Matthew:

2009-01-28T00:41:00.000-08:00

There is a claim made by some Christian ‘scholars’ that New Testament is a book of peace. Their claim is that violence is found only in Old Testament. The doctrine of modern Christianity is found in New Testament and that New Testament is void of such bloodthirsty passages. If so, why is that Christianity killed millions in the Americas and other Pagan lands. Why it is that Inquisition was a reign of terror in Goa? Why is it that Portuguese and French destroyed Hindu temples in the name of Christianity in South India? The very claim that New Testament is a ‘book of peace’ is wrong. It is as bloodthirsty as other texts. Moreover, it was the New Testament which gave the ‘verdict against Jews’ which has been used by the Christians to massacre the Jews throughout several centuries.

Let us have a look at the ‘Holy Gospels’ now.

Matthew:

8.12: The children of kingdom (Jews) will be cast out of Israel. Perhaps, God is not satisfied with the Jews’ inhuman killings. After all, they did not indulge in some massacres which were ordered by God. Whatever, God condemns the Jews to a miserable living.

10.14-15: Jesus says that those cities, which do not receive the message of his disciples, shall suffer a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorroh (which were completely destroyed by God – even little children were not left alive).

10.21: “And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Jesus seems to be a destroyer of families. Is this the person whom Christians refer to as ‘lamb’?

10.34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Jesus says that he has not come to send peace. What more proof is necessary?

10.35-36: “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.”

11.21-24: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” Jesus condemns entire cities to death and a horrible fate. Surely, it looks like a proclamation of Devil (if there exists one) than God.

23.31: Jesus condemns the Jews. He calls them as the children of those people who killed the prophets. Perhaps, he thinks that children must be punished for the parents’ mistake. What a great sense of justice!!

25.41: If Jesus does not like someone, he will cast them into everlasting fire. We have seen that it takes very less to make Jesus ‘dislike’ you. It also appears that Jesus does not believe in second chances. What sort of Devil has New Testament invented for a God?

27.25: “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” This verse has been used by the Christians for several centuries to vilify the Jews and persecute them. But I think that crucifixion could not have occurred as shown in the Gospels. If Jesus had committed religious heresy, the Jews had every right to punish him. They would not have taken him to the Romans. So it appears that Jesus (if at all he is historical) committed a secular crime for which he was crucified by the Romans. Moreover, the Roman governor (Pilate) is recorded as a ruthless ruler and almost inhuman in the historical documents. Only the Gospels show him as a man of peace and justice with a very humane face. It looks like the writers of the Gospels wanted to gain favor from the Romans and hence, they vilified the Jews and commended Pilate in their ‘Gospel lies’. Finally, the Roman system of justice was so strong that even a inhuman person cannot condemn someone without proper evidence. As such, this scene could have never occurred in a Roman court. The entire 'Passion of Christ' is filled with lots of loopholes and mountains of lies.

Terrorism in Bible - Isaiah

2009-01-14T03:15:00.000-08:00

Isaiah

2.18: God will utterly abolish the idols. (May I know why God suffers from such insecurity?)

5.24-25: God will tear the bodies of those who do not follow the rules laid down by Him. (Note that God does not say about ‘hurting fellow humans’ warranting such punishment but simply not following the ‘rules’. Those very rules also include killing entire races as per God’s command!!)

9.17: God hates the widows and children of the hypocrites. He punishes them for the misdeed of their husbands/fathers. (What sort of justice is this?)

9.19 – 20: When God gets angry, he will force the people to burn their brothers and eat their flesh. (Terrorise the followers into following His orders blindly)

13.15 – 18: God will not only kill the sinners but kill their children and rape their wives (what a ‘pious’ act!!). Even the children and the pregnant women with their foetuses will not be spared from God’s (more like a devil) anger.

14.21: God will kill the children for the iniquity of the fathers.

Isaiah 15 and 16 are full of God’s tales about how Moab shall be destroyed. He will destroy the entire land and its population. If anyone survives, God will send lions to finish them off. Complete destruction of Moab in 3 years is prophesied.

Isaiah 17 is about God will destroy Syria with its capital Damascus. (God says that Damascus will never be inhabited again. But it is even now a very highly populated city and the capital of Syria. Perhaps Biblical God must improve His divination skills.)

Isaiah 18 is about God will destroy the nations beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.

Isaiah 19 is about how God will destroy Egypt.

19.1: God will destroy the idols of Egypt. He will destroy the country.

19.2 – 4: God shall make the Egyptians fight one another (brother against brother, neighbour against neighbour etc). He will make them live under a cruel king.

19.5: God says that Nile (river of Egypt) will go dry. It has never occurred in history and is still flowing with water around the year.

Isaiah 24 is about the Apocalypse. God will turn the earth upside down (??!!). Burn all the inhabitants of earth except a few. He will even make the earth reel like a drunkard as he will weaken the foundation (earthquakes). [God seems to be very fond of terrorising His followers into following His commands. After all, no normal thinking human will even consider following the commands of such a ‘God’.)

[Note: I think that I will stop citing from Old Testament for the time being. I’ll start with the New Testament. I am disgusted with these ridiculous and cruel writings. Now that we have seen the amount of cruelty and terrorism inherently present in Old Testament, we will look at the New Testament. (Only a part of Isaiah (chapters 1 to 24) is covered in this post. The chapters from 25 to 66 have not been covered)]

Terrorism in Bible - Psalms (Part 2)

2008-12-24T23:26:00.000-08:00

Psalms:

68.23: “That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.” Very blood thirsty to be spoken by God. It seems that God wants the ‘believers’ to behave like blood thirsty hounds.

78.21-34: God burns and kills several humans because they do not believe in his existence. (How can anyone accept an insecure personality as God? Do we need such a God?)

106.34: The Israelis did not destroy those nations that God had commanded to be destroyed. This is seen as a great sin. Is it a crime ‘not’ to destroy entire nations with their whole population? In this chapter, the worship of other Gods is also seen as a sin.

109.10: Not only is a man to die early because he is an enemy (a heathen) but his children should suffer as well. The reason: well, they are the children of an enemy; should there be any more reason?

110.6: God shall fill the lands with the bodies of heathens. It seems that being a heathen is a crime fit for death sentence. Knowing the various acts of God, we can safely conclude that this ‘cleansing process’ will also include the death of little children.

135.8: God is praised for having killed the firstborn children of Egyptians (whatever did those children do to God?) and also those of the beasts of Egyptians (well, perhaps God needs to be hounded by animal rights activists).

[135.5 – On a lighter note, this line says ‘our Lord is above all gods’. It seems Bible is not as ‘monotheistic’ as the Christians want us to believe. The Israelis had a God who they believed to be better than all the other Gods.]

Terrorism in Bible - Psalms (Part 1)

2008-12-09T06:18:00.000-08:00

Psalms

2.8,9 – God promises the believers that He will make the heathens as slaves to the believers and enable the believers to destroy the heathens like a potter’s vessel.

21.9,10 – If God gets angry, he will not only kill you but also your children.

50.22 – If you forget God, God will tear you into pieces.

52.5,6 – If you do not believe in God, He will destroy you and the righteous will laugh at your destruction.

58.3 – Wicked people are wicked even from their birth. As soon as they are born, they go astray by speaking lies. (It gives a blanket cover all the atrocities committed by the believers upon the heathens. After all, all the heathens, including the children, are wicked from their birth.)

58.6-10: God shall break the teeth of the wicked (which includes the heathens), and cut them into pieces. The righteous will rejoice by washing their feet in the blood (what a lovely washing solution?!!).

59.5-8 – God shall kill all the heathens. The silly reasons for this sentence are: the heathens return at the evening, make noise like a dog and go around the city, belch out with their mouth etc. God shall laugh as He kills the heathens.

60.7,8 – God says “Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine; Ephraim also is the strength of mine head; Judah is my lawgiver; Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe: Philistia, triumph thou because of me.” Wow! Certain lands belong to God as He likes them. He does not like some other lands and so He indulges in name calling and even proclaims that he will throw his shoe upon them. Is this God we are talking about or some pre-teen whiny kid or perhaps some ancient terrorist who had motives similar to Bin-Laden?

'Hindu Terror' - A Nonsensical term

2008-11-19T08:42:00.000-08:00

'Hindu Terror' and 'Saffron Terror' have become the most popular words for the media (especially English media) in India these few days. As usual, the credit for the 'invention' of this word goes to the communists. I wonder whether these self styled 'secularists' (be it the politicians or the 'editors' of various english newspapers or the 'analysts' of the news channels) have ever given thought about what the term means (or accuses) and why is it that Hindus like me oppose the term.
When I say 'Islamic terrorism', the reason for the usage of that term is very simple: Islam envisages Jihad against the non-believers (especially the Pagans). Jihadis use the Quranic verses to justify their actions. They cite from the Hadiths to show that their actions are sanctioned by Allah. Take for example, the case of the 9/11 hijackers or even Indian Mujahideen's letters after the Ahmedabad blasts. The terrorist activities are driven by the Islamic theology and doctrine. Apologists make great claims stating that Islam is a religion of peace and that the 'verse of sword' (Quran 9.5) should be read in the right context (that is we should blindly accept whatever they say about that verse). They also claim that Jihad is more an 'internal struggle'. More popular is the quote 'To you your religion and to me my religion' which is used by the apologists to 'show' that Islam is a very 'tolerant' religion. Their belief is that since most non-Muslims never read the Quran and even the few who read it never bother to read the traditional orthodox commentaries (they do not know how the Mullahs interpret Quran nor do they know about the peculiar features involved in it). There is something called the 'doctrine of abrogation' (which finds mention in Quran 2.106 and 16.101). According to this, when two verses appear to be conflicting, the later verses (or 'revelations' as the Muslims claim it to be) are to be considered as valid as the later verses abrogate the earlier verses upon the subject. In this context, verse of sword is the last revelation on the Jihadi policy. Let us see what the verse says:
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”.
The only option for Pagans like me is 'death' or 'conversion'. The same policy was applied to the Hindus of Malabar by Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The 'jihadis' do their 'holy' acts of war (terrorist attacks) based on this verse and many such verses. Their acts of terrorism are supported by the Islamic doctrine. Hence, it is called 'Islamic terrorism'. Just like the holocaust is considered as 'Nazi act' (it is not called German terrorism) as Holocaust was sponsored and supported by the Nazi doctrine.
This is exactly the reason why I oppose the term 'Hindu terror(ism)'. Are such acts sponsored by Hindu theology? The answer is a huge 'no'. Some Hindus (even if the number of such terrorists are in thousands) may indulge in terrorist activies misguided in thier anger towards the jihadis. Such acts are deplorable. But I can understand the frustation behind those acts. After all, the media and the secular politicians still cries for the 790 Muslims who were killed during the post-Godhra riots but it does not care about the 254 Hindus who were killed during the same riots nor does it care about the Hindus who were killed at the Godhra carnage. The media has never shed so much tears for the thousands of Hindus who have become the victims of Islamic terrorism in J&K and other parts of this nation. It makes me wonder whether they consider the 'Hindu lives' to be much cheaper compared to the precious 'Muslim lives'. Whatever be the situation, I still cannot (and will not) condone terror acts committed by these misguided Hindus. But such acts cannot be called 'Hindu terrorism' because their acts are not propelled by Hindu theology. Such acts are not sanctioned by the Hindu texts nor do the the perperators claim that such acts 'reserve a space in heaven among the houris'. Being so, how can the word 'Hindu terror' be used in any context. It is neither driven nor supported by Hindu theology. Just because some Hindus involve in terrorist activities, it cannot be called 'Hindu terror'. Let us assume some journalists killed a few people in terrorist activities. Will it be called 'journalist terrorism'? We may say that those journalists are terrorists but it will never be nor can it be called as 'journalists terrorism'. Similar is the case with the present situation. Some Hindus may have become terrorists. But there is nothing called 'Hindu terrorism'. What has happened is a misguided reaction to the attacks on the Hindus. It is not driven by some 'holy book' preaching a '(un)holy war' against 'non-believers'.
May some common-sense prevail upon the 'media-wallahs'.

Terrorism in Bible - Esther

2008-10-10T07:27:00.000-07:00

Esther 8.9 to 12 – “Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and the rulers of the provinces which are from India to Ethiopia, a hundred and twenty seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language.
And he wrote in the king Ahasuerus' name, and sealed it with the king's ring, and sent letters by posts on horseback, and riders on mules, camels, and young dromedaries:
Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,
Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month which is the month Adar.” (Cited from KJV Bible)

The above verses show the utter brutality of the ‘God’s chosen people’. Did the children plot to kill the Jews? Why do they always insist on killing the innocent little ones?

8.17 – It mentions that many people converted to Judaism due to the fear of being killed. The same tactic has been used for centuries together by the Church to convert the pagans – kill the pagans unless they convert. The inhuman acts of Christianity in the Americas, in parts of India and Africa are well known in history.

Terrorism in Bible - 1 Chronicles & 2 Chronicles

2008-09-18T09:39:00.000-07:00

1 Chronicles

5.25, 26: The Israelites worshipped other Gods. Biblical God lost his temper and inspired the Assyrians to attack the Israelites and enslave them.

15.2, 3: God remembers how the Amalekites attacked the Israelites when the latter returned from Egypt (this happened centuries ago). As a revenge for that God ordered Saul to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, infant, suckling and even ox, sheep, camel and ass.

15.18, 19: Saul did evil in the eyes of God by not killing all Amalekites.

15.23: Saul did not kill all the Amalekites and so God deposed Saul from the throne of Israel.

15.32, 33: Samuel cuts the king of Amalek into pieces before God.

2 Chronicles

14.2-5: Asa destroyed the images of various Gods and forbade the worship of deities in local shrines. This act is considered as ‘good’ and ‘right’ in the eyes of God.

15.13: “That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether great or small, whether man or woman.”

15.16: Asa broke down the image of God worshipped by his mother and removed her from being a queen (because she worshipped an idol of God).

22.7-9: Jehu killed everyone of the house of Ahab as commanded by God.

23.17: The temple of Baal was destroyed and His priest was killed as per the orders of Jehoiada, the priest of the Biblical God.

25.11, 12: Amaziah, who did was right in the eyes of God but not with a perfect heart (25.2), killed 10,000 people in the valley of salt and held as captive 10,000 others whom he killed by throwing down the mountain so that they shall be broken into pieces.

28.6-8: Pekah killed 120,000 men and enslaved 200,000 women and children because they had forsaken the Biblical God.

34.2-5: Josiah did what was right in the eyes of God by destroying the images of Gods, destroyed the altars of Baalim and burnt the bones of the Pagan priests upon the altars.

Terrorism in Bible - 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings

2008-09-15T00:45:00.000-07:00

Terrorism in Bible

2 Samuel
8.2 – David kills two-thirds of the population of the city of Moab and enslaves the rest one-third.

1 Kings
11.16 – Joab stays in Edom for six months and he killed every male of Edom.
15.29 – The entire house of Jeroboam was slaughtered as per the command of God or God’s prophecy.

2 Kings
1.9-12 – Elijah brings fire from heaven to burn to death 102 people (for worshipping ‘false God’? They did not harm Elijah, so why burn them to death?).
2.23,24 – Little children mock the bald head of Elijah and hence, Elijah curses them. God sends two she-bears and they tear apart the 42 children who mocked Elijah. (Some people claim that the translation is wrong. It could have been young men as well. Even then, is it right for God to kill these ‘men’ in a horrible way just because they mocked the prophet? It appears barbaric and is unbefitting of God)
10.17 – To show his zeal for God, Jehu kills the entire population unto Ahab in Samaria as per the word of God.
10.19-27 – Jehu lies to the followers of Baal claiming that he is going to serve Baal. He brings all the followers of Baal together in the temple of Baal and then sends his troops in to massacre them. The images of Baal were burnt and His temple was destroyed.
10.30 – God is satisfied with all the slaughter of Pagans that Jehu has made and also his slaughter of the house of Ahab. Hence, God proclaims that the children of the fourth generation of Jehu shall sit upon the throne of Israel. There is a reward for such ‘pious terrorist’ activities.
11.18 – The Lord’s people went to the temple of Baal and destroyed it. They killed the priest before the altars.
17.25,26 – The foreigners who settled in Samaria are killed by lions (which were sent by God) because they did not fear God nor did they know the manner of the God of the land. (Perhaps God thought that killing them will teach them manners of God?)
23.20 – King Josiah kills all the Pagan priests upon the altars and burns their bones upon it.

Terrorism in Bible - 1 Samuel

2008-08-17T04:12:00.000-07:00

1 Samuel

2.10: The adversaries of God shall be broken to pieces and struck with thunder. (From what we have seen before, anyone who doesn’t believe in Jehovah appears to be an adversary. As such, let non-believers be careful – God may zap you with a thunder)

2.31-34: If God gets angry with you, he will not only kill you brutally but your family and descendants as well.

6.19: God killed 50,070 men of Bethshemesh for looking into his ark. (It seems God does not know about anything about ‘forgiveness’, ‘mercy’ etc. I mean just looking into the ark does not destroy or bring woe upon the fellow humans. It is no reason for giving death sentence. What sort of God is this? In my opinion, death sentence must be given to this God as the first duty before anything else)

14.12: God delivers the Philistines into Jonathan’s hands for him to slaughter them.

14.20: God makes the Philistines kill each other.

15.2-3: God orders to kill people of Amalek (as He remembers what their forefathers did aeons ago). So He orders to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, infant and suckling. Not only them but animals as well – He orders to kill sheep, ox, camel and ass (whatever did the children and animals do? Whatever did these adults do? Is it right to kill a whole tribe for what their forefathers did aeons ago?)

15.7-8: Saul killed all the people of Amalek.

15.10: God is dissatisfied with Saul because he spared the King of Amalekites and the best of their animals.

15.19: Saul committed sins in the eye of the Lord by not killing the king and some animals.

15.23: Because Saul committed sin by not following God’s orders to the letter, God rejected him from being king.

15.33: To please God, Samuel hacks the king of Amalek to pieces before God in Gilgal.

23.2-5: David asks God’s permission to kill the Philistines. God gives his assent. Therefore, David kills them in great slaughter.

25.22: David vows to kill anyone that pisses against the wall. Isn’t there any other punishment for this? Perhaps they are simply bloodthirsty – both God and his servants.

25.38: God kills Nabal. David is benefited by this killing as takes over Nabal’s wife and property.

27.8-11: David killed every man and woman in the land of Geshurites, Gezrites and Amalekites.

30.17: David kills all the Amalekites except 400 young men who escaped upon camels.

Terrorism in Bible - Judges

2008-08-12T04:21:00.000-07:00

Judges:
1.17 – Judah and his brother, Simeon, slew the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath and utterly destroyed it.

1.25 – Israeli spies killed everyone in the enemy city except the man and his family who showed them the entrance to the city.

2.1 -3 – God is angry with the Israelis because they were tolerant of the non-believers. They did not completely destroy the infidels’ religious structures. They were told not to make any league with the infidels but they did so (the Israelis made the others their tributaries). Hence, God says that he will not fulfil His promise of driving the infidels out of the land and that they will be a thorn on the side of Israel.

2.12 -14 – God is angry with the Israelis because they worshipped other Gods and hence, he sold them (into slavery? Or is it giving up on them) so that they were unable to stand before their enemies.

3.8 – Once again, God sells the Israelites because they worshipped other Gods. This time he sold them to the King of Mesopotamia for 8 years.

6.25-28 – Gideon destroys a shrine of Lord Baal upon the orders of God.

8.6-17 – The people of a city refuse to feed Gideon’s army, so he kills the elders of the city and all its men.

Chapters 15 and 16 – Samson commits arson and kills many Philistines. Finally, when the Philistines capture and blind him, he dies and takes along with him 3000 Philistine men and women. He prayed to God that they shall be dead along with him. God fulfilled his wishes.

Terrorism in Bible - Joshua

2008-08-02T06:00:00.000-07:00

Joshua:

6.17 – All the inhabitants of Jericho are to be killed except a harlot named Rahab.

6.21 – The Israelites killed everyone in Jericho – men and women, old and young. Even animals like ox, sheep and ass were not spared.

6.26 – God proclaims that anyone who tries to rebuild Jericho will be accursed and will be made to lose his firstborn child and the youngest son.

7.24-25 – A person named Achan did not follow a rule. Hence, he and his entire family (sons and daughters) and his animals (oxen and sheep) were stoned to death. (Whatever did those animals do to suffer such a horrible death? Why were his children killed? If it is because they took part in his mistake (Bible does not say anything about their involvement), should they not be given some less severe punishment because they were mislead by their father? The whole episode looks like it was meant to terrorise people into following the Biblical rules)

8.8 – God commands that when they have taken the city of Ai, they shall burn it. (It seems Jehovah is very fond of burning cities and killing people, including innocent children)

8.22-26 – Israelites kill every inhabitant of Ai numbering 12000.

10.10-11 – God kills the Amorites, chases them and brings down hailstorm killing the whole lot of them.

10.12-13 – God orders the sun to stay still for a whole day and thereby helps the Israelites in killing the Amorites.

10.28 – Joshua destroys the city of Makkedah and kills every single soul of the town.

10.30 – Joshua destroys the city of Libnah as he did to Makkedah.

10.32 – Now he destroys the city of Lachish.

10.35 – The city of Eglon is destroyed now.

10.37 – The city of Hebron is destroyed.

10.39 – The city of Debir is destroyed.

10.40 – Joshua destroyed all the countries of the hills, the countries of the south, of vale, of springs and killed everything that breathed in those places as per God’s command.

Chapter 11 – Several kingdoms are destroyed and their people put to death. The tribe of Anakims were utterly destroyed.

Terrorism in Bible - Deuteronomy

2008-07-25T03:49:00.000-07:00

Deuteronomy:

2.25 – God makes people fear the Israelites. He makes the people tremble and be in anguish because of the Israelites.

2.32 to 2.36 – The entire population of Heshbon (men, women and children) were killed when God delivered them to the Israelites. Every city of that country was utterly destroyed.

4.3 – God destroyed everyone who followed Baalpeor.

4.25 to 27 – If the Israelites made an image, God shall punish them by utterly destroying them and scattering them among the nations and make them few in number among the heathens.

5.7 – The Israelites shall not have any God beside Jehovah.

5.9 – God says that He is a jealous God who punishes the future generations of the people who worship images.

6.14, 6.15 – God is jealous. If you worship some other deity, he will destroy you.

7.2 – God commands the Israelites to utterly destroy the population of the seven nations that God will deliver unto Israel.

7.5 – God commands the Israelites that they shall destroy the altars, break down the images and cut down the groves and burn the images of their enemies with fire.
7.10 – If you hate God, He will not slack, He will destroy you completely.

7.16 – God commands the Israelites not to have pity on those people whom he delivers to the Israelites (to kill them).

7.20 – God will send hornets into the lands of other nations and destroy their people.

7.23 – God will deliver those people to Israelites and destroy them with mighty destruction.

7.25 – God commands Israelites to burn the images and utterly destroy them.

8.19 – If you forget your Lord and go after other Gods, then you shall surely perish.

12.2, 12.3 – God orders you to destroy completely others’ places of worship.

12.30 – God orders the Israelites that they must not enquire about the other Gods after they destroy their followers and temples. If they learn about other Gods, God shall be forced to kill them.

13.1 to 13.5 – If a prophet or dreamer prophesies or dreams about other Gods and asks the Israelites to follow those Gods, the said prophrt or dreamer shall be pt to death.

13.6 to 13.10 – If a family member or friend tries to get you to worship other Gods, you should kill them by stoning them to death.

13.12 to 13.15 – If in any of your cities, people worship other Gods then such cities shall be completely destroyed including the cattle.

17.2 to 17.5 – If anyone worships other Gods, then you shall stone him/her to death.

17.12 – If a person does not hear to the priest or the judge, he shall be killed.

18.20 to 18.22 – If a person claiming as prophet speaks on the behalf of other Gods, then you shall execute him. You can identify him as not a prophet of God, when you see that his prophecy shall not come to pass.

25.19 – God orders the Israelites that they shall remember to blot out the Amalekites under the heaven when God had delivered all the lands promised to them.

28.16 to 28.68 – If you do not follow the laws laid down in Old Testament, God will punish you and his ‘punishments’ are laid out in these verses. (Remember that these laws include killing of non-believers.)

29.18 to 29.20 – If you serve other Gods, God will destroy your existence from under heaven (earth).

30.7 – God will put the curses on the enemies of the Israelites. (For a list of curses, read chapter 28)

31.3 – Moses conveys to his people that God will destroy other nations and let the Israelites possess those lands.

32.19 to 32.26 – God hates those who don’t worship Him. He will punish them by setting on fire the foundations of mountains (?), by shooting arrows at them, by burning them with hunger and heat, by sending beasts and serpents upon them, by killing young men and virgins, by killing both old and new borns.

Terrorism in Bible - Leviticus and Numbers

2008-07-20T01:47:00.001-07:00

Leviticus (20.27) - Any person with a familiar spirit / a wizard shall be stoned to death.
Leviticus (25.44 - 46) - Buy heathens as slaves and they shall remain as your slaves for eternity (their descendants shall be the slaves of slave owners’ descendants).
Leviticus (26.16 - 39) - Severe punishments for those who do not follow God’s orders. This includes God sending beasts to kill the children of such people. Other punishments include plague, fever, defeat by enemies, punishing seven times more for the sins etc. (whatever did the children do to suffer such a horrible death?). Also God shall make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. He will destroy their cities and they will be left to suffer among heathens.
Numbers (11.1) - People complained to God. God did not like it and so He burned those who complained.
Numbers (14.36-37) - People murmured against God (or perhaps Moses) and so God sends a plague among them to destroy them.
Numbers (16.30-35) - Korah and those who supported him, along with their families and wealth, were swallowed by the earth. Also, God sent a fire to kill 250 people who offered incense (why kill them?). Korah did not believe Moses.
Numbers (16.41-49) - People criticize Moses saying that he killed the people of the Lord. God does not like this and hence sends a plague that kills 14,700 persons. (No freedom of speech or thought? Then why provide humans with a rational mind?)
Numbers (21.3) - Israelites vow to God that they will destroy the entire cities of Canaan if God delivered the Canaanites unto their hands. God did so and the Canaan cities were completely destroyed. Bloodthirsty God?
Numbers (21.34-35) - With the help of God, Moses kills all the Amorites and Bashan people(including children) such that no one was left alive among them.
Numbers (25.1-9) - Israelites commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab and participate in their festivals. So God orders Moses to kill them and hang their bodies before the sun so that the anger of the Lord be turned away from Israel. But still plague came upon Israel. But a man brings a Midian (non-Israeli) woman to the congregation and Aaron’s grandson kills both the woman and the man. God is pleased by this act and stops the plague. But the plague had already killed 24,000 people. It seems God has nothing to do but kill.
Numbers (chapter 31): All the males among Midianites including children are killed. All women who were not virgins were killed as well. The Israelites got 32000 virgins from this bloody campaign. The booty including virgins was then split among them. Even God receives a share.
Numbers (33.50-52) - God orders Moses to destroy Canaan, drive out the inhabitants of the land and also destroy their places of worship. (religious intolerance)
Numbers (33.55-56) - God says that if the Israelites don’t do so, He will make the remaining Canaanites as pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides. He will do to the Israelites what He wants to do to the Canaanites (utter destruction). God threatens the Israelites that if they show mercy to Canaanites, He will destroy them. It seems that God does not like human values.

Terrorism in Bible - Exodus

2008-07-19T10:50:00.001-07:00

Exodus (11.4 - 11.7) - God kills all the firstborn children of Egyptians and he kills the firstborn of animals as well (whatever the animals did to ‘God’?). Killing innocent children does not appear to be the way of a God more like that of a demon.
Exodus (16.8) - Moses says that the murmurings of the people were not against him but against God. This tactic has been used by Popes since early times.
Exodus (22.18) - ‘Thou shall not suffer a witch to live’ - has lead to the death of thousands of innocent women who were degraded before being burnt to death.
Exodus (22.20) - The person who sacrifices to any God other than the Biblical one shall be utterly destroyed. Gives death sentence to about two-thirds of world population.
Exodus (23.24) - The images of the other Gods shall be broken. This is an order. As such a divine order encouraging iconoclasm.
Exodus (23.27) - God shall destroy everyone against whom the Israelites march. Birth of terrorism.
Exodus (32.27-28) - God ordered Levi’s sons to kill those who danced naked around the golden calf. 3000 men were killed.
Exodus (34.11-14) - God orders the Israelites to destroy the neighboring pagan nations, destroy their altars, break their images and cut down their groves for He is a jealous God. Once again it seems like the words of a demon. God orders his followers to indulge in terrorism.

Religious Persecution in India

2008-07-16T11:38:00.000-07:00

This is a collection of my musings on the matter of religious persecution in India. The number of instances in which the Muslims and Christians persecuted those of the other religions is numerous.
Some ‘historians’ like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib etc try to justify these actions by saying that even the Hindu kings indulged in these activities and that this was the normal situation then. Considering their statements to be true, it appears that these ‘egalitarian’ religions were also nothing short of barbarism. They do not deny that Muslims did indulge in religious persecution but claim that Hindus also normally indulged in it. Even if their claim is true, it does not condone the Muslim rulers' actions. But the real question is: did Hindus indulge in large scale religious persecution? Some local skirmishes are possible in this huge country. I do not deny that such skirmishes could have occurred. But was there any persistent religious persecution? The answer shall be formed in the following paragraphs.
Some instances of religious intolerance that I know are: King Harsha of Kashmir, Emperor Kulottunga II of Chola country and the killing of Jain monks in Pandya country. Other than these things, there can be a handful of other cases in the 1500 years of Hindu dominance. It shows a remarkably peaceful society. Certainly not a society of religious persecution. No Hindu text says that killing a non-believer brings merit and paves way for heaven (unlike what Islam guarantees for a Ghazi). The only places [very few in number - like one stanza in the Divya Prabandham - Tirumaalai (a compilation of 4000 stanzas)] where the author speaks about killing other religionists is when such a person speaks foul of the author’s religion / deity. But no one has ever cited this stanza as an authority to kill non - Vaishnavites. Not even the author has called this as an act of merit leading to moksha. This shows that even such few instances were mere statements of anguish not a call for blood (very similar to what some people feel like killing corrupt officials during times of anguish caused by them but will never indulge in manslaughter.)
Therefore, we find this comparison of systematic religious persecution employed by Muslims with a few instances (which are deviations from the normal trend) of Hindu history as totally irresponsible, unacceptable and unethical. The Hindus gave shelter to Parsis and Jews. They gave shelter to the Syrian Christians. These people were not persecuted. They were allowed to freely practice their religion. To think that such Hindus indulged in systematic religious persecution appears senseless.
Now, let us take a look at the few instances of religious persecution done by Hindus mentioned above:
1. King Harsha of Kashmir was an atheist. He was not a Hindu. Kalhana calls him ‘Turushka’. His activities were seen as very similar to that of Muslims by him. He cannot be called a Hindu in any sense.
2. The action of Kulottunga II at Chidambaram was isolated. He removed Vishnu murti from only one temple (at Chidambaram) in his entire empire. He did not indulge in large scale destruction of Vishnu temples. The temple at Chidambaram was home to both Vishnu and Shiva cult with both the deities being worshipped by their respective devotees. As one of the primary seats of Shaiva cult, Kulottunga II wanted to make the temple completely Shaivite and that is why he removed the Vishnu murti from the temple. Thus, it was merely a case of a single instance not a wholesale occurrence.
3. The third instance is that of the impaling of Jain monks in Pandya country. The story is found only in Shaiva texts. It is found that there was a debate between Jnanasambandar and the Jain monks. The Jain monks were defeated in the debate. The monks were impaled as agreed earlier that whoever loses will be impaled. Also it is found that the Tamils suffered a lot at the hands of some narrow minded Digambara Jain monks (who were non-Tamil Kalabhras). The agraharas of the Brahmins were confiscated. Some Shaiva and Vaishnava places of worship were forcibly taken over. When the new rulers converted to Shaivism, a nationalist reaction set in the society by which we see that a few Jain places of worship were converted on the plea that they were Shiva temples in the earlier period. But we can see that the Vaishnavas never indulged in such activities though they were also persecuted by the previous regime. Also, the said acts do not reflect Shaivism nor is it based on Shaiva texts but a normal nationalist reaction. [M. Arunachalam’s ‘The Kalabharas in the Pandiya Country and Their Impact on the Life and Letters There’ , University of Madras, 1979].
The Buddhists were never persecuted in Tamil Nadu as the Buddhists never hurt the Shaivites or Vaishnavites. Though both the ‘Naastika’ traditions were condemned by the ‘Saatvik’ traditions, only the Jains were persecuted and that too only in Pandya country which was due to the fact that some narrow minded Jain monks started such a persecution in the first place. Even then, it can be seen that it was not a wholesale persecution per se. Only those monks who debated with Jnanasambandar were impaled. Others were not killed. Similarly only those temples which were previously that of Shiva were forcibly occupied by the Shaivites. This is mostly a case of nationalism (Tamil vs. non-Tamil) and throwing away the yolk of forceful religious domination. This was not a case of active religious persecution started for the sake of religious persecution as the means and end of itself.
Some people try to find a Buddhist/Jain structure under every Hindu temple which is ridiculous. No Buddhist/Jain tradition ever says that Hindus indulged in large scale destruction of their temples/monasteries. Such fanciful imagination of these self proclaimed ‘historians’ give us good laughter at the time of depression. Though at times, it hurts us that people make such baseless allegations against Hinduism.
It seems that these ‘historians’ who want to degrade the ancient religion of India are unable to digest the fact that Hinduism is a tolerant religion. So they try to degrade it by making false and baseless allegations against this ancient religion.

As such, we could see that religious persecution on wholesale basis was brought to this land by the Muslim and Christian fanatics. It was never practised in India before that. The inhuman nature of these religions in that they actively encourage persecution of other religionists (non-believers) show their innate barbarism. A post giving quotes from their 'holy books' encouraging the persecution of non-believers will be given later.

Beef in Vedic Times

2008-01-27T07:13:00.000-08:00

There are certain people who consider that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh. ‘Beef’ refers to the meat of any bovine in general. We are not concerned whether Vedic people ate the flesh of bovines other than cow. Hence, we deal specifically with the point whether Vedic people ate cow’s flesh or not. Even in this, we are not concerned with the ritual sacrifice of cow as such sacrifice does not mean that cows were eaten on normal occasions. Because we see that Rg Veda (10-87-16) recommends capital punishment for those who kill human, horse or cow. We do know that humans were killed in wars but that does not amount to murder. Similarly, ritual sacrifice of cow does not mean that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh in normal life. That the word ‘goghna’ does not mean ‘killer of cow’ and that it means ‘receiver of cow’ (Maharshi Panini’s Astadhyaayi 3-4-73) is proved by Swami Prakashanand Saraswati in the book ‘The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism’.
Now going back to the argument that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh, we argue that such a thing could not have happened. Cow is praised as ‘aditi’, ‘aghnyA’ etc in the Vedic Samhitas (‘aghnyA’ in Rg Veda 1-37-5, 1-164-27, 1-164-40, 4-1-6, 5-83-8, 7-68-8, 7-68-9, 7-87-4, 8-69-2, 8-75-8, 8-102-19, 9-1-9, 9-80-2, 9-93-3, 10-46-3, 10-60-11, 10-87-16, 10-102-7 & ‘aditi’ in Rg Veda 1-43-2, 1-153-3, 8-101-15 etc To be noted that RV 1-153-3 uses the word ‘dhenu’ along with ‘aditi’). As regards some ritual sacrifice of ‘go’ (cow/ox) as mentioned in Ashvalayana Grhyasutra, we do not deny the existence of those references. But they refer to some special circumstances and these sacrifices do not mean that people ate the flesh of cow in their daily life. Moreover, the word used is ‘go’ which refers to both ox and cow. Also, sutras have to be understood based on the practice and they cannot be interpreted independently. Therefore, we do not know for sure whether the word ‘go’ referred to cow/ox and based on the various references to cow as inviolable, it is probable that the word referred to ox (or a barren cow) and not cow. It must be remembered that severe punishment is recommended for those who kill a horse, human or cow (Rg Veda 10-87-16) but horses and humans were killed in war. These killings were not considered as murder. Similarly, any sacrifice of horse during the Ashvamedha sacrifice would be an exception. These cases do not mean that Vedic people killed/ate horses in their daily life or that doing such a thing was legal during that period. The case of cow is the same. Therefore, the case of ritual sacrifices can be kept out of this discussion. (Though we would like to know exactly on what occasions the cows were ritually sacrificed.)
Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad (6-4-18) does speak about eating ‘beef’ for the purpose of attaining a scholarly son but the animal is a ‘bull’ (Vrishabha) and not a cow. Therefore, it has nothing to do with eating of cow’s flesh. From the various injunctions against the killing of a cow in the Vedic Samhitas and the later Vedic texts like Apastambha sutras, Puranas etc, we can conclude that cow was considered inviolable by the Vedic people and that the only circumstance under which any cow was killed was ritual sacrifice. Finally, it must be remembered that Vedic people certainly did not eat cow’s flesh in their everyday life as they considered it a great sin to kill a cow (ritual sacrifice being a case of exception).
Some people consider the Apastambha Grhya Sutra (1-3-10) to be referring to the killing of cow during marriage, death rites and the arrival of guest. The words are ‘etAvad gorAlambanam atithiH pitaro vivAhaSca’. Apastambha makes it very clear that cow’s flesh shall not be eaten in his Dharma Sutras (1.5.17.29). [Of course, 1.5.17.30 states that there are some exceptions to the rule. While such exceptions may include Yagnas, feeding the guests will not form a part of such exceptions as the guests are supposed to eat only 'acceptable' items.] Therefore, no guest can eat a cow’s flesh as it is a prohibited item. Hence, the interpretation that a guest is offered cow’s flesh falls flat on face. The word ‘gorAlambanam’ is formed by ‘goH+Alambanam’ where ‘Alambanam’ is a word whose meaning is ‘to kill’. The word also means ‘taking hold of something’, ‘seizing’, ‘tearing off’/‘remove’ etc. The compound ‘gorAlambanam’ can mean ‘giving away of cows’ with the word ‘Alambanam’ used in the sense ‘tearing off/removal’. This interpretation suits with the meaning of ‘goghna’ (receiver of cow) as given by Maharshi Panini. The other way to interpret this sutra is to identify ‘go’ with an ox / a barren cow (which was definitely killed to entertain guests as seen from Aitareya Brahmana 1.15). Therefore, Apastambha Sutras advocating about killing a cow for entertaining a guest is completely ruled out. As such, even today 'go daan' is done by the Brahmins of Apasthambha Sutra during the 'apara' ceremonies following a person's death and there is no mentioning of any cow sacrifice during such ceremonies.
The claim made about Rg Veda (6-17-1) and (10-85-13) referring to killing/eating cow is also wrong. In (6-17-1), Indra captures the cattle of Panis and it has nothing to do with eating cows. In 10-85-13, the marriage is that of celestials (Surya) and not humans. Even then, the words are ‘aghAsu hanyante gAvo'rjunyoH pary uhyate’ – the word ‘gAvaH’ is in plural nominative case. ‘aghAsu’ means ‘in many aghAs (most probably referring to maghA days)’ and so ‘arjunyoH’ will mean ‘in two arjunIs (cows/some other nakSatra day)’. The words ‘aghAsu hanyante gAvah’ would most probably mean ‘cows/oxen! Kill (perhaps, killing evil is mentioned) in aghAs’ or ‘cows/oxen are killed in aghAs’. Griffith translates the verse as follows: ‘In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride.’ Finally, as told above, it is a marriage of celestials and it is not a human wedding. If anyone insists that the example set by the celestials has to be followed, it will be foolish as there are some cases of incest (involving PrajApati) among the deities which are not advised for humans. Therefore, this verse is no proof for sacrifice of cows/oxen during human wedding.
Regretting for repetition, we would like to point out that it is important to take into consideration the fact that ‘gau’ refers to both cow and oxen. There are many verses in the Rg Veda which refer to ‘gau’ as inviolable. There may be some verses which might refer to ‘gau’ being killed. In practice, we see that cow is venerated but the ox is not treated at par with cow. Hence, we can say that where ‘go’ is called as ‘inviolable’, the word refers to cow and those places where references are made to ‘go’ being killed, the word refers to ox. This is the best way to reconcile the meanings of various verses (‘samAnAdhikaraNam’).
Aitareya Brahmana (1.15) does refer to the killing of an ox (ukSANam) or a ‘barren’ cow (vehatam) while welcoming a king. But the text is very clear in mentioning that only ‘barren cows’ (vehatam) are killed. Thus, the cow which could never attain the status of a ‘gomata’ is treated at par with an ox. This does not mean that normal cows (which are identified as ‘aghnyA’) were also killed by the Vedic Aryans in non-ritual circumstances.
Next, people claim that Mahabharata (Aranyaka Parva) says about killing of two thousand cows in King Rantideva’s kitchen. On verifying the verse (the version referred by us is available at the site ‘http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/’), we find the following words: ‘dve sahasre tu vadhyete pashUnAm anvaham tadA’ (MBH: 3-199-7). The words ‘dve sahasre’ mean two-thousand. ‘Vadhyete’ means kill. ‘PashUnAm’ means animals. The word ‘anvaham’ means ‘day after day/everyday’. I can’t see where these people find ‘cows’ in this verse.
Next, we consider the Satapatha Brahmana. It is claimed that in 3.1.2.21, killing of cows is mentioned. In the very paragraph cited above, it is clearly stated that killing of cow is a sin. Normally the last sentence is translated that despite it being a sin, Yagnavalkya declares that he will eat the cow's flesh if it is 'amsala' (translated as 'tender' by many).Even here, it is clearly found that what Yagnavalkya commits is a sin and just because a Seer commits an act of sin does not mean that everyone commits the sin or that the particular sin is made legal. At the most, it is merely a statement of addiction made by Yagnavalkya.
In Bhavabhuti's 'Uttara Rama Charita' (Act 4), it is mentioned that a heifer('vatsatarI') or a fully grown bull/goat('mahoksham/mahAjam') must be offered with 'Madhuparka'. Here, only a heifer is mentioned and not a grown cow. The only explanation will be that a heifer might have been treated on par with a barren cow. Thus any cow which has given milk was given protection. This goes hand in hand with the epithet 'gomAtA' used by present day Hindus. I personally do not find any problem with the killing of a 'heifer' for madhuparka. Still, one must definitely consider the fact that some post-Buddhist writers did go overboard in their zeal to recover the ancient practices and such people could have misinterpreted the texts as they were simply trying to interpret the words without seeing the actual practice.
Kalidasa in 'MeghadUta'(2-45) mentions about 'daughters of Surabhi' sacrificed by King Rantideva. Here, 'surabhitanaya' may be heifer or any female animal. 'Surabhi' means both cow and earth. Hence, the word is open to interpretation. Still, the word does not refer to a cow in any sense.
From the ‘Kanhadade Prabandha’, we know that Hindus were very careful about not eating cow’s flesh that they preferred to die en masse than drink water from the lake which was made impure by the flesh of cow (Satala’s fort was captured by Alauddin Khilji in this fashion). In Madhura Vijayam, the Muslaman rulers of Madurai are decried for their heinous crime of killing the cows. It is very clear that the veneration of cow was very much present during the medieval period and that it was universal among the Brahminical Hindus.
We see that Vedic people did not kill cows except perhaps during some rituals. Cows were considered as ‘inviolable’ from period of Rg Veda. It is better to consider the word ‘gau’ as referring to ox when killing of ‘gau’ is mentioned as that gives a consistent meaning to the entire Vedic literature and also because such an interpretation is in keeping with the practices in vogue. When a word can be interpreted in a way which is in keeping with the traditional practice, there is no reason why an alternative, anti-traditional interpretation should be imposed upon that word.
We base our conclusions on the following facts:
1. Cow was considered as ‘inviolable’ from the earliest Vedic period.
2. Where cow is mentioned as being killed, only barren cow (vehatam) is mentioned. ‘dhenu’ is never mentioned as being killed for the purpose of entertaining guests.
3. The word ‘gau’ means ox as well.

Thus, we conclude that:
a. Vedic people did not eat cow’s flesh in their everyday life (they might have done so only during some rituals).
b. Cow was considered as an inviolable animal by the Vedic people and that practice is being followed by Hindus even today.
c. The killing of ‘gau’ in mentioned in various Brahmanas and Sutra texts generally refers to killing of ox.
d. Any mention made about killing of cows for entertaining guests by post-Buddhist Hindu writers must be based on their zeal, to recover the ancient practices from the texts (which could have been in the dark during the dominance of Buddhist and Jain philosophy), in which they could have misinterpreted the meaning of certain verses and words (like ‘goghna’).
e. The conclusions made in (c) & (d) are based on the ancient tradition of considering cow as ‘inviolable’ and the meaning of ‘goghna’ as given by Maharshi Panini and also the practice of killing oxen (or barren cows) to entertain guests as clearly mentioned in various texts.
This essay has been written in the form ‘musings’ and collection of thoughts. This was never meant to be a formal rebuttal. But the points mentioned in here are more than enough to disprove the hypothesis that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh in their everyday life.

Puranaanuru: 176-400

2007-04-12T01:11:00.000-07:00

Song 182

Lines 1-2: Amrita is identified as Indra’s drink.

Song 183:

Line 8-10: The four varnas are referred to. It is said that among the four varnas, even a person of higher varna will give respect to an educated person of the lower varna.

Song 192:

Lines 2-5: Good and evil are not the result of others’ action (they are based on one’s own ‘Karma’). Suffering and happiness come on their own and are not given by others. Death is not something new. It follows you from birth.

Song 194:

Lines 5-7: This world created by God is identified as a conglomerate of good and evil and the learned persons will try to identify the True Happiness (identifiable with ‘Moksha’).

Song 197:

Line 9: Nanmaaran’s wealth compared to that of Lord Vishnu (Lord lying on Banyan leaf)

Song 201:

Lines 8-10: The King rules a city which was born out of the sacred fire of a northern sage.

Song 214:

Lines 8-10: Heaven and liberation from birth-cycle are mentioned.

Song 224:

Lines 6-10: King Karikala installed ‘yupastambha’ and did many yagnas.

Lines 16-17: Widows of Karikala remove jewels.

Song 241:

Line 3: King Ai Andiran attains Indra’s abode(or Vishnu’s abode) after his death.
[Note: the words which can be interpreted either way are ‘vajjirath thadakkaiyaan’ and ‘Nediyon’. The former word means either ‘Indra’ or ‘one having arms like Vajra’ (e.g. ‘Vajrabaahu’ in Sanskrit). The latter means either ‘Vishnu’ (most popular and hence, most probable) or ‘one with a large body’]

Song 246:
Pandiya Queen wishes to commit Sati. Mendicant life of a widow is also mentioned.

Song 247:
The poet sings about a woman who commits Sati.

Songs 248-250:
Mendicant life of a widow is mentioned. (E.g. lying on floor, not wearing jewels, change in eating habits etc)

Song 251:

Lines 5-8: Yagna done by a Rishi is mentioned.

Song 253:

Line 5: Widow loses her bangles (i.e.) all her jewels.

Song 254:

Line 4: Widow loses her bangles (i.e.) all her jewels.

Song 256:

Wife wishes to get buried alive along with her deceased husband.

Song 259:

Line 5: The way a woman behaves when Lord Muruga descends upon her is mentioned.

Song 280:

Lines 10-15: Mendicant life of a widow is mentioned. (Tonsuring of head is also mentioned. To be noted that Manu does not recommend tonsuring for widows. This appears to be a Tamil practice. Only in Skanda Purana, do we find this practice mentioned.)

Song 287:

Lines 11-12: Those soldiers who attain heaven(upon dying in battle) marry heavenly women.

Song 291:

Lines 1-2: Lord Vishnu is cited as an example.

Song 299:

Lines 6-7: Seclusion of women during menses is mentioned by saying that such women do not enter the Temple of Murugan.

Song 305:
A young Brahmin stops a war by advising the King.

Line 3: He entered the palace without waiting outside. (This shows the status of Brahmins in ancient Tamil society)

Song 306:

Line 4: A woman worships her ancestors.

Song 342:

Line 5: Goddess Shri(Lakshmi) is mentioned.

Song 358:

Lines 4-6: ‘Tapas’ is far better than the worldly life. Those people who give up worldly life and take up ‘Tapas’ are supported by ‘Shri’.

[Note: The poet of this song is ‘Vanmikanar’ which is a Tamil Form of Valimiki. Hence, we can say that Ramayana and its author were very popular during Sangam Age.]

Song 361:

Lines 1-5: The King is not afraid of death as he has donated a lot of wealth to the learned Brahmins who do Yagnas.

Song 362:

Lines 9-10: Dharma is said to be enshrined in the four Vedas.

Song 367:

Line 1: Great wealth of Naga Loka is mentioned.

Lines 4-5: The act of giving donations to Brahmins is identified as ‘punya karma’.

Song 376:

Line 15: Poverty is compared to ‘Hell’.

Song 377:

The Song is about Chola King Perunarkilli who did the ‘Rajasuya Yagna’.

Song 378:

Lines 18-23: Ravana’s abduction of Sita is mentioned. The poet, in jest, compares the way in which the red-faced monkeys tried to wear the jewels thrown down by Sita with the wrong way in which the poet’s family members tried to wear the jewels presented to the poet by the King.

Song 397:

Lines 20-21: The Kingdom is compared to the sacred fire of the Brahmins who perform their six duties.

Song 400:

Line 19: Chola Nalankilli installed/repaired many ‘yupastambhas’.

Hinduism in Puranaanuru - Part 2

2007-01-16T23:47:00.000-08:00

Songs 31 to 175

Song 38:

Lines 12-15: Speak about the lack of 'have nots' in heaven due to which the deities cannot give any 'daana'.

Song 41:

Line 1: Yama takes the life of any living being only at the prescribed time.

Song 43:

Lines 1-4: For destroying the sufferings of those who live on earth, the Rsis('munivar') do 'Tapas' under the scorching sun with air as the only food.

Lines 12-14: The poet says that the forefathers of the King (Chola Maavalathaan) have never done anything that has caused grief to the Brahmins.

Song 55: Pandiyan King Nanmaaran

Lines 1-5: The 'Tripura samhaara' done by Lord Shiva is told in these lines and the King is compared to the 'third eye' of Lord Shiva.

Lines 20-21: A temple of Lord Murugan at the seashore is mentioned.

Song 56: Pandiyan King Nanmaaran

Lines 1-14: The King's anger is compared with that of Lord Shiva, his strength with that of Lord Balarama, his popularity with that of Lord Vishnu (Maayon), his ability( to do what he wishes) with that of Lord Murugan.

Song 57: Pandiyan King Nanmaaran

Lines 1-3: The King's ability (to protect) is compared with that of Lord Vishnu.

Song 58: Cholan Perun Thirumaavalavan and Pandiyan Peruvazhuthi

Lines 14-16: The poet says that when these two kings are together, they look like Lord Balarama and Lord Krishna.

Song 62:

Lines 16-19: Cheran Kudakko Peruncheralaathan and Cholan Perunarkilli are praised as soldiers who became the guests of the deities in heaven by virtue of their death at battlefield. In these lines the deities are described as wearing garlands whose flowers are always fresh, as having unblinking eyes and as eating the ambrosia.

Song 91:

Lines 5-7: King Athiyamaan Anchi is compared with the blue-throated Lord Shiva who has the moon on his head.

Song 99:

Line 1: King Athiyamaan Anchi praises the deities and offers ‘Aahuti’ in Yagnas.

Song 106:

Lines 1-3: Gods are so benevolent that they will accept even flowers like ‘Erukku’ when offered with true devotion. ( Compare this with Krishna’s ‘patram pushpam phalam toyam’(9.26) in Bhagavad Gita)

Song 122:

Lines 2-3: These lines say that the Kingdom of King Thirumudik Kaari became the property of the Brahmins who do the Yagnas.

Song 125:

Lines 19-20: King Thirumudik Kaari is compared with Lord Murugan.

Song 127:

Lines 4-5: King Aay Vel is praised as the one who gave away all the jewels of his queens as ‘daana’. It is mentioned that his queens had only the Tirumaangalyam (Thaali/Managala Gnaan) left on their body.
[Note that Thaali/Tirumaangalyaam is an auspicious thread worn by the Hindu married women which they remove on their becoming a widow]

Song 141:

Lines 13-15: King Began is praised as the one who gives ‘daana’ without any motives unlike other people who do such things to earn merit for their next births.

Song 161:

Lines 5-7: These lines mention the Ganga and her ability to have waters even in the rainless seasons. [There are many such rivers in North India. But the mentioning of Ganga alone shows her superiority (being the most holy) over others.]

Song 166:

Lines 1-9: The Vedas and their Angas are considered as based on the word of God (God’s matted hair is referred to, in this song. Also it is said that God never says a lie. Hence, the deity referred could be either Lord Shiva or Lord Ram). The hero of the song is praised as being born in a family which has done 21 different Yagnas.

Song 174:

Lines 1-5: They say that when the Asuras had hidden the Sun, black coloured God (Krishna/Vishnu) defeated them and brought sunlight to the world again.

Hinduism as found in Sangam work 'Puranaanuru' - Part I

2007-01-14T02:26:00.000-08:00

Puranaanuru is a compilation of 400 songs. Songs 1- 30 are dealt with in this first part.

1st Song: In praise of Siva

Line (L) 6 : Brahmins well versed in Vedas praise Shiva's blue throat(which He attained due to his act of drinking the poison which came out during the churning of the milk ocean)

2nd Song:

L 1-6: The Panchabhutas(five elements) are mentioned.

L 13-16: Praise Chera King Udiyan Cheralathan as the one who fed the Pandava and Kaurava armies during the legendary Mahabharata War.

5th Song:

L 6: Refers to Hell('nirayam' means narakam)

6th Song: Emperor Mudukudumi Peruvazhuthi

L 5-8: Three fold universe: underworld, earth and heaven

L 19-20: Let your head bow only before the Brahmins who have learned the four Vedas.

As this Emperor did a lot of Yagnas, he was also known as 'Pal Yagasalai Peruvazhuthi'

9th Song: Emperor Mudukudumi Peruvazhuthi

L 1-6: The Emperor asks the cattle, Brahmins, women, diseased persons and those people who don't have son(s)(to do their 'antima kriya' if they die) to go to a place of safety before he begins any war.

L 10: Nediyon, forefather of Mudukudumi, held festivals for the Sea God.

14th Song:

L 18-19: The Emperor is compared with Murugan(Skanda).

15 th Song: Emperor Mudukudumi Peruvazhuthi

L 16-22: The Emperor did a large number of Yagnas, as laid down in the four Vedas, with various offerings and he erected a large number of Yupastambhas.

16th Song: Emperor Perunarkilli

L 12: The Emperor is compared with Murugan(Skanda)

Emperor Perunarkilli did Rajasuya sacrifice.

[18th Song: This song is cited for some 'interesting' items mentioned in it

L 5: Decimal system is mentioned.

This song also speaks about building dams. (An advice to Emperor Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan) ]

23rd Song:

L 3-5: The soldiers are compared with the warriors of Murugan.

26th Song: Emperor Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan

L 12-15: The Emperor did Yagnas in which the Brahmins(who had learned the fourfold Vedas) were helped(in bringing the various offerings to Yagashala) by the defeated princes/smaller kings.

27th Song:

L 12: Speaks about the concept of rebirth.

29th Song:

L 11-12: Says that the King should not remain in the company of those who do not believe in the 'Karma' theory

Brahminism in Ancient Tamil Land

2007-01-04T04:50:00.000-08:00

There are certain ‘Scholars’/ ‘Politicians’ who claim that the ancient Tamils were not followers of Brahminical Hinduism. It is claimed by these people that Brahmins and their culture entered into the Tamil land from ‘Aryandom’ and that Varna system was not established in the Tamil country even until the 8th Century CE. [See Romila Thapar’s ‘Early India’]

The above claim is contested in this article and evidences from the ancient Tamil literature are presented to prove that Brahminical religion has been a part of the Tamil culture even from the dawn of civilization in the Tamil country. It is also shown that the Hindu Itihasas, Puranas and Vedas (along with Upanishads) were very well known even in the Sangam Age and that they were held in high esteem.

A Sangam song praises the Chera King of having provided food for the Pandava and
the Kaurava armies, while they battled at Kurukshetra. [Purananuru 2:13 – 16]

Bharatam Padiya Peruntevanar, Peruntevanar who translated the Mahabharata, wrote the invocation hymns to a few Sangam anthologies such as Akananuru, Purananuru, Kuruntokai, Narrinai and Ainkurunuru. His translation of the Mahabharata has not come down to us, though he has attained fame for that.

In another Sangam song, a poet eulogizes his Chola king, and is rewarded with expensive jewelry. He distributes his fortune among his relatives, who, overwhelmed by the royal jewelry, wear them quite awkwardly. The poet draws an analogy to a scene in the Kishkinda Kanda, where the monkeys of Sugriva, says the Tamil poet, toyed with the jewelry that Sita had dropped, while Ravana was abducting her. [Purananuru 378:16 – 21]

The most vivid recordings of Sati come from the Sangam Tamil literature. Evidently, a woman either joined her husband in his funeral pyre or burial urn, or led the austere life of a widow comparable to that of an ascetic. It can be argued that when the king died not only his queen[s], but also his attendants committed sati. A queen chastises the courtiers for not [apparently] performing sati and tells them that she would rather join her beloved husband in the pyre than lead the spartan life of a widow. Not for her, says she, is the life of a widow who eats one meal of rice mixed with gingili oil and neem leaves, and who sleeps on the bare floor. May you not commit sati, the queen tells the courtiers, rather sarcastically, but for me the cold water of the lake is not different from the fire of the pyre. And the very next song confirms that she did commit sati. [Purananuru 246]
Another Tamil woman implores the potter to make her husband’s burial urn large enough
to hold the widow as well. [Purananuru 256]

Tolkappiyam says that the highest glory that a woman can aspire for is to join her husband’s funeral pyre. [Tolkappiyam, Poruladhikaram 77]

Manimekhalai has an interesting narrative133 where the chaste Adhirai wrongly concludes that her trader husband had died and attempts to commit sati, but the fire refuses to engulf her. Then her husband returns and they live happily ever after! [Manimekhalai XVI]

A woman wasn’t always allowed to commit sati. A Sangam song says134 that after her son’s father departed, the widow’s head was tonsured and her bangles were removed.
Then onwards, lily with rice became her staple food. [Purananuru 250]

One of the songs says160 that even though a person may belong to a lower Varna among the four, if he were to acquire knowledge, then those born of the higher Varnas would respect him. [Purananuru 183:8 – 10]

The oldest extant Tamil grammatical treatise prescribes under what circumstances men of each Varna can go on sabbatical or separation. It says that a Brahmin can go away for learning the Vedas or on diplomacy, a king for matters of war and intrigue. [Tolkappiyam Poruladhikaram 28 and 29]

Elsewhere, the same book also lists what the duties of each of the four Varnas have traditionally been. It says that a Brahmin wears the sacred thread, carries the kamandala and uses the tortoise shaped wooden plank as his seat [for studying the scriptures], and he can also be a minister or the king. [Tolkappiyam Poruladhikaram 615 and 627]

A Jaina saint considers it inauspicious when the Brahmins give up chanting of the
Vedas and take to other professions. In Silappadikaram, the newly married Kovalan and Kannagi are dissuaded from entering a settlement where the Brahmins musicians reside. [Silappadikaram 13:38 – 40]

A woman suspects her man of infidelity, because of the new fragrance on his body, which she believes he acquired from a prostitute. He protests that he is innocent, takes
a vow on the Brahmins [because they were revered in the society] and pleads that the fragrance on his body is due to his traversing the path full of groves where the wafting breeze carried the fragrance of the flowers that grew there! [Paripadal 8:51 – 55]

The grateful Brahmin poet has not forgotten his patron king; after the latter dies, he brings the king’s daughters under his tutelage, declares them as his own, and proposes to an illustrious king who, the poet says, is the forty ninth scion of the dynasty that ruled Dwaraka once, that he marry them. [Purananuru 201:6 – 10]

His selfless gratitude must have been widely known during the Sangam age, for another poet praises182 him as the Brahmin without a blemish in his character, and alludes to the incident the previously quoted song talks about. [Purananuru 126:11 – 13]

The dakshina a king offers the sacrificing Brahmins who are well versed in the Vedas. [Patirruppattu 64:3 – 5]

The delicious vegetarian cuisine that a Panan is served while he visits a Brahmin household. [Perumpanarruppadai 301 - 310]

Siva is called The Brahmin. [Paripadal 5:22 – 30]

The Brahmin woman is described as very chaste and shy, and is compared to
the Northern star Arundhati. [Perumpanarruppadai 302 – 304]

There are various verses in Paripadal devoted to Tirumaal (Vishnu) where the Vedas and the Brahmins are often referred to. [Paripadal 1 – 4, 13 and 15].

Tirukkural has referred to the Brahmins and the Vedas. This is well known in scholarly circles. A look at Parimelazhagar’s commentary would suggest that Tiruvalluvar knew the Dharmashastras and that he has used them in his Tirukkural. It also shows that Tiruvalluvar knew the Vedic religion and believed in it. [He has referred to various Hindu Gods].

The above references are more than enough to prove that the ancient Tamil culture knew Brahmins and Brahminical religion and that they formed an integral part of their culture.

[ Note: This article is a mere compilation of extracts from Kalavai Venkat’s ‘Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD']

The Identity of IVC People

2007-01-04T04:39:00.000-08:00

Let me discuss briefly about the identity of IVC (Indus Valley Civilization) people.

Are they ‘Dravidians’?

The answer is a vehement ‘NO’.

The ancient Tamil literature does not know about any land to the north in which there was any Tamil civilization nor do they say that the Tamils have migrated from North due to any invasion or other reasons. They claim that the Tamils had their dwellings in a land further south which was destroyed by sea.

There are no huge cities belonging to the 2nd Millennium BCE in the Tamil country. It is certainly impossible to even think that the founders of IVC will give up their culture entirely and turn back to Stone Age living (as evidenced by the existing of Neolithic sites of this period). Also, it has to be noted that there is a continuity of IVC in the northern part of India in the form of Dwaraka (S.R.Rao – 1999), Hastinapura etc. This is not possible if the indigenous civilization was replaced by a foreign culture.

Tamil has no local words for ‘Lion’, ‘Rhinoceros’ etc. If Tamils had lived in North India, they would have their own words for these common animals. The Tamil words are ‘Cingam / Singam’ (derived from ‘simha’) and ‘KAndAmirugam’ (derived from ‘Khadgamriga’).

The next argument put forth is that Indo-Aryans brought horses which were unknown to IVC people. But the Tamil words for horse have local origins. The Tamil words for horse are ‘Kudirai’, ‘Pari’, ‘MA’ etc. Moreover horse figurines have been obtained in Lothal. Faunal remains have been found in Lothal and Surkotada. On the faunal remains from Surkotada, the renowned international authority on horse‑bones, Sandor Bokonyi, Hungary, states: ‘The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).’ In addition to these, Kalibangan and Rupnagar have also yielded faunal remains.

Moreover, no river, city or mountain of North India has any Tamil name. This is important to note because the place names normally exhibit the early language of that place (e.g. ‘Mississippi’ in North America). There is no such place in the world where the invaders have completely changed the names of the rivers, places etc. This is something impossible.

Moreover, the existence of fire altars in IVC (At Kalibangan) shows an Aryan connection. Fire is an integral part of Vedic rituals.

The claims that Tamil words are found in Rg Veda have been proved wrong by Shrikant Talageri (1993).

Are they ‘Austric’?

No, because there is no proof for this hypothesis. The Austric people of India have not built any cities in the 1st Millennium BCE. The Austric languages have borrowed a lot from Indo-Aryan and very few Austric words have been loaned by Indo-Aryan languages. Moreover, the Sanskrit names for Indian plants and animals have local origins and have not been loaned from Austric/Dravidian languages. No place/river in the Indus Valley has any Austric name. Above all, mere hypothesis cannot be considered as a fact and no solid proof has been provided to establish that IVC is Austric.

Are they ‘Indo- European’ (Aryan)?

I know that most people will oppose this vociferously. They may call me as ‘Hindu chauvinist/fundamentalist’ (Marxist parlance) / ‘Brahmin terrorist’ (DK parlance) / ‘Hindu Nationalist’ (Witzel). Now, why is there such an aversion towards the idea itself? People will call IVC as anything but Aryan. Are there any strong archaeological reasons for this opposition? Or is it due to some unassailable evidence found in literature? Or is due to some invincible evidence put forward by Linguistics?

First of all, B.B.Lal has clearly stated that there is no Archaeological evidence for Aryan Invasion/Migration Theories. After a thorough study of the human skeletal remains, Hemphill and his colleagues (1991) have shown that there was a biological continuity right from 4500 BCE to 800 BCE. (Cited by B.B.Lal)

Then Sarasvati is mentioned in the Vedic literature. It is claimed that the Sarasvati of Vedic literature is Helmand of Afghanistan. But the Rg Veda (10.75.5-6) mentions the rivers in an east to west direction and it places Sarasvati between Yamuna and Sutlej. Hence the Sarasvati of the Vedas is the Ghagghar-Hakra of today. It is now known that this river dried up completely by 2000-1900 BCE. Eminent geologists, V. M. K. Puri and B. C. Verma, have demonstrated how the Sarasvati originated from the Himalayan glaciers and how subsequently its channel got blocked because of tectonic movements in the Himalayas, as a result of which the original channel dried up and its water got diverted to the Yamuna. It is due to this natural disaster that IVC centres were abandoned. Therefore, the Vedic literature must predate this period. (Excerpt from B.B.Lal’s paper ‘The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts’)

Moreover, the Sarasvati of Rg Veda (7.95.2) flowed from mountains to the sea. Helmand does not flow to the sea. It further confirms our theory that the Vedic land is Haryana (Kurukshetra) and the Vedic period is prior to 2nd Millennium BCE.

There are certain ‘scholars’ who claim that the Vedic people did not know the sea. But this claim is ridiculous. No one can deny the fact that the Vedic Aryans knew the Indus plains. How is it possible that someone knew the Indus plains but not the sea, especially, when the people were great wanderers (as per those who subscribe to AIT/AMT).

The Brahmanas (Panchvimsa Brahmana (XXV.10.16)) do mention about the drying up of Sarasvati. Hence, this is a very solid proof for the fact that IVC people must be Indo-Aryans. (Cited by B.B.Lal)

The astronomical observations mentioned in the Vedic literature also point to an epoch which is very much earlier to 1200 BCE. Shataptha Brahmana refers to Pleiades (Krittika) on the celestial equator. This event occurred around 3000 BCE. (Narahari Achar in EJVS Dec, 1999::Vol. 5(1999), issue 2(December)). This, further, confirms our theory as it pushes back the date of the samhitas to 4th Millennium BCE.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, in the Vedic literature to prove that Aryans came from outside. There is nothing in the Vedas which point to a foreign land.

Finally, Koenraad Elst, Shrikant Talageri and Nicholas Kazanas have proved that there is no strong linguistic evidence for AIT/AMT and they have also shown that OIT(Out of India Theory) does not suffer from any linguistic evidence against it. Linguistics can also be used to propose the OIT.

In conclusion, we may say, IVC people were Indo-Europeans (Aryans).

Appendix:

Horse:

Generally, it is claimed by certain people that horses were unknown to India and that only Aryans brought horses into India. Evidence for horses in IVC has been given above. Still, a supplement is given here:

“Horse bones have been reported as early as the 5th millennium BC at Mahagara and Koldihwa [Sharif and Thapar 1992:151] in Uttar Pradesh. The C-14 dates of these sites were at first doubted, but retests have only established that the earlier dates of 5th millennium BC were correct [Chakrabarti 1999:104-105]. Coming to the Mature Harappan period, horse bones have been found at several sites such as Kuntasi [Dhavalikar 1995: 116-117], Malvan [Allchin and Joshi 1995: 95], Shikarpur [P. K. Thomas et al 1995] etc. They have also been reported conclusively at Hallur in Karnataka, at levels dated securely at 1500-1700 BC. If the Aryans were just entering Baluchistan and NWFP at that time, Karnataka becomes too south a place for horse remains to surface so early!” (David Frawley in ‘Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How To Read Vedic Texts Any Way You Like’)

The anatomy of the horse, as described in the Rigveda and other Vedic texts, is different from that of the Central Asian horse (supposedly brought to India by the Indo-Aryan speakers) and in fact similar to some extinct and modern tropical varieties of horses (like the Arabian horse).

Spoked Wheels:

The presence of spoked wheels in Rg Veda is cited as a proof for the AIT/AMT. The argument is that spoked wheels are not found in IVC. But B.B.Lal has disproved this argument. Spoked wheels have been found in Rakhigarhi and Banawali.

Rakhigarhi: Terracotta wheel with painted lines has been found. The painted lines radiating from the central hub and reaching the circumference clearly represent the spokes of the wheel.

Banawali: Terracotta wheels showing the spokes in low relief have been found.

Moreover, Shrikant Talageri, in his reply to Witzel’s review of his book ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’, has clearly proved that ‘spoked wheels’ are not mentioned in the early books of the Rg Veda.
[(III.4.e) of his reply to Witzel’s review deals with this issue]

Sindhu – Sarasvati Civilization / Indus – Sarasvati Civilization:

A great majority of the IVC/SSC sites have been found on the banks of Sarasvati and hence, it is time to rename the culture as ‘Indus Sarasvati Civilization / Sindhu – Sarasvati Civilization’. Some Marxist historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib etc. oppose this. Such arguments have been dealt with in detail by the supporters of OIT. [E.g. See Kalavai Venkat’s ‘A Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD]

References:

B.B.Lal - ‘Why Perpetuate Myths? A Fresh Look at Ancient Indian History’
B.B.Lal - ‘The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts’
B.N. Narahari Achar - ‘On Exploring the Vedic Sky with Modern Computer Software’ in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (Vol. 5 (1999), issue 2 (December))
S.R. Rao - ‘The Lost City of Dwaraka’ (1999, Aditya Prakashan)
Shrikant G. Talageri - ‘The Aryan Invasion Theory A Reappraisal’ (1993, Aditya Prakashan)
David Frawley - ‘Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How To Read Vedic Texts Any Way You Like’ (Open Page of The Hindu 25th June 2002).
Kalavai Venkat - ‘A Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD
Nicholas Kazanas - ‘A New Date For The Rgveda’
Nicholas Kazanas – ‘Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European’
Koenraad Elst – ‘Linguistic Aspects of Aryan Non-Invasion Theory’
Shrikant G. Talageri’s reply to Witzel’s review of ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’

A Humble Beginning

2007-01-04T04:37:00.000-08:00

I would publish some compilations of extracts from certain articles and essays. Original writings will be posted by me when I have enough time.