What's new

I suppose this makes it definitive....

There are different views on which individual really turned mainstream Islamic theology and philosophy to become increasingly introvert. Ghazali is generally considered one of the contenders. Another is Abu Ali Hasan ibn Ali Tusi, the Persian scholar and Vizier who established the Nizamiyah school system. At the end of the day geo-politically speaking the Muslim world was on the "back-foot" at this point (to use the cricketing term). The major cultural and academic capitals of the Muslim world (Cordoba, Baghdad, Bukhara, Damascus, Jerusalem) had all been lost to the likes of the Spanish reconquista, Mongols as well as the Crusaders. Cairo was the only major center of culture and education to survive, thanks to Baibars and its no surprise that Al Azhar is generally speaking regarded as one of the centers of religious studies today in the Sunni world. However military and political defeats automatically leads people towards dogmatism, so that their understanding of the world and themselves makes more sense.

The Ottomans tried to reignite the spark, a notable example of a scientist living at their patronage being Taqi ad-Din Shami, but it was an Empire existing against all odds, fighting numerous coalitions and beset on all sides by enemies waiting for a moment of weakness to pounce. The Empire became increasingly focused around warfare (which they excelled at). However as the centuries rolled the tide was increasingly turning towards the Europeans as we all know.

Thank you for this very illuminating note.
 
And no physical violence from the right wing Hindus? They are just as organised, just as single-minded, but fortunately not organised for the para-military carnage that ISIS or Al Qaeda are. They simply happen to follow the great Indian tradition of rioting and murderous assault. Of course, you have argued that there is a difference; some deaths are deader than others. An obvious point, and apparent to all but the naive, in their naivete, or their naivette, as you like it.

Are you then of the opinion that until the RSS/BJP types smooth and perfect their tactics (more their methodology, but then we naive tend to obfuscate the obvious purity of purpose of the Hindu by quibbling with words), we should give them the indulgence that we grant an L Plate holder on the roads? That is what your position amounts to.

Perhaps academics like you are the reason for this upsurge and ultimate popularity of so called "Hinduic Brigade" although it still misses me the Hinduness of this brigade other than the vermilion on forehead and may be poseidon's staff's in photos available here and there.

I truly believe the intelligentia of this society have let down this country in their some times wanted and sometimes resultant cohabitation with so called Secular or should i say sicular democratic grand old party of India. (vermilion replaced by muslim or christian symbols and secular secular jaap??).

I mean this political fight has got so vitriolic that it has seeped into living rooms of people!!!

Seems that now the bastards are turning to Dalits who seem to be replacing Muslims now as the scoring point.

I mean i have never seen the signature campaigns for distinguished eminent scholars in Congressi times ?? (or even Vajpayee times too probably) as in this.

Political correctness and inclusiveness for 60+ years (ofcourse 70) have rather given rise to some nasty perceptions. I mean in the end the general guy is scratching his head at what has happened and what is happening and where he stands!!!!

Onething i am finding truly repulsive Joe is that i as a brahmin hindu kid never heard an utter of contempt for any other (either religious or cast wise ) from my family or among friends leave aside pointers to differences but now oh the hate online and even among people am surprised where we are headed???

In the end its a question of who is fuelling whom or what is fuelling what here.

This, too, is a confirmation of the migration model, except that in the case of the Greeks, the invasion and conquest themes are frankly acknowledged and clearly reflected in elite burial methods; the Mycenaean tombs and their contents clearly belonged to an aristocratic layer. Greek proto-history is an affirmation of its Indian counterpart; even the dates are affirmative. A consideration of the similarities and the cross-references could go on and on. It is better to stop where you did, delineating a society dominated by descendants of steppe-dwelling migrants married into a pre-existing autochthonous population.



I knew I'd forgotten somebody. Apologies, @Nilgiri, put it down to a combination of senility and uncertainty about the continued existence of decent Indian members.

Coming back to your sad commentary, I don't agree; those were indeed blatant strawman and, in places, ad hominem interventions, and can be seen as such, and left alone. We already have a clear statement of purpose from a rare specimen, an intellectually well-endowed participant in that sub-discussion; I have personally no difficulty in ignoring those deliberate and ideologically originated interventions, and concentrating on the other academic and thought-through posts. I beg you to do the same; acknowledge and respect the intellect of a thin crust among those interlocutors, and ignore their content and concentrate on the interesting and germane content of the discussions.

If you will permit me to re-direct your attention to the original theme, recent archaeological analysis and reconsideration of the contents of south Indian (not south Asian) epigraphy has generated a model of a relatively late adoption of an imported theogony and its supporters, the priests of that theogony. There are enormous spans of time between any possible date for a possible historical person named Agasthya and these developments in Tamilakam; do you think that it could be that there was a two-step process at work? An initial Sanskritisation of the Deccan, the land of the Maratha, the Telinga, the Andhra and the Kannada, followed by a much later phase of Sanskritisation of Tamilakam?

So does Agastya point to or is allegory to transfer of this Indo Aryan culture which as per this inconclusive study of migration theory from out of India to North to South?

There is a sub caste in Brahmins called 6000 Niyogis who seem to have crossed over from Maharashtra or some Northern territory into Andhra (dont remember correctly which it is). Admittedly this is too recent so above influx cant be ruled out seeing India at crossroads so to speak although most people find it problematic when assertions about them bringing in Sanskrit and Vedas with them hehe.

Where do the Dalit subcaste end up in this equation? are they the disenfranchised in the process of Vedic culture being forced upon local Indic tribes? some times it is really confusing. No mention of this word in puranic traditions i believe (not sure fully)

Also as some earlier poster mentioned why are the Iranian or Russian or Centran Asian lands free of such language or culture??
 
Interesting points. Not strong, but very sensitive and well worth an answer, which I shall humbly attempt.

Perhaps academics like you are the reason for this upsurge and ultimate popularity of so called "Hinduic Brigade" although it still misses me the Hinduness of this brigade other than the vermilion on forehead and may be poseidon's staff's in photos available here and there.

A very valid point, but only in context.

Collapsing the whole tug-of-war into an academic battle between two academic camps has more than one weakness.

First, it ignores the entire intellectual history of the sub-continent; it ignores the primal lemma that a major historical occurrence, and possibly a major root of subsequently unique Indian intellectual frameworks, was a breakaway faction of a larger grouping who imposed their language, their theology and, partially, their theogony, and perhaps significant social structures and parts of current social processes into the sub-continent. While it is not sought to be argued here that this was a total root-and-branch replacement of existing society and culture, or that the old ways were totally abandoned, it is reasonable to argue from the evidence that we have that there was a significant degree of cross-fertilisation, leading, finally, to amalgamation of the opposed cultures.

The point? Why, simply this; that vigorous, robust intellectual debate, and related social churn, was part of Indian intellectual history right from the visible, recognisable outset; we honestly don't have any clues to the preceding centuries, ranging back to the Mohenjodaro-Harappa culture. These debates occurred at various times; passing over, for the moment, the evidence of contention between different schools of philosophy that ended in the practical elimination of four out of the six identified, we have the massive ferment of the seventh century BC. It cannot be without social significance that two of the world's great religious and philosophical teachers are identified with the ruling class, and are apparently hostile to the earlier religious ethos. We can take note, in passing, of the struggles that followed, by tracing the political history of the times (recorded not by us Indians but by the foreigners who analysed our own fragmented and indirect sources and put these into a coherent narrative).

The part that you are unhappy about was merely one of the very late episodes in this on-going tussle between political philosophies, into which academic research and procedure has been challenged at the grass-roots.

Having come to a working understanding with the ruling elements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, an understanding evolved over nearly six centuries of engagement with an unknown religion and its philosophers and theologians, the Indian intellectual elite was suddenly blind-sided by the rapid acquisition of power by a very remote civilisation and cultural and intellectual ethos, one to which it had not been exposed before. A change of front resulted, from an exploration of their respective linguistic positions, to an examination of legal systems, and to a concentrated attempt to understand the fiscal foundations, the taxation processes and, inevitably, in a pre-modern age, the land-holding and land ownership patterns. This was when there was put down the roots of today's hatred by the traditional intellectual elite (not to be confused with the social or political elite) of Indian society.

So when you speak of the academics like you, what you actually mean is academics of the western persuasion, those who believe in the scientific method, those whose attention is outward, towards empirical studies of the sort that the British made famous, and towards a culture of peer-reviewed papers published in journals accepted by a dominant section of the intellectual world. These - the scientific method, outward, rather than inward, attention, the substitution of empiricism for conjectural or metaphysical investigation, and the network of academically acceptable means of self-expression - are totally lost on the local, hitherto displaced elite. Their lack of engagement with these aspects of society and academic practice led to their inability to meet the challenges of the British Raj. On this feeling of inadequacy and its attendant defensiveness is based the great resurgence and the growth of a pseudo-historical counter-culture. In the current narrative of the traditional elite, they are the victims of an unequal social structure, and are entitled to compensation, and to active discrimination in their favour to right the historical wrongs done to them. Dalit and minority grievances become manufactures of the artificial intellectual structure imposed on society by colonialists. Their claims to victimhood and their claims to correction of millennia of discrimination now become political manoeuvres intended to perpetuate the disinherited status of the traditional elite.

I truly believe the intelligentia of this society have let down this country in their some times wanted and sometimes resultant cohabitation with so called Secular or should i say sicular democratic grand old party of India. (vermilion replaced by muslim or christian symbols and secular secular jaap??).

This deplorable statement and the completely different one that follows show the confusion that has infused the traditional elite.

It is not clear what you mean by the 'so-called Secular'; is that an illicit class or category, or were the people proclaiming that principle actually working against its principles, and creating a non-secular society?

[I mean this political fight has got so vitriolic that it has seeped into living rooms of people!!!
Seems that now the bastards are turning to Dalits who seem to be replacing Muslims now as the scoring point.[/quote]

Two separate, but very interesting thoughts here.

First, that the political fight has 'seeped' into living rooms of people.

That begs the question: was there no politics in the living rooms of people, say, during the independence movement? Or during the heights of the Communist agitation in Telengana and Andhra? Or during the Naxalite domination of Bengal? Or during the JP agitation? Or during the Emergency? Or during the Bhindranwale months in the Punjab? I could go on, but the point is clear: in what way is this current state of affairs different?

Second, that Dalits are replacing Muslims as the scoring point. Scoring point? This is now a game? People turned outlaw because they belong to a minority are not serious breaches of constitutional rule? And do we take it that any efforts at the amelioration of the lot of Muslims was merely a superficial thing, intended to keep score in this game, with no sincerity of thought, policy or action behind it? There is such a huge insight into the thinking of the traditional elite embedded in these simple, coarse phrases soaked with contempt, a sense of entitlement, and total disregard of the interests or conditions of life of the minorities.

I mean i have never seen the signature campaigns for distinguished eminent scholars in Congressi times ?? (or even Vajpayee times too probably) as in this.

The reference is obscure. Could you throw some more light on this? What signature campaigns? Which scholars?

Political correctness and inclusiveness for 60+ years (ofcourse 70) have rather given rise to some nasty perceptions. I mean in the end the general guy is scratching his head at what has happened and what is happening and where he stands!!!!

This is even more obscure. Quite clearly, you are trying hard to communicate a terrible failure of the general public discourse on the question of nationhood, and why India is a nation in the first place: an Indian equivalent, if you like, of the nazariya e Pakistan, our own nazariya e Hind.

If you could explain what, in your view, are these nasty perceptions, and if you could give us some hints as to what has happened, what is happening and where he stands, it would help in framing a response.

Meanwhile, as to where (the general guy) stands, that is quite clear: a caste Hindu citizen is either supportive of the affirmative action taken up by the current ruling dispensation, or he is anguished by the deliberate efforts to dissolve the democratic consensus and respect for the rights of the individual in favour of the traditional elite and its associated caste Hindus; a non-caste Hindu has a sinking feeling as he realises that the principle of affirmative action to correct centuries of harsh and ugly discrimination is now in serious question; a Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Buddhist (both latter-day converts and the hill people where Buddhism is strong), a Christian, a Parsi, all of them are painfully aware that democracy has now been twisted to mean the rule of the majority, brushing aside any rights of the others not in the majority.

Onething i am finding truly repulsive Joe is that i as a brahmin hindu kid never heard an utter of contempt for any other (either religious or cast wise ) from my family or among friends leave aside pointers to differences but now oh the hate online and even among people am surprised where we are headed???

That children in genteel circles were not exposed to contempt for others is rather difficult to believe. My mother, growing up as a child in south India, at lunch with Brahmin friends, was urged to gulp down her food, as it would be thrown away due to the ayah having come into sight during lunch. My cousins by marriage related their trauma in Hyderabad in the 60s and 70s during Bakr Id, when the family crowded into a room furthest away from the neighbours, 'Turkis' was the expression used, whose slaughter of animals made the entire locality reek of blood. I can give you several thousand anecdotal examples.

That barely concealed hatred has now become legal tender thanks to the sentiments of the ruling party.

In the end its a question of who is fuelling whom or what is fuelling what here.

Simple answer to your question: if your only political principle, your sole plank, is discrimination, blatant and forthright, and imposition of narrow, sectarian views on others, irrespective of their own personal beliefs and values, if you have nothing to offer but hate, then you get back - surprise! - hate.

So does Agastya point to or is allegory to transfer of this Indo Aryan culture which as per this inconclusive study of migration theory from out of India to North to South?

A separate discussion. From this point onwards, you were referring to my post addressed to Nilgiri, where the issues raised were quite different from those in the other post. I will use this opportunity to clearly distinguish between the conclusions of the study, apparent and indirect, both, and other extrapolations of a personal nature.

The study had nothing to say about the dissemination of certain cultural practices from the north of India to the south. It merely said that there was apparently an intrusion of a largely male set of people in 1500 BC, and that there was therefore a possibility that the Indo-Aryan language (the language of the Vedas, specifically, the Rg Veda) was introduced to India by these migrants.

There is nothing in it about Agastya or the Agastya allegory. There is nothing about north or about south India.

That was my own proposal, to explain the similar infusion of a particular culture into a different geography.

There is a sub caste in Brahmins called 6000 Niyogis who seem to have crossed over from Maharashtra or some Northern territory into Andhra (dont remember correctly which it is). Admittedly this is too recent so above influx cant be ruled out seeing India at crossroads so to speak although most people find it problematic when assertions about them bringing in Sanskrit and Vedas with them hehe.

The point being?

There is a belief among certain Iyengar families that they are descendants of migrants from Hissar in Haryana. Even among them, it was a carefully preserved within-caste discrimination that some families were Vadagalai, not to be confused with the Thengalai. This particular discrimination is linked to Ramanujacharya's acceptance into the fold all who believed in Vishishtadvaita, and dark suspicions of a dilution of the lineage as a direct result.

Where do the Dalit subcaste end up in this equation?

Not a sub-caste; several, numerous castes not entitled to the privileges of caste Hindus. Formerly known as Sudra, then the wishy-washy Harijan, currently Dalit. However, elements of Sudra have climbed out of Dalit status, usually through acquisition of political power.

are they the disenfranchised in the process of Vedic culture being forced upon local Indic tribes? some times it is really confusing. No mention of this word in puranic traditions i believe (not sure fully)

Dalit? No, there should be no mention of it in Puranic tradition; it is a modern coinage.
Sudra? Look again; the texts you refer to are littered with references to the Sudra.

Also as some earlier poster mentioned why are the Iranian or Russian or Centran Asian lands free of such language or culture??

A study of the genetic variation among finches of the Galapagos Islands will throw clear light on the answer to your question.

Good joke, but still factually incorrect.

North Hindustanis experienced the same thing, just about everyone in the region who is hairy and not black experienced this.

You don't get it, do you? He is not even north Hindustani, in your wording.
 
Last edited:
Interesting points. Not strong, but very sensitive and well worth an answer, which I shall humbly attempt.



A very valid point, but only in context.

Collapsing the whole tug-of-war into an academic battle between two academic camps has more than one weakness.

First, it ignores the entire intellectual history of the sub-continent; it ignores the primal lemma that a major historical occurrence, and possibly a major root of subsequently unique Indian intellectual frameworks, was a breakaway faction of a larger grouping who imposed their language, their theology and, partially, their theogony, and perhaps significant social structures and parts of current social processes into the sub-continent. While it is not sought to be argued here that this was a total root-and-branch replacement of existing society and culture, or that the old ways were totally abandoned, it is reasonable to argue from the evidence that we have that there was a significant degree of cross-fertilisation, leading, finally, to amalgamation of the opposed cultures.

The point? Why, simply this; that vigorous, robust intellectual debate, and related social churn, was part of Indian intellectual history right from the visible, recognisable outset; we honestly don't have any clues to the preceding centuries, ranging back to the Mohenjodaro-Harappa culture. These debates occurred at various times; passing over, for the moment, the evidence of contention between different schools of philosophy that ended in the practical elimination of four out of the six identified, we have the massive ferment of the seventh century BC. It cannot be without social significance that two of the world's great religious and philosophical teachers are identified with the ruling class, and are apparently hostile to the earlier religious ethos. We can take note, in passing, of the struggles that followed, by tracing the political history of the times (recorded not by us Indians but by the foreigners who analysed our own fragmented and indirect sources and put these into a coherent narrative).

The part that you are unhappy about was merely one of the very late episodes in this on-going tussle between political philosophies, into which academic research and procedure has been challenged at the grass-roots.

Having come to a working understanding with the ruling elements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, an understanding evolved over nearly six centuries of engagement with an unknown religion and its philosophers and theologians, the Indian intellectual elite was suddenly blind-sided by the rapid acquisition of power by a very remote civilisation and cultural and intellectual ethos, one to which it had not been exposed before. A change of front resulted, from an exploration of their respective linguistic positions, to an examination of legal systems, and to a concentrated attempt to understand the fiscal foundations, the taxation processes and, inevitably, in a pre-modern age, the land-holding and land ownership patterns. This was when there was put down the roots of today's hatred by the traditional intellectual elite (not to be confused with the social or political elite) of Indian society.

So when you speak of the academics like you, what you actually mean is academics of the western persuasion, those who believe in the scientific method, those whose attention is outward, towards empirical studies of the sort that the British made famous, and towards a culture of peer-reviewed papers published in journals accepted by a dominant section of the intellectual world. These - the scientific method, outward, rather than inward, attention, the substitution of empiricism for conjectural or metaphysical investigation, and the network of academically acceptable means of self-expression - are totally lost on the local, hitherto displaced elite. Their lack of engagement with these aspects of society and academic practice led to their inability to meet the challenges of the British Raj. On this feeling of inadequacy and its attendant defensiveness is based the great resurgence and the growth of a pseudo-historical counter-culture. In the current narrative of the traditional elite, they are the victims of an unequal social structure, and are entitled to compensation, and to active discrimination in their favour to right the historical wrongs done to them. Dalit and minority grievances become manufactures of the artificial intellectual structure imposed on society by colonialists. Their claims to victimhood and their claims to correction of millennia of discrimination now become political manoeuvres intended to perpetuate the disinherited status of the traditional elite.



This deplorable statement and the completely different one that follows show the confusion that has infused the traditional elite.

It is not clear what you mean by the 'so-called Secular'; is that an illicit class or category, or were the people proclaiming that principle actually working against its principles, and creating a non-secular society?

[I mean this political fight has got so vitriolic that it has seeped into living rooms of people!!!
Seems that now the bastards are turning to Dalits who seem to be replacing Muslims now as the scoring point.

Two separate, but very interesting thoughts here.

First, that the political fight has 'seeped' into living rooms of people.

That begs the question: was there no politics in the living rooms of people, say, during the independence movement? Or during the heights of the Communist agitation in Telengana and Andhra? Or during the Naxalite domination of Bengal? Or during the JP agitation? Or during the Emergency? Or during the Bhindranwale months in the Punjab? I could go on, but the point is clear: in what way is this current state of affairs different?

Second, that Dalits are replacing Muslims as the scoring point. Scoring point? This is now a game? People turned outlaw because they belong to a minority are not serious breaches of constitutional rule? And do we take it that any efforts at the amelioration of the lot of Muslims was merely a superficial thing, intended to keep score in this game, with no sincerity of thought, policy or action behind it? There is such a huge insight into the thinking of the traditional elite embedded in these simple, coarse phrases soaked with contempt, a sense of entitlement, and total disregard of the interests or conditions of life of the minorities.



The reference is obscure. Could you throw some more light on this? What signature campaigns? Which scholars?



This is even more obscure. Quite clearly, you are trying hard to communicate a terrible failure of the general public discourse on the question of nationhood, and why India is a nation in the first place: an Indian equivalent, if you like, of the nazariya e Pakistan, our own nazariya e Hind.

If you could explain what, in your view, are these nasty perceptions, and if you could give us some hints as to what has happened, what is happening and where he stands, it would help in framing a response.

Meanwhile, as to where (the general guy) stands, that is quite clear: a caste Hindu citizen is either supportive of the affirmative action taken up by the current ruling dispensation, or he is anguished by the deliberate efforts to dissolve the democratic consensus and respect for the rights of the individual in favour of the traditional elite and its associated caste Hindus; a non-caste Hindu has a sinking feeling as he realises that the principle of affirmative action to correct centuries of harsh and ugly discrimination is now in serious question; a Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Buddhist (both latter-day converts and the hill people where Buddhism is strong), a Christian, a Parsi, all of them are painfully aware that democracy has now been twisted to mean the rule of the majority, brushing aside any rights of the others not in the majority.



That children in genteel circles were not exposed to contempt for others is rather difficult to believe. My mother, growing up as a child in south India, at lunch with Brahmin friends, was urged to gulp down her food, as it would be thrown away due to the ayah having come into sight during lunch. My cousins by marriage related their trauma in Hyderabad in the 60s and 70s during Bakr Id, when the family crowded into a room furthest away from the neighbours, 'Turkis' was the expression used, whose slaughter of animals made the entire locality reek of blood. I can give you several thousand anecdotal examples.

That barely concealed hatred has now become legal tender thanks to the sentiments of the ruling party.



Simple answer to your question: if your only political principle, your sole plank, is discrimination, blatant and forthright, and imposition of narrow, sectarian views on others, irrespective of their own personal beliefs and values, if you have nothing to offer but hate, then you get back - surprise! - hate.



A separate discussion. From this point onwards, you were referring to my post addressed to Nilgiri, where the issues raised were quite different from those in the other post. I will use this opportunity to clearly distinguish between the conclusions of the study, apparent and indirect, both, and other extrapolations of a personal nature.

The study had nothing to say about the dissemination of certain cultural practices from the north of India to the south. It merely said that there was apparently an intrusion of a largely male set of people in 1500 BC, and that there was therefore a possibility that the Indo-Aryan language (the language of the Vedas, specifically, the Rg Veda) was introduced to India by these migrants.

There is nothing in it about Agastya or the Agastya allegory. There is nothing about north or about south India.

That was my own proposal, to explain the similar infusion of a particular culture into a different geography.



The point being?

There is a belief among certain Iyengar families that they are descendants of migrants from Hissar in Haryana. Even among them, it was a carefully preserved within-caste discrimination that some families were Vadagalai, not to be confused with the Thengalai. This particular discrimination is linked to Ramanujacharya's acceptance into the fold all who believed in Vishishtadvaita, and dark suspicions of a dilution of the lineage as a direct result.



Not a sub-caste; several, numerous castes not entitled to the privileges of caste Hindus. Formerly known as Sudra, then the wishy-washy Harijan, currently Dalit. However, elements of Sudra have climbed out of Dalit status, usually through acquisition of political power.



Dalit? No, there should be no mention of it in Puranic tradition; it is a modern coinage.
Sudra? Look again; the texts you refer to are littered with references to the Sudra.



A study of the genetic variation among finches of the Galapagos Islands will throw clear light on the answer to your question.



You don't get it, do you? He is not even north Hindustani, in your wording.[/QUOTE]

When i said so called secular, i was calling out the Congress in particular and unequivocally. Them being in the rule for so long and the ones with power i believe have just distorted the secular word. I am not going to quote BJP's line by saying that oh the hindu's were always secular etc etc. I simply feel this culture had let us say a different take on this secular word and its meaning. I am in no lala land to believe we (i mean hindus) are not prone to violence in thoughts and acts and discrimination.

I believe there was some kind of social order which prevailed by effect of social structure like elders, relations between social classes etc leading to a stable society, and when i say stable without constant fights but not free of discrimination. After all the western thinkers to come up with seperation of state and church took centuries and many a body count?? Its just that given our history and geography no time was there for the society to go through a churning so to speak.

The reason for me calling out the party only is that them being the starters in a free India could shape the society in a better way. But what happened each passing five years the worst took the seat at top and other than ideologies twisted to their use and making communities fight each other what useful work was done other than say liberalization which also thought about clearly was a necessity. This is why i call them so called secular as they by which i mean the leaders utter just words for public consumption without meaning. And when i say intellectuals you surely whom i meant, not you personally but exactly those who in key positions were towing the official line. I believe Ram Guha once did point out to the in some program about these people.

Yes and i don't say this with contempt but with strong belief that parties have turned this uplift thing of either minorities or socially disenfranchised in to a game. I am fully in support of any such scheme as both deserve it. However do you really believe governments till date were honest in thought and delivery of such schemes? Sachar report etc point otherwise and what has these schemes done for their betterment other than give chance for so called flag bearers of majority to point out their hollowness and give rise to insecurities??

I was talking about the award wapasi program much recently and before that people signing petitions in USA i think it was about Modi not to be given visa etc. I have no special love for Modi but really i mean our intelligentia needs to cry in western circles about our internal issues and these people returning never saw any wrongs under Congress??

Well what i meant in political correctness was that with aim of inclusiveness we never discussed the nastiness of majority minority relations and a proper discussion on this along with proper reporting without sugar coating of facts would have left people educated on such things. The nasty perceptions was clearly a reference to the point that in the name of being secular people went as far as saying minorities hold the first right to resources ( Manmohan Singh's statement which actually again was superficial)

No Joe there are still people who are caught in middle like me who i believe are genuinely worried when they see poverty ridden conditions of any Indian of whatever caste or religion they are and discrimination of such people and their ultimate exploitation in daily life. These people suffer because of these ideological fights though they are at no fault. However with Congress's own exploitation such people become so disillusioned that the other choice is in the bright. So whose fault is this?

I personally never heard such talk from my parents though i did hear of even water being thrown away as persons of lower caste came into sight when my mother's aunt i think it was used to fetch the water for devotional purpose. Yes they did point out differences and made sure about me adhering to practices etc but no contempt. Its entirely different thing that i turned out to be a meat eater drinker out of my own choice which is entirely different discussion. Well one thing is that in my limited group i never saw the current kind of hatred for people based on any difference. May be they were concealed i am not such a perceptive guy i agree.

For all this long talk my point is this, there is no proper discussion in this country on problematic issues. Whatever discussion happens is biased i believe.

I wasn't saying it was mentioned in the article, i was talking about your post and asking this question as the thought crossed my mind when you mentioned Agastya in your reply to Nilgiri.

Well my point was nothing to do with Iyengar beliefs but to ask you that similar to this groups or individuals crossing over Vindhyas (some times it is crossing Rivers like Krishna or Godavari in these anecdotes or stories) from North to South in much recent history there was cross over into Subcontinent by these Indo Aryans or whatever groups.

Ok Possible and yes Sudra references are there for sure in few i think i read.

Sure will check on this you mention to have a better understanding
 
@indushek

Your post is a really meaty one, and I really need to think things through in my own mind before responding. As I have a bad day coming on, and have to rush out shortly, I hope you will give me time till this evening, or perhaps even tomorrow morning, to respond.

Apologies for the delay.

In passing: many of us share your discomfort and bewilderment at the shape that things are taking. I don't think that anyone has a firm and definite view about how the country should be governed, except extremists on both sides.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom