I said in my book that the Rig Veda was rigged and the same language appears
here
answers.winscommunity.com/2010/12/13/hinduism-do-you-think-that-the-rig-veda-was-rigged

"Hinduism… Do you think that the Rig Veda was rigged?"
......
Is it merely a coincidence


One reader says-
".....I admire you for your great work."

Another reader says -
"..........it will benefit many people....."

one of the well wisher has uploaded my book on filestube
http://www.filestube.com/1gUBhsGekSfGNe8Fylaxbb/What-you-should-not-know-about-India.html


and here also
https://www.firstload.net/index.php?ir=1&fn=%22what+you+should+not+know+about...



Professor Stiglitz (Noble Prize winner on Tunisia )
"Everyone stresses the rule of law, but it matters a great deal what kind of rule of law is established. "
Deep thoughts !
Any comments from people who insist on great Indian culture, culture and heritage which should be adhered to?


------
Professor Stiglitz (Noble prize winner) about Tunisia
"how far beyond the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the country should go in writing its new constitution."

Is it possible to think going beyond Human Rights Declaration?
Is there any other way?
Yes
Its there
I have shown in my book
------------
Stealing???


http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/idINIndia-54646820110203

"Abdelrahman Hassan told his 9-year-old sister not to cry when he left his home in Alexandria to join the Cairo protests entering what may be their decisive phase.

"I hugged her a lot this morning. I told her I'm going to protect our future because they stole it before and they will do it again," the 28-year-old therapist said in the capital's Tahrir Square."


from page 401 of my book
"That only means that their rights have been stolen. And who can
steal the rights? Only the lawmakers could do it."

same basic idea in two different places!

Another coincidence -
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71R0AJ20110228
"In Benghazi, Libya's second city, one cartoon on the wall of a state building portrays the Libyan leader as "Super Thief""
In My book on page 403-404
"These lawmakers, the Brahmans, are the people responsible
for resulting in stolen rights. They did it by creating the divine origin
of scriptures composed by them and making people to believe this

divine origin of scriptures. They embedded the laws in scriptures in
the form of functions. And knowing the statecraft did help. Thus,
they are the permanent and traditional thieves of the rights. Swindlers
and thieves - these are the right words to describe them
"

and also
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE71H0N320110218
""Ben Ali's regime stole everything. They had no heart and ignored us poor," said one of the men, who identified himself only as Khaled, 57. "
another coincidence ?
concept of stealing by lawmakers and rulers just goes on!!!

These sentences are not given in blog .
For these you will have to download the book
the available on scribd also
www.scribd.com/doc/47443117/What-You-Should-Not-Know-About-India

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

The tolerance of Hindu religion - 3

...the intolerance of Hindus moves inward and tolerance moves outward. It is all relative. The Brahmans were more pliant than all the others. They simply disowned the idol worship to avoid the Jaziya tax imposed by Muslim rulers on Hindus. The Jaziya tax was not to be imposed on people of book like Koran and Bible. The Brahmans disowned the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh and the temples and rest of the Hindus and claimed that their sole allegiance was to their books; the four Vedas which made them the people of book – ahle-e-kitab. The people of book were not liable to be taxed under Jaziy tax. Thus they avoided the Jaziya tax. It is a classic example of their flexibility and of not having any answerability toward other Hindus who are lower then them. They disowned the Hindus and their gods and nobody thought to question them. It was a complete lack of indignation at betrayal.

The emergence of tolerance seems to be the result of the relative lack of might of Hindu religion against Muslims. Showing intolerance and opposing Muslims and their mosques might have resulted in a quick and brutal show of might of state. Muslims were the rulers. The fear of reprisals helped the development of Hindu tolerance.

One of the reasons among several others for the Hindus losing out to Muslims was the finely divided and graded society along bloodlines and purity. Such a fine, scientific and divine division labor produced a society where people could not link to each other because the bloodlines separated them with in caste. A demilitarized society of thousands jatis could not produce a homogeneous group of warring people large enough in numbers to tackle the militarized society of Islam where people were linked to each other in the name of Islam – the worshipiing is secondary in Hindu society not the stratification. The linking of society in India was provided by the caste not by the religion. The new religion of Islam promised equality to its followers and a share in loot to soldiers. The Islamic soldiers did not most probably understand the concept of equality but they fully understood the importance of a share of loot that prompted them to join Islam and Islamic army and a promise to go to heaven and live there with the Hoors if they were martyred in the cause of Islam. And there was no concept of dying for a cause in India. Therefore there is no equivalent to word “martyr” in Indian languages. There was no cause worth fighting for except political cause. There was indeed concept of killing and mutilating Shudras and untouchables for dharma. But there was no concept of giving up one’s own life for dharma. The absence of such a concept was also the contributory reason for outward tolerance of Hindu religion and absence of crusades in Sanatana dharma. Some castes were wiling to die for their honor but not for a cause. Nobody was willing to die so everybody got subjugated. Why die for a cause or for others? Absolutely there was no point. Willingness to die for their religion separated Muslims from Hindus. The Hindus fought for money, the valiant but purely mercenary soldiers.

In the presence of such situation, one alternative to avoid defeat was to have a large army of mercenary Hindu soldiers though finely divided into different non-inter dining jatis. The sheer size could have compensated for the weakness created by the irrevocable divisions in the Hindu society. The army that was big enough to repel the attacks was the need of the honor. The people who could not eat together could not fight together on sustainable basis though they could fight together on a temporary basis until some real danger presented itself. The only motive to fight was to provide sustenance to oneself. These people deserted the army whenever defeat looked...

No comments:

Post a Comment