Of all the articles on this topic, the fact that you came up with this "great" one and swallowed every word of it says as much about you as it does about fundamentalists and supremacists. Christians have been denigrating Hindus ever since recorded history so why would you expect anything different here? And did you even stop to ask why is a non-hindu meddling in hindu affairs. Can a hindu scholar of christianity propose changes to Christian text books? Does this blatant discrimination not bother you at all?

The AIT is a theory that is widely acknowledged to be deeply flawed and racist and was conjured up by the Brits and the Germans to fulfill their own colonial and anti-Semitic agenda. Read more here. Of course I dare not provide you with an Indian link as it won't meet your white-is-right criterion of accuracy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

Moreover, I think it is mean, biased, and deceptive of you to characterize the statement about women as "revisionist". I agree it is sympathetic and one-sided but it is not in any way inaccurate. Why the rush to judgment? Please bear in mind that in the sections on religion relating to Chritianity, Islam and Judaism, there is no mention of treatment of women at all. We all know how women suffered under these traditions. On what basis is hinduism being singled out for this special mention? Here's one article explaining this matter in more detail.

http://tinyurl.com/a44m3

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/83/1/California-Textbooks-Controversy:-Politicization-of-an-Academic-Issue-by-Hindu-Haters

Seems like the categories of philosophy, history, and political science are old world

instead we should have the Masters of bullshit,
subjective objectification for the nation's sake (if you have ever read Bernard Lewis, Bevin Alexander, or the National Review you know what I mean),
and, whe landed rich lawyers who like to rule you and send your children of to war; the poly sciers, I mean, the polyesters, synthetic and loving it

lmao

peace

Mallika:

This is potentially a very disruptive topic :-) here are a few quotes on why:

"A historian who would convey the truth must lie. Often he must enlarge the truth by diameters, otherwise his reader would not be able to see it.

— Mark twain"

"People always seemed to know half of history, and to get it confused with the other half.

— Jane Haddam"

"All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography.

— Ralph Waldo Emerson"

It was pretty obvious to any thinking person that the earlier Indian history written by the Brits (and other westerners with devious motives like Max Muller - who is on record to have written in one of his letters to a friend that by the time he "finishes" his work - he would have made Indians mental slaves of the west!).. and later taken up in great zeal by the leftist historians like Romilla Thapar.. was anything BUT objective or truthful!!

They kept on the Aryan invasion theory until recently when Thapar FINALLY agreed that it was a bogus theory.. ONLY after the evidence had built up in papers in the Western journals.

This and other such non-sensical claims made me often wonder.. were Romilla Thapar and the ilk - STORY-TELLERS or HISTORIANS?? A Historian needs to INVESTIGATE and then put up a hypothesis and see if it can be proved right or incorrect?

We simply had story tellers all these years.. who built "scholarships" on each others' stories! One would quote the other.. who would quote the other.. and the ONLY claim to their "authenticity" was that it matched the story of the "other scholar"! Of course, when nothing worked.. the trail was put at the door of a Brit or European .. and lo and behold.. the world had to stop debating it anymore!

When the BJP government came it "opened" this pandora's box up... and wanted to "right" the "wrong" done to our history. SOme of them went way over board.

However, I guess they did one BIG favor to all of us.. they opened up the debate and put in an alternative way to see things... however debateable.

I have often argued that just like what happened in Germany.. had the Muslim leaders come out and said .. "We know guys we personally have nothing to do with all that historical stuff.. but the phase of Ghauri, Babar, and Aurangzeb was a barbaric episode in our land. Lets try to forgive and forget that period.. and live in today" And treated these barbarians JUST AS HITLER is treated.. with disgust and contempt that they deserve.. I can BET you that the communal tension that prevails in our country today and for so long ... would have had some healing long back!!

In fact there was one old lady who did JUST that.. the great grand daughter of Bahadur Shah Zafar.... last year she travelled to multiple Gurudwaras and asked for forgiveness on behalf of her ancestors for all the atrocities that they perpetuated on the Sikh Gurus. That article was carried in TOI in some vague column of some middle pages! It wasnt even worth a notice?!!

While the leftist historians have their own agendas .. which - I am personally convinced was decidedly anti-national in intent - the right wingers have added the other side of disgusting one-up-manship.. Many of these right-wingers do NOT understand HIndu Philosophy in the right context or meaning and want to put across an agenda that in the FIRST PLACE harms the very basis and foundation of Vedic scholars - Open Source, Open-minded, personal search for that ONE and UNIVERSAL energy!

So history is a b*tch either way ... whoever attempts to write it!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Just skimmed through this article and did not see any mention of beef. However, Hindus did eat beef in Ancient India (as well as in Medieval and Modern India). That is because Hinduism is not and has never been a totalitarian tradition and never enforced its ideals on to anyone. But people were (are) considered pure/impure on the basis of what they eat with pure vegetarians (who don't even eat onions and garlic) on top of the rung and meat-eaters at the bottom.

I read through a list of the changes demanded by the VEF and it distressed me as well although for reasons entirely different from the supremacists/commies. It is painful the way they want to straitjacket Hinduism into a tradition that closely resembles Christianity. They insisted describing Hinduism as monotheistic for instance!

Still waiting for my first post on this to come through. Hope this one goes through.

Now, about your qs on the "Hindus eating Beef" - is that even significant? I think that is an example of the non-issues brought in by the right wingers in an attempt to confuse the Hindus and Indians in general.

Well... Swami Vivekananda .. whom these all revere.. ate Turtles.. (yes, he writes in one letter to a friend in one of the books that he relished the green turtles in US vs the black ones in Calcutta) - so does that make his scolarship and achievements ANY LESSER that these idiots in Shiv Sena or VHP?

.. And is the Turtle meat-eating ANY LESS sin-giving than beef?

I have believed - and many may get angry or pissed off but its as it is - that Bible and Qoran speak most at the level of the world .... in the sense of what a person or society should do at a daily level .. eat this... wear that.. pray this.. do that.. marry like so.. etc.

Gita on the other hand went to link the worldly to the spiritual. IT concentrates on the BIGGER picture. The generalities! That is what I had tried to bring out in my Gita vs Bible/Buddha Violence paradigms blog post (http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=node/667) which Krish found so offensive .. without making an attempt to discern the profound-ness of the two paradigms.

The right wingers - when they harp about the beef-eating etc.. take the Vedantic Profoundness to the mundane level at which Bible and Qoran address the religious issues. It muddies the debate from bringing it down from a spiritual and almost agnostic level to a religious level!

That is THEIR "sin"!

Having said that its interesting that the leftist historians would make it worth their while to hapr on the "B-word" too! Just as the mischieviousness that Mira Nair demo-ed when she made Fire with two female lesbian characters named Radha and Sita or some such religious-loaded names. Just imagine if they had made a gay movie with two characters name Hussain and Mohammad or Jesus and Abraham?

There is a beauty in discretion.. unfortunately both the sides haven't seen or known it!

Cheers,
Desh
drishtikone.com

Mallika,

It was a desperate attempt by Hindu fundamentalists to twist history. They tried doing it in India and got a slap on their face. So they are trying it here. They will get the same reaction here too. These cheapos should realize that they are doing nothing different from White supremacists and Islamic fundamentalists. I wish US Homeland Security takes note of these Hindu fundamentalists as they are equally dangerous to this country as Islamic fundamentalists.

Thanks, Mallika - Sorry if it was strongly worded. My New Year's Resolution was to try and be nice and sweet and so far I'm holding up with this being my first breach.

Desh - Great quotes.

Krish - it would be helpful to all if you addressed the specifics of the case rather than hurl insults all around. If you have not read the list of changes you cannot simply label them fundamentalist without being guilty of fundamentalism yourself.

well.. I am hindu and Love juicy beef.

BTW still women in india treated badly irrespective of religion...Am I right?

DJ

Divya:

Lagta hai is gaaon mein nayi aayi ho ;-) (looks like you are new to the village!)

Krish's most potent argument is to gather as many categorical adjectives as he can and put them up as arguments. In not one of his posts here or on his blog have I found him relating any.. ANY FACTS.. forget about anything remote to a logical statement!

That is the sorry state of debate in our circles.. and its no different from the STORY-TELLING folk lores that LEFTISTS indulged in..Falsehoods .. built upon falsehoods.. just as inconclusive statement backing another one .. with an even more powerfully negative adjective.

Its instructive therefore that the likes of Krish.. would NEVER ever question the nonsense that the leftists were responsible for in the name of history.. for, in eyes of such people.. conceding even ONE inch on the "other" side of the left.. means capitulation and harakiri of being labelled a "Sanghi"!

Hypocrisy and Dishonesty at its BEST!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Divya,

When their arguments have no logic at all, it is not worth spending time refuting it. Anyone who read their argument can understand them. Please do a background search about the organization behind the issue. You will know that many of them are deeply connected to VHP.

conquered and divided again,

who be those peoples that control the airwaves?

probably only 5,000-10,000 who really 'call the shots'

after that we got the filler, government, Ivy League (recruitment), and mindless guns

then five and a half billion drones buying into individualism, and literally cutting their own throats with an incorporated "Gillette" razor

something ain't right here . . .

Sorry Krish that's no argument. Let me try again. Do you agree with the following statments:

1. Women have been treated unfairly in all societies.

2. It is an injustice to mention unfair treatment of women in children's textbooks only with respect to Hinduism and not with respect to Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

3. There were many women scholars in Ancient India and therefore one can deduce that women also enjoyed many privileges.

4. The California State Board of Education mandates that no one tradition should be privileged over another and that different cultures should be taught in such a way that students belonging to those cultures take pride in their heritage. The denigration of Hindus is a violation of this policy.

If you have any logical arguments against the above two statements, please do share them. This has nothing to do with fundamentalism or any organization. It is a simple fact of acknowledging the truth without checking which organization is making these statements.

Divya,

I do agree with the points you have raised. But you portray as if these are the only contentious issues over there. However I want to point out that the controversy stemmed from the attempt by Hindu fundamentalists to

1) delete Aryan invasion theory
2) change the wordings to "Men had different duties (dharma), as well as rights, than women". This doesn't mean what you are trying to claim if you read it closely.

Also I stand by my statement that the top brigade of one of those organizations have VERY CLOSE links to VHP and hence I would term this as an attempt by Hindu fundamentalists to twist history. Whether you accept it or not, it is immaterial. But they are Hindu fundamentalists. I stand by it 100% as they tried to recruit my friend for a lobbying post in DC and when we ran the background check, we figured out their connections.

Multitasking error on my part,

Instead of

"his doesn't mean what you are trying to claim if you read it closely."

use

"This doesn't come closer to whatever meaning you wanted in there".

Krish says:

"However I want to point out that the controversy stemmed from the attempt by Hindu fundamentalists to

1) delete Aryan invasion theory"

And Krish, what makes you think that keeping Aryan Invasion is historically and "secularly" a "kosher" and acceptable practice????

Any evidence.... I mean EVIDENCE.. PROOF.. not a barrage of adjectives.. OK.. hope you understand the difference!

From my side.. here is a link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml)

.. No, NOT from a Hindu organization web site.. but BBC.. where they discredit this as well.. and .. guess what lay it at the originator ... Max Muller (new knowledge for me... but it fits well with his self-proclaimed mission anyways).

I know I read in one of the journals about the human migrations historically. And from the research on genes found across continents it has been postulated that the first man probably appeared in Africa and then the first major group of settlers were in SOuth Asia.

As for the Aryan Theory - to me - even as a schoolkid it was full of BS.. for the dieties of Shiv and Shakti were found in Harrappa, "Dravidian", AND Aryan civilizations.. TOO MUCH of a coincidence for three sets of people divided by centuries of TIME and SPACE!

And this is what BBC says about this Aryan Invasion theory:

The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:

- it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
- it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
- it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
- it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
- it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
- it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
- it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
- it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
- it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
- it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

Any arguments? And the best way to make your argument is the way you have just attempted..

1. Point-wise put down your objection
2. And your rebuttal - with a fact/argument based on a logical statement - with NO ADJECTIVES please remember!!?

Ok.. now go ahead..

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Hey gang,

All history is a story and is all based on perspective. Even if the observer of the event writes only what he/she sees, he/she is only seeing a tiny amount of what is really going on.

A good example of this is the story of the coalminers. Originally it was reported that all but one lived, when in fact it was the other way around. If they can't get it right with live cameras and reporters watching what it happening, how is it that information 5,000 or 10,000 years old can be accurate? It can't.

As new perspectives are uncovered history itself shifts. A traditional view of a historical story is a dead view. If you hold on to one view of the story just because it supports your self image than you are deluding yourself. The view that European settlers had of the early United States is completely different than the native peoples viewpoint. There are plenty of American textbooks filled with historical garbage and this country is barely older than two hundred years. Just imagine all the historical garbage that passes as fact in a culture as old as India.

Peace,
Scott.

Scott - I think we're all in agreement on your point. But Indian history is taught the way the British wanted it taught in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is all concocted.

The current controversy is over religion and Hindu religion is also taught the way Christians want to depict it. When Hindus wanted to correct the misrepresntation of their traditions, some ratty professor of Indology from Harvard jumped in and proclaimed that these Hindus are fanatics and he being a professor of Harvard had true insight into the nature of Hinduism and therefore they must listen to him. Not only is this in violation of the basic standards applied to all other religions where insiders from the tradition speak on behalf of the tradition, but they also broke the rules of procedure to accomodate this character from Harvard and his goons. Hindu commies are also in the same camp as are many "educated" Indians who side with the White (Christian) world no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

some very relevant points raised here....especially liked your perspectives, Desh and Divya...
The word Hindu itself is a very recnt coinage in human history....sanatana dharma has been a timeless perspective and has been all inclusive in its exploratory spaces....
civilization has to be perceived in a holistic perspective... it is an intricately weaved fabric...to view strands in isolation can often give a skew.... Gargi, Maitreyi, Sunanda..so many scholars in ancient history...as also the portrayal of draupadi....wonder how many instances there are in human history including the contemporary of an acceptance of a woman having 5 husbands and having a dignified place in society...

avery valid perspective, scott...but we have to be careful to see its uniform and unbiased application.....

Can anybody please give me a reliable resource article, cross-checkable across dissimilar authors[eg,,,,one is a christian and another is chinese] which gives physical evidence of 'Aryans' to have existed elsewhere other than the Indian sub=continent?
The Judeo-Christian dis-information ministry is making remarkable excavations and carbon-dated findings which seemingly show them to be in existence even before their God.
Has anybody ever unearthed a leaflet of Sanskrit in Europe or the 'Holy Land' which can be carbon dated to be the same age as their findings of their kith and kin?
Did you know that there were mud/clay idols of 'HOLY COWS' FOUND IN ANCIENT BURIAL SITES IN THE HOLY LAND? Maybe the ancient HINDUS WERE SUCCESSFUL IN TEACHING THEIR CONTEMPORARY NON-HINDUS some Eastern ARYAN 'SANSKRITIC' VALUES.
I recently came across a school dictionary which has the nerve to write that Sanskrit is a language written in a borrowed older HEBREW script alphabet!!!!!!!

Scott:

Like Divya says.. its not just a racism in History that we have to fight for... it sometimes boils down to fighting to save your identity that someone forcibly thrusts down your throat.

I have insisted in many forums .. not just this one.. that I am against both - the left and the right. To me both are abhorable.. funny thing is the left in India - paints any one who even dares to utter the word Hindu or spirituality.. as just fundamentalist.

And Krish here typifies that mentality to me. NOT one word of factoid. ... not one sentence of logic... just accusations. Its as if "SUBJECTIVE TRUTHINESS" has become the God here these days!

I know I have pissed him enough here and on his own blog with my comments there (of course, he had quite another take of his obnoxious actions in one post when he challenged Mallika to take him off but then it was HIS rights :-).. but in all our encounters I am awaiting a response - which I know he hasnt given... and indeed is incapable of giving! Quite honestly, I would not let this charade of holier than thou act go any further without a challenge!

Desh
drishtikone.com

Its nice to see Divya n Krish back in the battle field. Somehow u two always had healthy debates and people who read ur comments always gained something out of them. Its once again refreshing to read ur comments, especially after all the childishness of the petty fights in the recent posts, where the folks never debated on issues but only argued or fought because they were hurt. I see a lot of maturity n intellect in ur comments. thanks u two. And Im proud that u both are Indians. Intentblog rocks once again!

The sad reality of today's Western world is that the marketing of HINDUISM and the profiteering from it is being done by the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN opportunists while their own bigoted and s**t scared ELDERS are the one's spreading the denigrating falsehoods about it to stem the tide of converts leaving their intolerant ranks and restrictions and turning to deep-breathing soul liberating non-suffocating meditation and contemplation with their own conscience free of GUILT AND 'SIN'.
If the passive Hindus don't watch out then,very soon they will be learning the PAPAL way to meditation and the YESHIVA technique of YOGA.
Such seeds of deception are planted very early in the minds of pure gullible children when they watch TUNTAKA'STEIN' and never get to hear about the EGYPTIAN PHAROAH TUNTAKAMEN.

Sid darth:

"Has anybody ever unearthed a leaflet of Sanskrit in Europe or the 'Holy Land' which can be carbon dated to be the same age as their findings of their kith and kin?"

recently I have started watching the History Channel .. it usually touches subjects that are fairly controversial .. and mostly of Judeo-Christian faith relevant. What amazes me is the treatment they give with their reasoned approach.

Somehow - that kind of "treatment" is all but missing in the Indian History debate!

Strangely, the debate has taken a color of its own in the years after independence - where the COngress and the Left colluded to continue the colonized mind-set instead of challenging it.

---------

Mallika: I can already visualize you as a Roman Queen on a throne in an amphitheater... enjoying some gladiator having a go at each other :-) Have fun..

.. need a refill of your coke? :D

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Dear Desh,
I always enjoy reading your posts, and in this thread, I find the information you give supported by the points you list. Divya provides good details to support her position.

Hello Aishu, and thank you for your contribution, it's an interesting perspective. Yes, Krish and Divya generate alot of argument, back and forth. To you, its healthy discussion. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes, it is petty and unnecessary. That's just my opinion. And everyone has an opinion. :)

Dear Mallika,
You have raised the question, "who writes history and what purpose it serves". What are your thoughts about this topic? I see you agree with Scott's post. Are you concerned what will be taught to your children when they reach grade school?

Hello Scott,
"Even if the observer of the event writes only what he/she sees, he/she is only seeing a tiny amount of what is really going on". I do agree with you. I think this can apply to our own lives as well! Forget about history books, we can't get our own stories straight :)

Love,
~ Kate

Divya thank you for the links. As always it is interesting to read your comments.
“Can a hindu scholar of christianity propose changes to Christian text books?” liked it.
Esther.

Mallika: In following Desh's comment about Queens in Amphi-theatres, I too was sensing a "Cleopatra-like" presence currently emerging through the form of our beloved Mallika; so it is my hope, for the sake of avoiding family rivalries in the years to come, that Sumant has no plans for naming any future sons with "given names" such as Mark or Julius!!! Dave

Scott,

I agree with your argument. Most of the history books contains just garbage.

I also agree with Divya's assertion that potrayal of certain issues in the California text books needs some modifications. However, what is happening there is more than just fixing certain misrepresentations. People with vested interests are using this opportunity to fill the textbooks with their filth (like the nut case who is doing out here). I have no problem if people take efforts to put records straight. But twisting the history in the name of putting the records straight is unwarranted and unacceptible. There is a thin line between setting the records correct and changing it to suit their propaganda. Certain Hindu fundamentalists have done just that in this case. I support the fact that they need to be corrected but I oppose the twisting by the vested interests.

Desh: I have told you several times (both here and in my blog). I am not going to respond to your filth. You can ask any number of questions to me. My response is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-finger

PS: Apologies for hijacking this thread. I just want to let him know about it as he has invoked my name many times in this thread in spite of my silence.

Good post, Hindu nationalists are just conservatives like people who believe evolution isn't real, non-hindu's were the one's who first started to reserach indian history and formed a basis of indian democracy, unforunately if white people did not disturb india, maybe India would still be like in the movie Shatranj Ke Khilari

Krish:

In absence of a sensible argument - this is the only response that I had expected from you... Another adjective and obscene stuff..

Just wanted to bring out your shallow stuff..

Divya and others are at least witness on this thread as to how many "arguments" you have given... just one adjective.. insult.. categories after another!

Desh
drishtikone.com

"Hindu nationalists are just conservatives like people who believe evolution isn't real"

This is a sweeping statement. If Swami Vivekananda and Dayananda Saraswati were alive and working today - they would be categorized as "Hindu Nationalists" as well! And if you care to read them they were anything but "anti-science"!

It is undeniable that there is a need to reverse some of the negative slant that history was given - specially with regards to things "Hindu". In the grander scheme of things it really doesnt matter... but for it does affect the way my kids will be trated in future.

Now, about your comment on Shatranj ke Khiladi and the Brits right to write history as they like.... I agree. But then we are as much with the rights to revisit that nonsense. So, when it comes to the distorted history - all I have to say to the sympathizers of Brit Historians is .. THANKS .. BUT NO THANKS!

Cheers,
Desh
drishtikone.com

Desh, Divya, Scott... agree with you wholeheartedly, and as is often the case, the opposite side chooses to talk but without presenting any logical arguments.

Unfortunately, Indian history emanating from a non-Indian Harvard scholar, is automatically assumed to be more credible than a Sanskrit cum History scholar from say, Banaras Hindu University. Only those Indian historians who toe the Western line, will get fellowships, speaking opportunities, etc. and eventually a lie told often and loudly enough, becomes the truth.

Hi all,

Hinduism in general is extremely interesting. At its heart, it is really an inclusive form of worship that really could (and I'm sure does for some practitioners) encompass any of the Judeo/Christian belief systems or ANY belief for that matter. Hinduism, more than any other religion allows for flexibility and honors the individual path of people. Having said that, just like any religion there are going to be idealogues that focus ont he minutae rather than the big picture. That's REALLY what has happened to Christianity in the last few centuries. It focused so much on the path that it has lost track of the ultimate goal, which of course is Self realization.

As far as the re-writing of textbooks go, you can thank the movement toward political correctness. Interestingly all of the political correctness that has obfuscated the language has not changed the feelings and thoughts of people...they just don't voice them, or they use code words which to me is just passive/aggressive behavior and does nothng for moving forward. The consuming of meat, according to some anthropogists may have been responsible for a huge leap in the mental abilities of early humans. If they are correct then at one point all human ancestors consumed meat. I think that in order to take our next leap we should all move toward a vegetarian diet. But that is simply my viewpoint.

From a historical sense, cross-culturally the world has treated women like shit. It's really only been the last few decades where that has changed in some parts of the world. As we all know there are lots of places that still treat women like shit: vaginal mutilation, rape, beatings (sanctioned by government)for stepping mildly across the lines of social mores. The wholesale murder of female fetuses and babies in the hopes of having a male child. We all know of places in the world where the dogs are treated with more respect than women are.

As much as a wording in a California textbook seems important and fosters moral outrage, the real importance lies in how I personally and the world collectively treats women. There is still a long way to go before the feminine is honored at the same level as the masculine and to me that is where our outrage should be focused.

Peace,
Scott.

Vish,

It's interesting how much influence the British still hold in India. It's sort of a human trait to teach your cultural viewpoint as historical "fact". When I was in England about 10 years ago I had the opportunity to talk to quite a few Brits and found how their view of the American Revolution was so different from what I was taught here in the U.S. And I am often surprised how some Indians who have never been to the U.S. view the U.S.

It reminds me of how we are all so shaped by the bits of information that we see and read in the media. Our viewpoints are subtly shifted to reflect the viewpoints of those writing about a country or filming a country. When we actually go there and meet the people, more times than not we see a completely different world than was presented to us. What I have found in my world travels was that people were people. As different as we all think we are, we are actually much more the same. The differences are superficial.

Peace,
Scott.

Guys:

For those who still want to harp on the "merits" of the Aryan Invasion Theory that its creator Max Muller so artfully propogated AND likes of 'rahul" who still feel indebted to the Brit (and Brits' financed "historians").. here is a suggestion..

Please do read "Life and Letters of Frederick Max Muller" and come back with a better sense of the CONTEXT of our history - Our History is as good as ITS WRITERS... and their MOTIVES!

--------------------

Excerpts:

1. In a letter of 1866 A.D. (1923 V.) he writes to his wife: 'This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, ...it is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has spring from it during the last three thousand years.' (Vol. 1, Ch. XV, page 346).

2. In another letter he writes to his son: 'Would you say that any one sacred book is superior to all others in the world? ...I say the New Testament, after that, I should place the Koran,27 which in its moral teachings, is hardly more than a later edition of the New Testament. Then would follow according to my opinion the Old Testament, the Southern Buddhist Tripitaka, the Tao-te-king of Laotze, the Kings of Confucius, the Veda and the Avesta.' (Vol. II, Ch. XXXII, page 339).

3. On 16th December 1868 A.D. (Samvat 1925) he writes to Duke of Argyle, the Minister for India: 'The ancient religion of India is doomed and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?' (Vol. I, Ch. XVI, page 378.)

4. letter written by him to N.K. Majumdar: 'Tell me some of your chief difficulties that prevent you and your countrymen from openly following Christ, and when I write to you I shall do my best to explain how I and many who agree with me have met them and solved them... From my point of view, India, at least the best part of it, is already converted to Christianity. You want no persuasion to become a follower of Christ. Then make up your mind to work on yourself. Unite your flock - to hold them together and prevent them from straying. The bridge has been built for you by those who came before you. STEP BOLDLY FORWARD, it will break under you, and you will find many friends to welcome you on the other shore and among them none more delighted that your old friend and fellow labourer F. Max Muller.' (Vol. II, Ch. XXXIV, pages 415-416.)

----------------

Given these views... I am kinda wondering here.. WHO is fundamentalist? The BJP, Max Muller, Romilla Thapar and company (who have reagrded Muller's version as gospel), or folks like Krish (who go around thumping middle fingers sans argument to any debate involving putting history in its right context - THAT of ITS WRITER!!).

In my personal view... BJP, Shiv Sena and all the Hindu Nationalist (howsoever stupid and abhorable) are decidedly benign in comparison to the likes of Max Muller!!

Now I open the floor up for counter arguments.. hoping that logic, reason and facts will form the backbone of those arguments.. not middle fingering and INSOLENT INVECTIVES!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh - As you may have figured out, I'm not new to the village. I went through the same exact scenario with Krish a few months before you came on the scene, realized it was fruitless and decided to back off. I agree he is a fundamentalist and abuse is his only argument. In this entire thread too he has not made even one single substantive point but is simply coasting along by trashing imaginary fundamentalists.

Wonderful points put forwarded by Desh and Divya kudos to you guys.
Krish and folks are ignorant of many facets of hinduism and continue their mudslinging.
Swami Vivekanandas take on Intelligent design if you folks care to read that
"The Design Theory

The following notes from Swami Vivekananda's class talk are reproduced from his Complete Works, 6: 97-98. Being "notes"-and not a verbatim report, like his other lectures in the Complete Works-these are sketchy and may not represent the exact words spoken by Vivekananda. But they give a fairly good indication of his ideas on the subject.

The idea that nature in all her orderly arrangements shows design on the part of the Creator of the universe is good as a kindergarten teaching to show the beauty, power, and glory of God, in order to lead children in religion up to a philosophical conception of God; but apart from that, it is not good, and perfectly illogical. As a philosophical idea, it is entirely without foundation, if God is taken to be omnipotent.

If nature shows the power of God in creating the universe, [then] to have a design in so doing also shows His weakness. If God is omnipotent, He needs no design, no scheme, to do anything. He has but to will it, and it is done. No question, no scheme, no plan, of God in nature.

The material universe is the result of our limited consciousness. When we become conscious of our divinity, all matter, all nature, as we know it, will cease to exist.

The material world, as such, has no place in the consciousness of God as a necessity of any end. If it had, God would be limited by the universe. To say that nature exists by His permission is not to say that it exists as a necessity for Him to make us perfect, or for any other reason.

It is a creation for our necessity, not God's. There is no scheme of God in the plan of the universe. How could there be any if He is omnipotent? Why should He have need of a plan, or a scheme, or a reason to do anything? To say that He has is to limit Him and to rob Him of His character of omnipotence.

For instance, if you came to a very wide river, so wide that you could not get across it except by building a bridge, the very fact that you would have to build the bridge to get across the river would show your limitation; it would show your weakness, even if the ability to build the bridge did show your strength. If you were not limited but could just fly or jump across, you would not be under the necessity of building a bridge; and to build the bridge just to exhibit your power to do so would show your weakness again by showing your vanity, more than it would show anything else.

Monism and dualism are essentially the same. The difference consists in the expression. As the dualists hold the Father and the Son to be two, the monists hold them to be really one. Dualism is in nature, in manifestation, and monism is pure spirituality in the essence.

The idea of renunciation and sacrifice is in all religions as a means to reach God."

thanks to Vivekananda.org

Find out more about Christian Science - the guys behind the article posted in this blog.

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/xtianScience.html

Ganesh,
Thanks for that post. Interesting.

Scott.

Divya,

Christian and Science are an oxymoron :).

Scott.

http://www.tfccs.com/aboutthechurch/ About the Church of Christ, Scientist

[quote]...The Church's resources, which are open to everyone, include worship services, Sunday School, Christian Science lecture events and classes. Publishing activities include The Christian Science Monitor and a variety of books, magazines, Web sites and radio programs. Christian Science organizations are active at many college and university campuses. [unquote]

In contrast, Hindu resources do not include such an ability to publish for the world or even expose a Harvard University scandal.

Did Ancient Indians Eat Mother Cow, Calves and Bulls?

http://ravikopra.blogspot.com/2006/01/did-ancient-indians-eat-mother-cow.html

Why don’t you guys just agree to disagree! What is fruitless here is the uncompromising position some of you take. Common sense and intelligence or not synonyms!

Divya,

I am notsurprised at all. What else can I expect from Hindu fanatics like Desh and you. As it is the norm with any fanatic, you both are into not only twisting history but also whatever I said here. Thatz why I said in my first post itself that it is not worth arguing against fundamentalists. Since you wanted to discuss a point, I came forward thinking (although mistakenly) that your arguments will be sane. You have proved once again that you are still a religious fanatic. I am challenging you and other Hindu fanatic here to prove that I supported Aryan invasion theory. I just noted a fact that Hindu fundamentalists wanted to take out the Aryan invasion theory and wanted to put in their own theory (that of indigenous Aryan nature of Hindu society). I don't believe in both the extremes. Before you all whine about me, FIRST PROVE THAT I SUPPORTED THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY. As long as you guys don't do it, you all fit in the same mould as other Hindu fundamentalists. Argument without logic and fact (for which Divya is very famous).

For other saner individuals who want to know the issue, there are two extremes in the Indian history.

1) One in which they claim that Aryans invaded the current day India and Hindus are in that lineage (this is what Divya calls White christian theory)

2) Aryan lineage of Hindus are indigenous (promoted by Hindu fundamentalists including many fundamentalists here)

But the archeological facts show that both are not true. In this context, I would like to point you all towards Romila Thapar's article (though Hindu fundamentalists here will trash talk her) regarding this

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1720/17200150.htm

I have already told Desh what I am giving him and hence I will not reply to his comments here. I was hesitant to debate with Divya as she is a known fanatic. But I started because she wanted to discuss the issue (read the comments above) but realized that she is still with the same fanaticism. I am again stopping any discussion with her. I will only respond to my post above ONLY for comments by others.

"FIRST PROVE THAT I SUPPORTED THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY"

Thats fairly simple.. this is what you say above:

"However I want to point out that the controversy stemmed from the attempt by Hindu fundamentalists to

1) delete Aryan invasion theory
2) change the wordings to "Men had different duties (dharma), as well as rights, than women". This doesn't mean what you are trying to claim if you read it closely."

You certainly werent quite "trashing" the Aryan Invasion Theory .. are you?? If it aint correct - whats wrong in deleting it?

I agree that the Hindu organizations have gone to the other extreme.. and thats what I have observed above... but its also a fact that the History book that I was taught with in school (NCERT standard) STILL DID HAVE THAT SAME THEORY promoted as "History".. even though the book was authored by Romilla Thapar (her recent deja vu notwithstanding!)

Regarding what you want to give me or treat my posts is completely your prerogative.. but I would not let you off so easily on a public forum.. without challenging your nonsense. I am very clear abt that!

Either one has a defense or abuses in any debate. Its fairly obvious where YOU stand!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Hi all

I've always felt that arguments over the times and places when / where ancient traditions originated are almost pointless. It's very difficult to find solid pieces of evidence to support many ancient traditions. Can't people accept that there are many realities, and move forward from there, holding on to their faith because it works for them? Why is a provable historical origination required for faith to be considered valuable?

In the case of the Hindu religion, according to a history book I'm reading, there's not much reliable archaeological evidence for India's and Hinduism's origins as one would expect to find for such an ancient culture and people. Also, supposedly the findings of codified writing systems that have been found are not as ancient as Indian traditions are supposed to be.

Westerners have, until recently, been at the center of archeological research and modes of thought, and they have tended to put the most emphasis and reliance on physical archaeological findings, as compared with oral histories and traditions.

What could have led to fewer archeological finds of writing and cities, etc. in India, than one might expect in a civilization with such ancient roots? Well, to start with, the landscape and environment will tell even the most casual person thinking about this issue that houses built of mud brick and organic materials like wood and reed, and tallies or trades written on reed pulp, clay, or hide would not survive well in a land well-known for heat, humidity, monsoon cycles and regular flooding. Much of the Indian subcontinent is basically a massive superdelta of the seven major rivers that originate in the Himalayan ranges. These rivers have flooded and reflooded parts of the subcontinent uncountable times. They have changed their courses, and made green arable areas into desert when they've done so, and vice versa, as well as washed away or covered what might have been. Who even knows where to look for evidence, even if it may have survived?

And if the climate makes it difficult to preserve materials that can carry writing, would the wise person living in such a climate even rely on writing for important things? If I were living in India 3,000 years ago, and I wanted to send a letter to my sister and her husband 50 miles away, telling her that if I died early they should adopt my children, perhaps I would send a runner to her, and he might recount my wish in front of a priest, my sister and her husband, and the priest would then be witness to the receipt of my wishes. Or perhaps I might paint my wishes as a scene on the side of a pot or water vessel, and send it to her. Perhaps, since this might be very important, I might visit myself, and express my wishes in person. Would I write my wishes on something that might dissolve or break down after a few years of humidity, wind, rain and a flood or two? Perhaps not. This is an imaginary scenario, but if you think about it, most of the world’s oldest writings have been found in climates which have been desert for eons, which allows the writings to be preserved.

So, in India itself, there's always been a great reliance on traditions that were originally passed on orally for many centuries. In India, tradition and oral history seem to be given a great deal of respect.

Should such traditions be discounted as westerners are inclined to do? I believe not. I like India's acceptance of its ancient stories of when and where things started. And in recent years, I've been very interested to read and view accounts in the news and on TV about oral traditions that were originally doubted and derided by western archeologists and historians, which were subsequently given strong support by modern scientific detective work.

Such stories include:

A tradition of a great flood that was so many feet deep, and came so fast, etc., on the North American continent. Geological evidence of a massive lake blocked by an ice dam (glacier) that was finally eroded or broken down, and released the lake's water in one moment, has been found in an area that tallies with the old oral tradition.

A tradition in eastern Africa of a small group of people who, though they look completely African, say they are Jews, who actively practice many Jewish traditional rites and customs. Their traditions says they were run out of their traditional land, and lived in Yemen for a long while, and then were run out of Yemen, where they settled in Africa. Someone did DNA analysis of these people, people in Yemen with a similar surname to that of the priestly family in Africa, and the traditional priestly family of Jews in Israel (Cohen I think, but I may be wrong), and found strong DNA matches between all three that seem to support the oral tradition that this group of Africans are Jews (and not just descended from traders who took up the Jewish religion, which had been scientists' original theory for these people).

A tradition in certain families who come from the west of Ireland, that they are descended from a man who was Ireland's first king. A DNA analysis of people with these families surnames who live around the world was just done, and it found that there is a high degree of relationship between them, indicating that they descended from a single family originally, at a point in time when tha man was supposed to have lived. This evidence supports not only the families' tradition, but also the tradition that the king exists at all -- both traditions had been thought to be groundless. Both traditions were purely oral, and over 1,800 years old.

A story in Greek history about blonde-haired women warriors, which had previously assumed to be myth -- the Amazons. Burials were found of a warrior culture in Russia. Because of the dry, cold climate, much organic material had been preseved, though it was 5,000 years old, including teeth, hair and bits of cloth. Women were buried with weapons such as bows, arrows and swords, men were buried with no weapons, but were occasionally buried with children, as if they were the caregivers, not the women, and women were the warriors. The researchers had heard tales of occasional light-eyed, blonde-haired children in the nomadic peoples now living in the area. They went in search of such children, found one, and swabbed the inside of her cheek for a DNA sample. It supposedly matched up to that from the tooth of a warrior priestess found buried in one grave. The results seems to tally up with the Amazon myth.

While oral histories and traditions are currently often unprovable, new scientific methods may end up supporting these old traditions in many cases, in the decades to come. In many civilizations oral histories were carried through these ages by people (families or classes of people) who were completely dedicated to memorizing and speaking the traditions and histories aloud. I'm personally inclined to give a lot of weight to oral traditions, unless there's something that proves them to be inaccurate.

So I'd listen with an open mind to the position of Hindu priests and historians until something has proved them wrong. A dearth of hard evidence is not proof that a tradition is wrong, it may simply be that the hard evidence was really soft evidence and it's decayed over the centuries, or that it exists but hasn't yet been found. But when writing textbooks, I'd say, this is a tradition, not a provable fact at this point in time, and it's been held as a tradtion, and as something sacred, for many, many centuries by countless people.

History, be it written, oral or both, provable or not, gives depth to the structures, traditions and rites of religions. But history is not religion itself.

Religion is practice and faith. It's learning practice and faith that's important to religion, not proving when or where it started, or what the original rites and practices were.

Just my two cents.

As to the original question, I think of the Hindu reverance of cattle, and subsequent avoidance of beef eating, as a historical practical necessity. Meat does not keep well in a hot, humid climate. It can't be dried or frozen. It will mold up or rot very fast. But milk, on the other hand...fresh milk, curd, cheese, yoghurt, buttermilk, whey, etc. Cattle are walking food-producing factories, and provide much-needed animal-based protein in a diet that's otherwise often purely vegetarian. They should be revered, as they saved countless lives, and made countless lives healthier, over the eons. A ban on killing and eating cattle for meat makes a whole lot of sense for olden times. When all is well, cattle walk around and produce food (and dung to improve soil fertility and structure!). In times of famine, some cattle will survive the famine and produce their young and milk again, but not if they were all eaten up -- and if they are sanctified, they will not be all eaten up. Rules against killing animals for meat helps a population avoid having to deal with rotting meat and the disease and unhealth that can result. All these are practical reasons that may be part of the original motives for priests to have declared that the killing and eating of cattle was to be off-bounds in olden times. We don't know, it's all speculation.

(There may be climate-associated practical reasons behind other religions' meat-associated traditions, too: hallal and kosher rules for handling animals and animal-based foods come to mind.)

I think it's great that California textbooks are including information about the Hindu religion and Indian history, whether it's flawed or not. We had virtually no exposure to non-European cultures in school when I was a kid.

Geeta, this comment is in part a reply to your last comment on Anouradha's second lesson post ("Looking with one's heart") -- can you tell I find this stuff fascinating? ;) I found your last comment on Anouradha's second lesson post to be so exciting. I think it pertains to this thread -- would you be willing to post it here, too?

Cheers, Heather

Great blog Mallika. Been following this episode closely and keeping some notes at my blog:
http://irffanclub.blogspot.com/

Heather - Your post fails to address the main point of contention. If you freely admit that there is no conclusive evidence for any of the matters being discussed then why is it that the Aryan Invasion is being taught as if it actually happened? In other words, why is a history that was literally sucked out the wild imagination of the British being assumed to be true and why should Hindus have the burden of proof?

As you note, India had a thriving oral tradition which still exists to this day. There is *no* account, not one single reference in the vast body of literature that exists from the ancient times of any foreign race invading the indigenous population.

In any case, theoretically we're all from Africa. Thereafter there's bound to have been an exchange of populations across the lands. The issue here is whether the *culture* originated in India or was brought to India by wandering nomads. The oldest existing text is the Rig Veda. It has numerous geographical and botanical references. All of these pertain to the region of North India. In any case it defies credibility that a bunch of wandering nomads from desert regions would write poetry pertaining to agriculture and animal husbandry and bring it to a geographical area that was well irrigated and fertile.

Hey,

Why do we just not 'take out' those dang Aryans, that would be me, or better yet, why do we just not unleash them on Iran, Mexico, or the U.S. government . . .

I hear we make great soldiers

There is also a wonderful article in today's issuse of the Wall Street Journal about the 'updating' of history books to reflect a more positive attitude of all of the religions not just Hinduism.

I guess Krish has gotten a friend in Irfan here :-)

The Dalistan site that he is so upsetabout being blocked for being violent was created and material put on in connivance with the Paki terrorist organizations. That is why I remember seeing a map on it .. some years back with Pakistan extending from Afghanistan to Bangladesh (covering the entire India of course), with small place for KHalistan in current "Indian" punjab.. and some area in, UP I think, for Dalitstan!

Well if you are in cohorts with Jamaat E Islamia and Jaish e Mohammad - the two arms of Al Qaeda who carry its agenda against India.. well.. you do get the boot from Bush these days.. dont you, Irfan?

And btw, I wont bet my money on you not being very far from that circle either!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Heather,

"In the case of the Hindu religion, according to a history book I'm reading, there's not much reliable archaeological evidence for India's and Hinduism's origins as one would expect to find for such an ancient culture and people."

I do agree with you that there is not much evidence to justify any indigenous origins.

There is a need to fix the history books and there is no denying to the fact. But it doesn't mean that history books should be totally changed to fit the propaganda of fundamentalists. Most of the stuff these Hindu fundamentalists want to add doesn't have any evidence. In fact, there are more evidence to the contrary. They tried their best to change the history books in India and it didn't work. Now they are trying to work from outside so that few centuries down the lane, their propaganda will prevail. I don't care whether our history is written by a white christian or Sanskrit scholar from Banaras Hindu university. As long as it doesn't have any evidence to back it up, it is pure crap.

"I don't care whether our history is written by a white christian or Sanskrit scholar from Banaras Hindu university. As long as it doesn't have any evidence to back it up, it is pure crap."

Classic words of Hypocrisy! If you are really that honest here Krish.. .then WHY THE HECK .. cant we sense the same outrage that I see against the "deplorable fundamentalists" - against the current textbooks that you and I read - NCERT's History books - that contained all that crap.. "contrary" to the "convictions" that its author now says she has harbored since last 40 years??

A crap.. is a crap.. is a crap! PERIOD!

But Krish and others choose what they want to call crap... and what they wont!

Just as Rajiv Gandhi was a nice young bloke on the block.. and Narendra Modi is a monster.. although.. both DID EXACTLY the same thing .. the former against the Sikhs.. and the latter against the Muslims..

... blood of some in our "pseudo-secular" circles is considered more sacred than others..

.. just as some history-sans-evidence.. is more acceptable than other!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

The so called oral tradition is so convenient for today's fundamentalist to change the histroy as they want it. It is easy to even claim that, according to oral traditions, muslims in India are indigenous but it doesn't make any sense at all. Same is the case with indigenous Aryan theory.

I sometimes wonder why these fundamentalists are so keen on "proving" the indigenous Aryan origins of Hinduism. How does it matter whether people are Aryan or not?

For the convenience of non Indians who are listening to this debate here, I want to point out that these people who are talking about indigenous Aryan origin of Hinduism consider Hitler to be a great person. That talks more about them than anything I say.

Who are opposing the Hindu initiative to end discrimination in California textbooks? By Vishal Agarwal

http://www.indiapost.com/members/story.php?story_id=5264

A group of academics led by Professor Michael Witzel of Harvard, has been opposing these reasonable changes. Interestingly, Witzel's group admitted that they were unaware of the nature of the proposed changes when they wrote their protest letter to CDE on November 7, 2005'.

Who are they, and why did they oppose the changes? Steve Farmer, a non specialist who does not understand a single Indic language or genre of texts, initiated Witzel's petition, on which many Marxist ideologues signed. It seems that Michael Witzel, who sent the petition on behalf its signatories, has called Hindus immigrant to the USA, "lost or abandoned people." Reports also indicate that he has made fun of the most sacred Hindu chants such as "Om." Witzel indulged in clandestine activism, and urged his cosignatories to mobilize opposition to the Hindu initiative through fringe ultra-left Indian or South Asian groups in the United States.

Lars Martin Fosse, a cosignatory on Witzel's petition and writing on behalf of Witzel's petitioners, appealed to fundamentalist Christian missionaries and alleged Khalistanis to mobilize volunteers to oppose the Hindu initiative. Sikhs, who are a peace-loving, hard-working and enterprising community, have been rightly upset that textbooks that deal with medieval history ignore Sikhism.

During their subsequent intervention at the CDE, Witzel's group argued that proposed HEF/VF correction that 'Ramayana was composed before Mahabharata' (the textbook said the opposite) should be rejected because 'how does a 6th grader care which text was written first'!

When Hindu groups proposed replacing a textbook picture erroneously showing a bearded man with a skullcap with the caption 'Brahmin', Witzel's group proposed that the picture should be replaced with that of an untouchable scavenger! When HEF/VF proposed that ahistorical pictures of members of the four castes should be replaced with more accurate drawings, Witzel wrote that the existing pictures were no worse than those found in the 'Amar Chitra Katha'!

Whereas the descriptions of other religious traditions in the textbooks do not say anything about unequal treatment of slaves and women therein, Witzel wants to single out Hinduism and India for such negative treatment.

Predictably, the Witzel group has received strong support from Indian communists who have always borne an animus for Hindus. The very first articles by Nalini Taneja favoring his stance came out in the online newspaper of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Further articles by Anjana Chatterjee, an Indian leftist in United States, appeared in some Leftist online magazines, as did articles by Vijay Prasad, founder of the Forum of Inquilabi Leftists (FOIL).

The online blitz was carried out by FOSA ('Friends of South Asia'), a front of FOIL. These articles did not have much academic or substantive content, and indulged in reckless calumny by association, even insinuating that the HEF and VF were somehow linked to the murder of 1000 Muslims in Gujarat! Prasad's article even had the conspiracy theory argument that the edits proposed by Hindu groups wanted to make India look good so that the country could attract more foreign investment.

There were shrill and abrasive appeals for campaigns against HEF/VF on lists of Indian communists residing in the US, followed by letter writing to Indian American newspapers. Surprisingly, FOSA did not attack edits of the Islamic community, as if Islam is not a 'South Asian' religion practiced in South Asia. These articles alleged that HEF/VF were male chauvinist, forgetting that a good chunk of the advisors and coordinators of these organizations were women.

All kinds of abuses in their standard lexicon ('fascists', casteists, Hindu nationalists, Nazis etc.) were hurled without any attempt to understand the issues academically. Another conspiracy theory stated by Leftists was that HEF/VF wanted to exclude the Aryan Invasion Theory from textbooks because they wanted to declare that Hinduism alone is indigenous to India and all other faiths are foreign!

These same people argue that Hinduism was constructed in 19th century by the British. How is it possible simultaneously that Aryans brought Hinduism into India in 1500 BCE, and then the British invented Hinduism out of nothing 3000 years later?

A new twist in this controversy is the recent involvement of 'Dalit' groups, who showed up in strength at the Board office in Sacramento on January 12, 2006. They protested the edit that asked for exclusion of the word 'Dalit' from one of the eight textbooks. It seems that 'Dalit' word means "broken/oppressed" which might have a demeaning impact on any student of referred castes. The word 'Dalit' is being used only after 1950s that too mainly in one section of India while word 'Harijan' was most commonly used by Mahatma Gandhi in 20th century. Even Kabir used the same word few hundred of years back.

In modern India, the Government of India uses "scheduled caste" while popular political party covering these castes uses "Bahujan Samaj". Most importantly, the textbooks dealt with Hinduism and India before 600 AD, in this ancient period, untouchability was anyway a rare phenomenon according to standard scholarly works.

Moreover, ancient Buddhist texts also seemed to include similar treatment of Chandalas in ancient India, and true egalitarianism was absent in other religions as well. Therefore it was unfair to single out Hinduism. However, Witzel group and the Indian American Leftists played the 'Dalit' card, further muddying the situation to no one's benefit. Some reports indicate that many of the participants who showed up at the Board meeting might not be Hindu Dalits.

Lastly, some members of the Indian Muslim community (such as Khalid Azam of the Indian Muslim Council) have stepped in the fray although Islam was not present in ancient India. They justify their role on the pretext that they are supporting Dalits, and because they are concerned at the 'Hindutva' nature of the edits proposed by HEF/VF. Needless to say, their participation is only vitiating the relationships between Hindus and Muslims in the United States.

Craig,

Aryans were not neccessarily white skinned. Who knows what color they were. Indians and Europeans are all caucasion. Caucazoid does not refer to the complexion but rather the shape of the facial features.

Hinduism until recently wasn't really codified (and probably still isn't) into sets of doctrine like Christianity (technically you could make the same arguement for Christianity too). India is a BIG and extremely old country. The beliefs are probably cobbled together from a thousand different sources and a million different tribes of people. Heck, Christianity which isn't as old as Hinduism has influences from many different spiritual paths: Easter although celebrated as the resurrection of Christ was a pagan celebration called Esther that honored the earth mother in the Spring (hence all the symbols of fertility, bunnies, eggs etc.)Christmas is celebrated as the birth of Christ, but Jesus was probably born in the summer and Yule is the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. My point is, as Heather said, finding the "origin" of a belief system is virtually impossible and ultimately futile. What matter is who we are now.

Peace,
Scott.

For starters, I also want to point out that there is a theory in Southern India that they are the indigenous group of people and they call themselves as Dravidians. This is another crap promoted by fundamentalists in the area. There is no evidence for the indigenous Aryan theory or the dravidian theory. Both are theories promoted by fundamentalists to suit their propaganda.

"For the convenience of non Indians who are listening to this debate here, I want to point out that these people who are talking about indigenous Aryan origin of Hinduism consider Hitler to be a great person. That talks more about them than anything I say."

Thats typical Krish BS for you!

I am pretty sure that I trash Aryan Invasion Theory.. on just ONE count.. I DO NOT believe that Aryan is even a race.. as it pertains to Hindu context. To me it was a folk lorish nonsense when I read it in my school time.. and is still today. Aryan or rather still "Arya" was refrence for a royal or accomplished person.. in Ramayana and other texts I have read. Its NOTHING to do with a race!

So, in my view.. Nobody really came.. and there is no such thing as an Aryan "indigenous" race either.. for it aint a race as we know it!

Yes, Hitler used it.. for his own reasons.. and I cant speak for him or his advisors.. nor do I care. For I really do not consider him any different from Babar, Genghiz Khan, and Aurangzeb.

And Krish.. keep your nonsensical "home-grown truthiness" to your own blog or mind.. STOP INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE ANY MORE!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Vishal Agarwal is very famous in the "Hindu fundamentalist" circles. You can see his articles at

http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/indhistory.htm

and it is easy for anyone to see what he is upto. It is no wonder his article is quoted here.

Desh,

probably you may want to check out the following link

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=shamelessness

Here is one article that talks about the dravidian aspect in the controversy

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1412/indus.html

"Sikhs, who are a peace-loving, hard-working and enterprising community, have been rightly upset that textbooks that deal with medieval history ignore Sikhism."

Its interesting that this writer noted this. I clearly remember the way Mughal History was written and what pictures were illustrated in my NCERT books in school.

We had pictures of Jama Masjid (the biggest Mosque in Delhi), the Red Fort.. etc..

Did you ever see Gurudwara Sis Ganj??? WHY NOT? That Gurudwara was built at the place where Guru Tegh Bahadur's head (sis) was brought after it was cut by Aurangzeb's army! So in that sense .. that shrine is contemporary to Jama Masjid!!

And since I am on this now.. how many of us read about the details of the 9 Gurus - what happened to Guru Gobind Singh.. or his two sons.. again... the question WHY NOT?? I do remember reading about the details of Buddha and Mahavir.. and about Aurangzeb (a much koshered account) .. but no GURU GOBIND SINGH?? WHY? He was a contemporary!

yes, History as it is written in India is indeed a bitch! The thing is who amongst us will live with that crap!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

"probably you may want to check out the following link

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=shamelessness"

Krish: you are just debasing yourself .. post after post after post! I sure do pity you now!

Desh
Drishtikone.com

Here is a take on this controversy. Brahmaniacal Hindu fundamentalists don't want the Aryan invasion theory because it hurts their ego. Also this theory lacks any scientific evidence. These Brahmanical Hindus put forward a theory of indigenous Aryan origin so that it has a soothing effect on their bloated ego. However, non brahmanical and south Indian Hindus claim that their race (dravidian) is indigenous and Aryan either migrated or invaded to occupy the northern part of India. They claim that Harappan civilization is basically dravidian. But these Brahmanical Hindus don't want to accept that they are not even migrated people and still insist on their indigenous origins even in the absence of any evidence. However, there are some archeological evidence that seems to suggest that Aryans migrated to India but this is still being questioned. Brahmanical Hindus who tried to change the Indian history books to suit their propaganda got slapped on their face and now they are trying to converge from outside.

I have no problem with any theory. But I need proof to believe in it. Without proof, if they try to change the history to say that the Aryan lineage of Hinduism is indigenous, I will oppose it. Instead of trying to enter the histroy books through backdoor (first changing the history books outside India and then changing the history in India based on that), I suggest that they take a shovel and start digging. They can try to find any evidence to support it. if they don't find it, they can use the digging as their own grave.

Desh...Bahut solid GP karthe vho yaar tum!

Heather...Enjoyed reading your post. You seem to have a fascination towards India....otherwise you cudn't have known so much abt this country which has such a rich heritage.

Cheers..Sachin

Krishology for you:

1. "FIRST PROVE THAT I SUPPORTED THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY."

2. "However, there are some archeological evidence that seems to suggest that Aryans migrated to India but this is still being questioned. "

Krish: You decide kiddo.. which way you want to argue???

First you challenge all and sundry to prove (in capitals) that you are for Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and then despite your understanding of what Romilla Thapar says.. you conveniently turn around to make us BELIEVE that is so after all!!??

You are quite a character!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Just for the sake of ignorant dues here

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=invasion

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=migration

Also they ignore "but this is still being questioned" very conveniently exposing their shallowness.

Hi Divya

I thought I was addressing that point: I feel it's important to seriously question, and often totally disregard, theories developed and promoted by many past scholars and scientists from western societies, in those cases where the theories were built upon faulty scholarship, misread evidence or missing evidence. And this is the case much too frequently. When I read old theories written by westerners about cultures not their own (not just India, by the way, but all other cultures), I cringe. Many such theories were developed by people with something to prove about a supposed superiority of their own culture, and these same people had something to gain from devaluing other cultures, traditions and religions, did not understand the other cultures, and did not respect or understand the validity of oral histories in general. I didn't state my position this baldly, but this is my position.

Hi Krish

Regarding your comment about Dravidian theory: I have heard about DNA-based evidence that suggests that humans migrated from Africa north, through what westerners call the Near East, down to southern India, stayed there for some tens of thousands of years, then radiated out in all directions from southern India, and in radiating out, populated unpopulated areas, as well as returned to the Near East and re-mixed with those of their ancient brethren who had remained for those tens of thousands of years. This was supposed to have happened in times so old as to not even have any cultural history as we know it -- 40,000 years ago and more. The human race is one race. Parts of it have migrated and moved all over the earth, over time. When you focus on who "owns" India, in terms of being the pre-eminent group, you would need to qualify for what period of time was that people pre-eminent.

About your opposition to fundamentalism, I second your position. I am in complete disagreement with fundamentalism of any stripe or flavor. Instinct and reason say that promoting any one group as superior to, or more right, than any other group, is wrong, and immoral, as well.

Regarding whether one group or another was indigenous based on their religious affiliation -- since all religions have morphed over time, and all religions were new at some time, all current religious adherents are descendants of someone who was initially new to the religion, and the religion then was not the same thing that it is now. Change is the nature of the human mind, life and the universe. There are similarities in details, and synchronous patterns, but details and patterns never repeat, though they certainly do echo.

Humans have migrated throughout the world over a period of several million years, and this is still happening. The US is now the target of many individual migrations. I'm a typical American human, a mix of four different peoples. In terms of what I know of my ancestral history, I am part Swedish, part Finnish, part Irish, and part English. As far as the Swedish and English parts go, I know nothing about my ancestors prior to a century ago. For the Finnish part, there's some speculation that that branch of the family was originally from somewhere near Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, and was forced to flee northwest to the Baltic Sea coast of Finland by Genghis Khan's activities. This is an oral tradition, and it's attractive to me because it would explain certain strong biases I have towards the arts of Asia, horses, and so on, but this could also just as well be horse dung, so to speak. The Irish part is one of those western Irish families mentioned in my first comment. The possible affiliation mentioned in that comment was pure oral tradition and possible horse dung, but when I read that recent report of the DNA analysis of those families, it seemed to suggest there may be something to that tradition. My son has an even cooler ancestral history, due to his father's background. Yet all this is meaningless now: Due to climate, political and economic stresses, all my forebears ended up in North America sometime in the past 150 years or so, intermarried over a period of about 80 years, had children, who had children, and so on. Their history is an individual piece of evidence that we are all brothers and sisters. It's amazing to me how alike we all are -- that peoples who had been living in different regions of the world for 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 years can suddenly migrate, end up together in completely new place, intermarry, and have fertile offspring. This shows how close we all are genetically. This is proof, if any is needed, that we are all brothers and sisters.

In parts of the world where the majority of people are descended from those who did not need to migrate (because they were successful surviving in situ), ancestral background has a stronger meaning than it does in those parts of the world that are the current targets of new migrations. In older, more stable countries, ancestors and all the societal, political and economics interconnections built over the centuries, play a large part in determine survival advantage for the individual. But in places that currently still have a significant migration in, old blood provides little advantage, and individual efforts to survive provide the greatest benefits to individuals. These two dynamics underlie the differences in foci between older countries that turn towards their cultures, and "newer" countries that turn towards materialistic goals.

For me, the differences between cultures, religions and histories, are the fascinating traces of our migrations, and are interesting in the same way that it's interesting that I have straight hair, my older sister and my brother have curly hair, and my younger sister has wavy hair, though we have the same parents. I can enjoy the differences because there is a stable base of similarities and family feeling. This is the same way I think of differences in religion and culture and so on. I am intrigued and interested in the things that make us not the same, but the not-the-sameness is quite shallow, when it comes down to it, my sense that we are all related and similar is the stronger sense.

Cheers, Heather

"It's all bull, you bull-head," she said

http://ravikopra.blogspot.com/2006/01/its-all-bull-you-bull-head-she-said.html

Heather,

"Regarding whether one group or another was indigenous based on their religious affiliation -- since all religions have morphed over time, and all religions were new at some time, all current religious adherents are descendants of someone who was initially new to the religion, and the religion then was not the same thing that it is now. Change is the nature of the human mind, life and the universe."

Very well said. Such migrations are happening from time immemorial. So the claims that Aryan race is indigenous to Indian region and the claim that Hindus are from this lineage doesn't make any sense at all.

Hey Tanzan....We're missing the good critic here on the site. Maybe if you wish you cud write here too.

Heather...I blogged a couple of hrs back, but it didn't go thru...so it will end up higher somewhere. I again enjoyed reading your last blog. Are you a Historian Heather? Or is it just your interest? You've a gift in connecting it to One ultimately. You go far and diverse and then merge into One. Terrific! Keep it up!

Cheers...Sachin

Interesting Topic.

I guess I missed a good part of it.

All I can see is that we are pro Hinduism as much as the westerners are in their faith. It's more of an argument to prove each other out rather really looking into the facts.

I was even more surprised when I saw King Tut's face recreated and it looked like a white man. Well this was created by the west.

I don't think Hinduism ever said not to eat beef. The reason not to eat beef I believe is due to the fact that the population has to be saved for many reason of its use.

As much as we know about the western religion, the westerners have no clue of Hinduism, Buddhism etc..,

We failed miserably to force our religion upon others where as they did it successfully.

Yogi Selliah.

Heather - The issue is more about the origins of the culture and only tangentially about race. Also, as the BBC article points out, this issue has been used politically to divide Indians and pit them against each other. It has also been used to justify the conquest of India. It is for these reasons that the western establishment continues to hang on to this theory. Anyone who opposes it is instantly labeled a fundamentalist. Can you see the hypocricy in this?

This is a theory developed and nurtured by the western establishment. Only in recent years Hindus have begun to oppose it. In fact the theory has been discredited and now they have switchted to calling it the Aryan Migration instead of Invasion. The Migration theory is also full of holes. But any Indian who dares say so is shouted down and labeled a fanatic. So you see this is very, very, very important to the West. In India Aryan simply means noble. This word has always been used as an adjective. It was never a noun. There never was an Aryan race to begin with. But how can "scholars" admit that they have been wrong all along?

Mallika chose the perfect article to invigorate debate on the site I think. Yes Heather even though enjoyable read, I think it was tangential. Why not hit the centre of the Circle of this topic? Straight like An Arrow!! That will be good.

It's been a while since we saw a good discussion/debate....maybe that's also why it was enjoyable.

Cheers...Sachin

Heather:

The problem is that the very right to "define" vocabulary has been hikacked to start with. And then.. using that unlimited latitude, these people have defined mythological/social terms in their own way... and termed them as historical fact. Using these historical stories borne out of definitional piracy - an entire campaign has been created.

When you argue about the absurdity of Aryan Theory.. they will talk about that the indigenous theory is an act of a fundamentalist.. and when you say that yes, indigenous thoery is falsehood.. they jump on the other side of the line claiming there is enough "evidence" of AIT being true!

Its this constant "Lie Dance" that is being performed in the public arena by these leftist and pseudo secular folks time and again!

My beef (pun intended) with all this - that I do not even consider Hinduism a religion - religion is a construct of the West.. it was only when someone came and said I am "X" to us .. that we became a "Y"! Before that I dont see in any scripture that there was a Valmikism or Vasisthism or Tulsidasism or whatever? They were as if not more accomplished in spiritual sense as Buddha, Guru Nanak Dev or Jesus or others were! What were these guys then? Hindus? That word NEVER occurs ONCE in entire Mahabharata or Ramayana or Vedas..

So, I subscribe to the "open-source" nature of exploratory spiritual journey that all the Vedic Rishis subscribed to AND adhered to.

Having said that.. for reasons outside my control.. I have been - in todays world - that is dominated by Western influence .. and so PRONE to categorization.. - have fallen into a BOX called "Hindu".

Now, that is ok with me.. but it becomes inconvenient when I am walking down the street and someone comes and hurls abuses at me because I somehow think that what Krishna says in Gita is the most profound thing I have read or heard. For he wants me to swear by Jesus or Mohd... ONLY! I love Jesus and others.. but as is my wont.. I would say that all are equally worthy of reverence.. but that just does not satisfy the bully. I HAVE to FALL in a BOX or I am dead!

Its the same act that has gone in on this thread... either I and others FALL IN A BOX called "OPPOSITION TO AIT IS FUNDAMENTALISM" or we get a Middle Finger. Nothing short of that will do!! NOTHING!

THAT is what I am protesting .. and wanted to bring out about Krish and others are wont to similar behavior!

Hues in this world are NOT possible! And that is the tragedy of this age! BLACK or WHITE.. Box X or BOX Y.. life OUT OF BOX has ceased to become a choice ... .and these folks who have a factory load of labels with "Fundamentalist" written on them.. HAVE ENSURED THAT BOXES REMAIN FULL!!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Krish and Tanzan Senzaki are highly sophisticated individuals and deploy radically different means to promote their agenda and cause.
Us mere bloggers need to read their message and then read between their lines and develop a deep understanding of their cause and goals, keenly watch their choice of engagement and their periods os silence[specially Tanzan's] and hopefully expose their background and unmask their disguise and maybe at that point we will all find it unnecessary to merit them with a response.

Hey gang....

You know what's fun? Watching all you Spiritually advanced "easterns" tear each other to bits.

The Christian fundies have got nothing on you guys when it comes to being pigheaded and absolutely SURE that you're right.

Just reminds me that we really are all one :).

Peace,
Scott.

I hear ya Scott,

I just 'had to' throw out a couple negative blogs b4 school

Here I thought religions were supposed to bring us together, yet it seems they are the most racist people around, especially Christians, I mean you can be a Spanish Christian, but you are still second class in John Bull's eyes, even if you are Protestant (in Spain??)

Look at the United States Senate, Anglos and some of their women, and Jews are inordinately represented also, got more Jews than blacks and Native Americans combined.

Not that there is anything wrong with Jews, they are God's chosen after all, but to be lorded over by Anglo-Jews (democrat or republican) is just a little much: because they either want to detroy or rule the world, and if they have to enslave you during the process, so be it . . .

Hoping I am wrong here . . .

Now I gotta get a 25 page 'thesis statement' narrative done by Monday, and they do not like any of me topics, and I do not even want to study history

grad school or die, this weekend will tell the tale . . .

peace all

Hi all

I'm hoping that debate will shake out the extremes on both sides in California. This is one area where the press has real value (and the discussions here have real value, as well). When one hangs dirty laundry out to dry, it's easy to see that it's dirty, then it's just a matter of honesty and will to take it down to go back in the washbasin or washing machine.

By now, with China to the north, can India afford to waste energy on these old stories? Hindi-Chini bhai bhai is not in force any more, and it looks as if China is set to do whatever it needs to do to become the world's premier economic power. If India (north and south), Pakistan and Bangladesh would say, eh, dudes, why don't we drop all this old religious conflict, and attend to more important things like improving our economic position in the world -- let's get together -- after all, we've all been here for at least 2,500 years, what's a few hundreds or thousands of years one way or the other, who cares who built what temple at this point, who cares that you worship god like this and we do it like that? I mean, can't the three nations on the south side of the Himalayas realize how alike they are, and how glorious their collective history is, and use the past to make themselves feel secure and friendly towards each other, then turn their faces to the outside world and move forward together? Oh wouldn't that be cool! And give China a run for its money.

It's possible that many who comment here are of an age to be strong participants in determining how things go for India for the next half-century. It would be nice if the debates here turn out to have a beneficial effect on India's future, and one of you turns out to be one of India's future prime ministers.

Desh, you make a great point, that we all fall into the trap of allowing ourselves to be labeled. As a note to your first comment here, in my view, history is only an approximation of the truth, and it shifts with time, yet it's all we have when we turn around and look back. That's why I like it when someone digs up a new pot, or someone takes DNA from an old tooth, and some from the inside of the cheek of a child, and finds a high degree of correlation. Those things put a little validity into the mess we call history. And, by contrast, those things help us take historical debates a little less seriously, because we can see that history as told by humans is as mutable and as prone to error and misinterpration as anything else human.

Peace and respect, Desh, Divya, Krish, Sachin, and all.

Cheers, Heather

It it is disenchanting to see Indians here actually support the distortions by western scholars and the other hand slam all revisionists as Hindu nationalists. Where do their allegiances lie?

I am not a Hindu nationalist or fundamentalist, and even I can see that AIT is at best, a dubious and unevidenced theory that has propogandist origins.

The truth is, and I can attest to this as an NRI myself, that Indian history is grossly distorted here and misrepresented, especially Hinduism.

The gentleman Desh wrote: They insisted describing Hinduism as monotheistic for instance

Hinduism is a matrix of dharmic belief systems, but it's central canons are the Vedas; Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda; the Bhagvad Gita and the Upanishads.

They hold that there is only one Brahman/Supreme soul or ultimate reality, and from this, the souls, the devas and the material universe originates. So there is only ONE supreme soul or god and everything else in a manifestation of him.

I will refer you to the creation verse in the RV that says this:

The non-existent was not then
Nor was the existent
The Earth was not, nor the firament
Nor that which is beyond
(When there was nothing then) What would cover what
And where and whose care did the waters and bottomless deep then exist

There was no death nor immortality
Then there was no sign of night nor of day
That one breathed without extraneous breath with his own nature
Other than him there was nothing beyond

In the beginning there was darkness
Intensified darkness, indistinguishable darkness
All this visible world was reduced to it's primordial nature

The primordial world world which was enevloped by the all pervading one
Before whom the world of matter is a trifle, became one
The non-existent existing in the existent

In other words, Hinduism is actually a monothestic faith. It only believes in a single supreme power or god, from whom everything else has been created/manifested and thus everything else is an aspect of it.

It's not just monothestic though, it's also panthestic, as it believes in the worship of nature as well.

Regarding Hindu's eating beef. That's as fallacious a statement as stating that Muslims ate pork, because some Arabs ate pork in the past.

Hi Divya and Sachin

I was talking about cultures, not about race. For me, the only race is human. Our differences are expressed in our cultures, which arise in groups of people over time. Genetically we are all of one race. Ethnicity is a different issue, a human construct that categorizes people by culture, geographical location, physical characteristics and language variation.

Cheers, Heather

Hi Divya

I understand and agree with everything you say in your last comment -- especially "this issue has been used politically to divide Indians and pit them against each other. It has also been used to justify the conquest of India."

Cheers, Heather

Sunny: Well said!

Heather: Love your detailed posts! You make a great point about concentrating on economy as opposed to history. But what I see here is that in this world of "Boxes" the Box which says "Secular" is also colored RED! I have had long debates in another forum.. and like the Christian Evangelists who will not give ONE inch even when they are proved wrong.... the people of this "box" dont wanna admit that maybe there is an alternative way to life.

I honestly believe that way to economic success is through correct attitudnal change within India.. otherwise we will not make it. Just as an example - Harrappa civilization that some have mentioned here... arguably had better sewer system than modern day New Delhi has! We have gone BACKWARDS!

.. and that doesnt seem to concern many! What is it that makes me go ahead? What is it that made the Indians of the Golden Age ... the Rishis of Vedas create such splendor and prosperity??? Why did someone have to write Upanishads if Vedas was such a great thing anyways? Why did Krishna have to provide his verses in Gita (more an interpretational summary of Vedas and Upanishads) if Upanishads and Vedas had done it all???

It was their ability to learn.. unlearn... improve upon... and a CLEARLY DEMONSTRABLE need to go on improving on further! To even attempt to improve or grow ... you HAVE to admit that what you have been doing until now.. or have in your hands until now.. may not be doing the job well enough!

Thats all to it! But that admission is not an option in the Indian society! It is inconceivable STILL in India for people to come to terms that SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM have roundly and decidedly FAILED in ALL THE ASPECTS of national life in the world! But we still have to debate that dead horse!

To me East and West Germany were the closest a social laboratory controlled experiment in difference of economic ideologies possible! Same starting point.. same people.. same race... same language.. virtually same resources! And the results were DIAMETRICALLy OPPOSITE!

There comes a point where one has to take these elements in the society on EVERY FLANK possible. I have seen in the lectures of Vivekananda that he had a similar and as difficult a fight on his hands. We arent as great or accomplished.. yet.. but we need to all make a difference. Not just in India or our nation of birth... but around the world!

.. for a world in which majority of top 100 economic entities are Corporations (GM + Ford is bigger than Indian Economy! ok, maybe that is changing... ).. nationalistic boundaries will soon be meaningless..

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Hi Heather, sorry I just went through all the above comments so did not catch your message earlier.

Most of what I am going to write comes from a book "WORLD WIDE KANNADA, TAMIL, AND SANSKRIT VOCABULARY" written by Dr S Venu Gopalacharya.

He during his research found that there was a common language spoken and understood by the human beings that survived with Vaivasvata Manuh(Noah of the old testament) in the last deluge, which happened between nine to six thousand years ago. As water receded people began to disperse and establish small and large kingdoms around the world.

He gives examples of hundreds of words that are similar in kannada, tamil, latin, greek, sanskrit,and english. It is all very interesting.

I have come across an ancient map that shows Tamil nadu as a large country probably 2 times larger than present India extending south ward from present Tamil nadu and almost touching Australia and New Zealand.

There are stone tablets in Mexico and Peru which are ancient and have Telugu and Kannada writings on them. The same author(Venu Gopalacharya) has written about this. I will see if I can find that book and give you the details Heather. Thank you. God bless.

Scott:
Intellectual deficit rapidly narrows the distance between the two orifices of man to the point that what comes out of them is strikingly similar.
What the "EASTERNS" are discussing is the Hindu Culture and norms and NOT the 'Hindu Religion' whatever mis-concept of the latter you are carrying in your head.
As for the fun that you are having you should thank Mallika for instigating this mischief.
Mallika:
There is an old Punjabi saying:"APNA CHAGGA CHUKKIYE TEY AAP NAANGAY HOIEYEH".
So,next time,think twice before you 'instigate' something through your blog unless it is the "NIELSEN" rating season for the blog world and shocking, sadistic inciting topics are needed to attract attention.

Sid (the Vicious one: Sex Pistols),

Socialism, a.k.a., Jesusianism, is not dead, you capitalist pigs are just having a good run, but, you are now bankrupt, and China, and India, are knocking, nay, breaking down western sovereignty over the entire globe . .

Oh yeah, socialism is what is going to save us, all of us, and please, think not of the past corrupted versions of commmunism, these systems in no way represent true socialism.

K, gotta get to work . .

peace all

Hi Geeta

Thanks so much, this information is incredibly interesting.

Cheers & god bless, Heather

Sorry Sid hartha, actually meant "easterners".

My post was completely tongue in cheek. It is interesting to me to see this conversation going on from a place where I have nothing emotionally invested in it. I have seen myself get all carried away with the defense of my viewpoint and eventually recognized it. However, seeing it happen with someone else on a topic that has no real "charge" for me makes it all the more interesting. And it does truly let me know that we are all much more alike than we think. I know this will make Divya shudder to realize she's not as different from those hated, evil "westerners" as she thinks.

Peace,
Scott.

Hi Geeta

Sorry to bother you again, but wanted to share this thought -- the great deluge that all cultures have in their past myths and histories -- tsnumani? We've just been shown how very vulnerable the lands bordering on the Indian Ocean are to tsunami. That might futher support southern India as the point from which the world was repopulated, as well as give motive to why people would bother to migrate out from such a paradise as southern India in the first place. I've been studying Tamil a bit, and one of the first things I'd noticed was how familiar some of the words were to those I know in English, but I wasn't aware there was a list of similarities. One of the main points of interest in that DNA report was that it seemed to show a clear connection between aboriginal populations of Australia and New Zealand, and populations in southern India. If your map shows Tamil Nadu as being twice the current size, and extending southeast, perhaps the land was higher and people could easily sail between India, and Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps the land subsided in one major quake, then major tsunami, etc. We know India has been on the move northward for eons. Well, that's a whole lot of nothing more than speculation on my part (but it is exciting to consider the possibilities).

What interesting stuff you are sharing -- and about southern Indian scripts in Mexico, too -- thanks so much!

Cheers & god bless, Heather

Hot Headed Cool Thoughts

http://ravikopra.blogspot.com/2006/01/hot-headed-cool-thoughts.html

Mallika:
In a fair and balanced manner it would be most appropriate if you would research the Christian Science Monitor or other respectable JUDEO-CHRISTIAN AND ISLAMIC resources and post an article which raises the question and discusses whether "ANCIENT JEWS AND MUSLIMS ATE PORK" and did JESUS partake in such meals.
It would be interesting to read the views of the people of the Old Testament and their descendants and find out what kind of gastronomic love did the CHRISTIANS develop for Miss Piggy which caused them to have a violent break-up with their erstwhile bretheren from THE HOLY LAND.
TANZAN:
In anticipation of Mallika's upcoming blog on the above topic would you be so kind and research and print sites similar to RAVI KOPRA'S and enlighten and humor your silent innumerable admirers about some ham biryani and matzo -ball soup being enjoyed by JEWISH and ISLAMIC friends on their holy festivals.
KRISH:
Get ready to referee and call the liberal Left and the jihadist fundamentalist Right in this match .You will have the undivided backing and support of all of us including Divya,Desh,Ravi Kulkarni and the other rationals,in addition to all your "Phiranghi" admirers.

Heather, thanks. what I have read about the Indians (like me) is that they are a mixture of races.You can see that when you visit different parts of the country. Since you know some Tamil, I will write a few examples from the book.

Kannada Tamil Greek Latin English Sanskrit

Harasu Harkos Bless Prasiida

Laaga Laxus Lag Langh

Aadara Adoro Adore Aadara

Kurkk Crux Cross Krunc

Baara Baros Baro(meter) Bhaara

Kalgalaata Calculus Calculate

Oppisu Offero Offer Arpaya

Thank you Desh. I just realised it wasn't you that said it but Divya, so please accept my apologies.

I think both issues of the economy and the history of India are important. India was a glorious civilisation in the past, and today, while not glorious, it is a nation that is awakening.

It is not a matter of nationalism, that Indians should be taught about their ancient and glorious past, but a matter of teaching accurate history.

How many of you in India have been taught that it was the Greeks who first proposed the existence of atoms, founded the system of medicine, discovered mathematics and geometry? Yet, the truth is, all the above go deep into Indian antiquity. The ideas of atoms were first systematized by Sage Kannada, who set up the Vaeshihika school, whom advanced it to the stage of explaining chemical reactions as the binding of atoms to form molecules and delinated the states of matter(solids, liquids and gasses)

It took Westerners a long time to arrive at these truths. So, tell me, if what I said above is true, why shouldn't our people be made aware of it?

Scott - I have never ever proclaimed myself to be holy person. I am a warrior at heart and am living up to my nature. I have no clue where you're coming from. You probalby just assumed that anyone who participates in Deepak's blog is some kind of a spiritualist. As for the east/west difference, clearly nothing I've said has made any difference so I wont add more here. But it's typically western of you to deny indians to be as wretchedly human as they want to be without wagging your finger at us.

Mallika - Here's the WSJ article. I didn't post it earlier because of its length and it cannot really be linked to. As for Prof. Jain's statement, please put it in perspective. Sixth grade children should not be made to squirm about their culture. If you think the truth is more important than young sentiments, then all kids - Christian, Jewish and Muslim should be made to squirm. Not just Hindus. The current system is very respectful to *all* except Hindus.

New Battleground In Textbook Wars: Religion in History Hindu, Islamic, Jewish Groups Fault Portrayals of Events And Often Win Changes

*The Untouchables Weigh In* *By DANIEL GOLDEN * Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The victors write the history books, the saying goes. But increasingly, religious advocates try to edit them.

Religious pressure on textbooks is growing well beyond Christian fundamentalists' attack on evolution. History books are the biggest battleground, as groups vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary schools that cast their faiths in a better light.

Two Hindu groups and a Jewish group have been set up in the past three years as textbook watchdogs, adding to Islamic advocates who have monitored history textbooks since 1990. In addition, some Sikhs have started to complain about being short-changed in history textbooks.

All are seeking to extract concessions as California holds its periodic approval process for history textbooks. The process drives school-district purchases in the most populous state, and books adopted for California typically are the ones that schools in the rest of the country end up using for several years.

Hindu groups, in particular, have swamped California authorities with proposed revisions, which would delete or soften references to polytheism, the caste system and the inferior status of women in ancient India. For example, the Hindu Education Foundation, a group linked to a Hindu nationalist organization in India, proposed replacing a textbook's statement that "men had many more rights than women" in ancient India with: "Men had different duties ... as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas [sacred texts] were revealed."

California's Curriculum Commission endorsed this and most other changes pushed by Hindu groups, moving the matter along to the state board of education, which usually follows its advice. But then a strong objection to such changes arrived from a group of U.S. scholars, led by a Harvard professor, Michael Witzel. The scholars' protest, in turn, led to a lawsuit threat, a call for Harvard to disband the professor's department, and finally an unusual state-sponsored head-to-head debate between two scholars of ancient India.

Underlying such free-for-alls is the question of whether lobbying by religious groups yields a more sensitive and accurate version of history or a sugar-coated one -- and also whether students are served better or less well. "It tends to be scholar pitted against believer," says Kenneth Noonan, a member of the state education board.

For textbook publishers, meanwhile, to ignore religious groups is to risk exclusion from markets. One of the nation's largest school districts, Fairfax County, Va., dropped a McGraw-Hill Cos. 10th-grade text from its recommended list last year after complaints from Hindu parents, keeping it out of classrooms there.

Religious protests nearly crippled Oxford University Press's effort to enter the U.S. world-history textbook market. The prestigious university press sought to impress California authorities with cutting-edge scholarship and narrative verve, but the Curriculum Commission initially recommended against adopting Oxford's sixth-grade book last fall after Jewish and Hindu groups objected to it.

The Institute for Curriculum Services, a Jewish group set up in 2004 to scrutinize textbooks, was upset by the book's statement that archaeology and ancient Egyptian records don't support the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. While conceding this was true, the group said the book didn't apply the same skepticism to Islamic or Christian events, such as when it said that "ancient writings" and the Gospel according to Matthew relate that "wise men (probably philosophers or astrologers) followed a brightly shining star" when Jesus was born. Similarly, the book said that "according to Muslim tradition," the prophet Muhammad flew into heaven from the site of the Dome of the Rock mosque.

The Hindu groups, meanwhile, called the book's tone insensitive, such as its heading over a column about vegetarianism in India: "Where's the Beef?" The state board finally put the book on its approved list after Oxford cut the passages found objectionable and added a paragraph saying that for Jews, the Exodus is a "central event in their history" and "powerful symbol of the importance of freedom."

Casper Grathwohl, an official of Oxford University Press, says it preserved its integrity, and the give-and-take improved the text. But he complains that "the process is skewed toward giving the loudest voices what they want."

Every six years, California adopts a list of history books for kindergarten through eighth grade, and districts can spend designated state money only for books on this list. Publishers typically roll out new textbooks for the state, whose districts are expected to buy nearly $200 million of history books over the next two years. California alone represents 10% to 12% of the national textbook market.

In the 1970s and 1980s, history texts shied away from religion. "They didn't use the 'capital G' word," says Roger Rogalin, a publishing consultant. "They said the pilgrims gave thanks on Thanksgiving, but they didn't say to whom."

*Difficult Goals* Prodded by religious groups, states began requiring more coverage of the topic. But they imposed goals that can be hard to reconcile: both maintaining historical accuracy and enhancing the pride and self-esteem of believers. California's guidelines, for instance, say students "should understand the intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism and war." But also, texts should avoid "reflecting adversely" on anyone's creed or instilling "prejudice against...those who believe in other religions."

Such cautions provide an opportunity for religious activists such as the Council on Islamic Education in Fountain Valley, Calif. In California's most recent review, the council called for extensive changes, most of which the state appears likely to accept.

One target: A Prentice Hall text said the medieval spread of Islam was partly due to military conquest. "Actual conversion to Islam did NOT occur...at the point of a sword," the council told the state. A specialist appointed by the state board to review Islamic coverage recommended dropping the reference, and Prentice Hall says it will do so.

Publishers often hire the Council on Islamic Education to prescreen manuscripts. In California, the council is a "content consultant" for Houghton Mifflin Co. and Ballard & Tighe Co., an educational publisher in Brea, Calif. The council has sometimes advised Prentice Hall and other publishers as well.

Publishers have allowed the Islamic group to "dictate" content, charges Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, a New York nonprofit group that reviews history texts and has said they often lack depth and factual fidelity. "Islamic pressure groups have been working energetically for 15 years to scrub the past in instructional materials," he wrote to California officials. He added that "textbooks submitted either gloss over jihad, sharia [Islamic law], Muslim slavery, the status of women and Islamic terrorism -- or omit the subject altogether."

Houghton Mifflin says it hasn't ceded any control to the Council on Islamic Education, and seeks Hindu, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and Buddhist perspectives too. "We listen to their input and weigh it against what our scholarly authors believe is true," a spokesman says. Ballard & Tighe says its text was examined by Jewish and Hindu experts as well as the Islamic council. "We're mostly looking not to insult people," says an executive of the publisher. A spokeswoman for Prentice Hall says it has found the Council on Islamic Education to be a "solid resource for reviewing content."

The council's founder, Shabbir Mansuri, says that texts are treating Islam better not because of his efforts but because of state guidelines that stress sensitivity toward religious beliefs. Disputes over textbook portrayal of Hinduism are a staple of politics in India, and the concerns have arrived in America along with many Indian immigrants. The conventional view of ancient India in U.S. history texts is that men enjoyed more rights than women and that, then as now, Hindus worshipped many gods and were divided into castes.

But the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation, the educational arm of a Hindu temple in Austin, Texas, say Hinduism is monotheistic because all of its deities are aspects of one god, Brahman. So when one textbook referred to Hindus visiting temples to "express their love of the gods," this should be changed to "express their love for God," said the Vedic group.

The groups repeatedly proposed deleting references to the caste system and making other changes that burnished the image of Indian history and culture. For instance, McGraw-Hill's book said of an early monarch called Asoka that his "tolerance was unusual for the time." The Hindu Education Foundation suggested changing "unusual" to "usual."

*'Source of Misunderstanding'* At the Vedic Foundation, "Our motto is to re-establish the greatness of Hinduism, and part of that is to correct the textbooks," says Janeshwari Devi, director of programs. "Those are a source of misunderstanding, prejudice and derogatory information."

Some Hindu students say they're humiliated in school because texts dwell on customs such as ostracism of untouchables and an old tradition, rarely observed today, of "sati" -- widows immolating themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres. Trisha Pasricha, a high-school junior in a Houston suburb, says she used to deny being Hindu to classmates because she was tired of refuting stereotypes perpetuated by textbooks and teachers. "The textbooks bring up all these obscure practices, like bride burning, and act like they happen every day," she says. "The biggest mistake is that Hinduism is portrayed as polytheistic. And the caste system has nothing to do with Hinduism. But no one believes you, because it's in the textbook." But some prominent scholars, both non-Hindu and Hindu, say the books were right. According to Madhav Deshpande, a Sanskrit professor at the University of Michigan who is Hindu, Hinduism is polytheistic and linked to the caste system, and women did have inferior status in ancient India.

He says the Hindu groups hold a mistaken position that dates to when India was ruled by Britain in the 19th century and under pressure from Christian missionaries. The missionaries told prospective converts Christianity was superior because it had one god, treated women fairly, and didn't have castes, Mr. Deshpande says, adding that to counter, Hindu intellectuals made up an argument that their religion had once been the same way. The foundations' contention that the caste system developed separately from Hinduism is incorrect, he maintains, because "in ancient texts, there is no distinction between the religious and nonreligious domains of life."

Jackson Spielvogel, a retired Penn State professor and author of McGraw-Hill's "Ancient Civilizations" textbook, says, "You can't allow Hindu nationalists to rewrite the history of India.... It becomes an issue of censorship."

To review changes proposed by the Hindu groups, California hired an expert recommended by one of the groups: Shiva Bajpai, a retired California State University history professor. He endorsed most of their changes. "I want to recognize the negatives but project the positives," says Mr. Bajpai, who is Hindu.

With his blessing, the changes were rolling toward ratification by the state board when Harvard's Prof. Witzel unexpectedly intervened. Alerted by an Indian-American graduate student whom the Vedic Foundation had approached to support its changes, Mr. Witzel wrote to the board the day before a Nov. 9 meeting at which approval of the Hindu-backed changes was expected. "They are unscholarly [and] politically and religiously motivated," wrote Mr. Witzel, a Sanskrit professor. His letter was co-signed by nearly 50 scholars, including Mr. Deshpande of Michigan.

Mr. Witzel calls the Hindu Education Foundation a front for a prominent nationalist group in India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose leader caused a stir in November by urging Hindu women to have more children to keep up with the Muslim growth rate. A spokesman for the Hindu Education Foundation acknowledges a connection -- it was established by the U.S. counterpart of the Indian group -- but says it acts independently.

State officials did an about-face after they got Mr. Witzel's letter, inviting him and two like-minded scholars to scrutinize Mr. Bajpai's recommendations. When the three advised restoring much of the textbooks' original wording, angry letters began pouring in from Hindu groups. One, the Hindu American Foundation, threatened to sue the state. A petition from Hindu advocates called on Harvard to end its association with "Aryan Supremacist Creationist hate mongering." Harvard responded by defending Mr. Witzel's academic freedom. The groups persuaded two members of California's congressional delegation to weigh in. Rep. Pete Stark, a Unitarian, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a Catholic, asked the state superintendent of public instruction to investigate Mr. Witzel. The superintendent replied that the state had already held three public hearings on the history texts, received more than 1,000 pages of testimony, and considered more than 800 textual changes.

The pendulum swung back on Dec. 2, when the Curriculum Commission voted to support most of the changes sought by the Hindu foundations. "We have to err on the side of sensitivity toward religion," a commission member, Stan Metzenberg, said at the time. The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups -- including members of the "untouchables" caste -- entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflect "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history."

Caught in the cross-fire, the board of education summoned Mr. Witzel and Mr. Bajpai to an unusual private session Jan. 6. Before board and commission members, staffers and the board's lawyer, the scholars debated each edit.

"It was a gladiator combat," Mr. Bajpai recalls, "the most acrimonious thing I have ever done in my entire life. It deteriorated into me telling him he didn't understand anything." Mr. Witzel says Mr. Bajpai "mixed his religion with scholarship."

The duo did reach consensus on some changes. They agreed to narrow the McGraw-Hill text's statement that men in ancient India had "more rights" than women to "more property rights" -- but not to the Hindu groups' preferred wording of "different" rights.

Still, it isn't certain the compromises reached by the two scholars will stand. At a meeting Jan. 12, the state board of education created a subcommittee to reconsider the matter -- and to prepare for still more religious pressure when books are expected to be added to the list in two years.

*Write to *Daniel Golden at dan.golden@...

(PST)
Subject: [namaste-bombay] Hindus fight discrimination in California textbooks - 4

Have been receiving many emails regarding this topic. This is the latest one-an article written by Kalavai Venkat. Has any one read this one?


Hindus fight discrimination in California textbooks -
By Kalavai Venkat | Published 01/13/2006 |
Is Hinduism monotheistic?
In my earlier articles, I had summarized the California textbook trial, and had also analyzed the specious recommendations of anti-Hindu ideologues with respect to the status of women in ancient India, historicizing the origins of Hinduism using creationist, racist and 19th century colonial theories, and their shocking suggestion that Harijan Hindu children be derogatorily called ‘broken persons.’ In this article, I will examine their accusation that Hindu groups attempted to portray Hinduism as a monotheistic religion along the lines of Christianity and Islam. Is it not patronizing to claim that Hindus want to model their religion after Christianity or Islam? Never mind, let us see the validity of this accusation.
Steve Farmer, the Marx-admiring ideologue [a report reveals that he put up a portrait of Karl Marx on his wall!], who initiated and coordinated Witzel’s anti-Hindu petition [a report reveals that these anti-Hindu ideologues admitted that they had no knowledge of the contents of proposed edits when they sent out their petition!], wrote on December 11, 2005, in the infamous political list Indo-Eurasian_research, that the Hindu edits attempted to “whitewash accounts of women's and minority rights in ancient India, and [made] absurd claims that ancient Vedic religion was monotheistic, etc.” Hey, isn’t that interesting that this Marx-admiring ideologue alleges that ‘minority’ rights were denied by majority Hindus in ancient India? Well, this is an old trick in the Marxist trade: to invent a lie and to repeat it until it becomes a ‘fact.’ It is a Marxist convention that what one Marxist ideologue says, others parrot. Angana Chatterji, writing for the Communist mouthpiece SACW alleged that the Hindu edits attempted to present “Hinduism [as] uniform, monotheistic, and monolithic, dismissing the disenfranchisement of women, dalits, adivasis, and religious minorities under centuries of Hindu ascendancy in what is today India.”
Never bother to ask these ideologues for evidence that Hindus disenfranchised minority religious groups in ancient India. Their trade is one dependent on a cobweb of lies. Interestingly, their trade proves both creationism and evolution right: first they create a lie, and then let it evolve into a ‘fact!’ But, those who have studied a bit of history would know that the minority Jews who found refuge in India 2,000 years ago, flourished as an ethnic minority. Nathan Katz, in his monumental work, Who are the Jews of India, writes:
"Indian Jews lived as all Jews should have been allowed to live: free, proud, observant, creative and prosperous, self-realized, full contributors to the host community. Then, when twentieth century conditions permitted they returned en masse to Israel, which they had always proclaimed to be their true home despite India's hospitality. The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora. [...] The study of Indian Jewish communities demonstrates that in Indian culture an immigrant group gains status precisely by maintaining its own identity. Such is the experience not only of India's Jews, but also of local Christians, Zoroastrians, and recently, Tibetan Buddhists."
Such facts regarding the well-known Hindu tolerance are dispensed with when Marxist ideologues wage an unscrupulous battle against Hindus. Judging by their lies on the alleged Hindu ‘intolerance’ one could reasonably conclude that they would have bluffed about the alleged ‘monotheism’ edits too. But, I will take the pains to prove the obvious. Since I have already discussed the status of women in ancient India, I will save the trouble of repeating it.
What are the English translations of Sanskrit words, bhagavan, karma, atman, devata, murti, vigraha, Brahman or even the ubiquitous yoga and dharma? There are no accurate translations. While yoga and dharma have been adopted into English, the rest have not been. So, any translation is going to fall short of being accurate. Ideally, these Sanskrit words should be adopted in textbooks so that students can understand them in their appropriate cultural and religious contexts.
Traditionally, Hindus of several denominations have believed that the One Divine manifests itself manifold. The Rig Veda [1:164:46], the oldest Hindu text, tells us that “the truth is one, which the sages perceive differently.” Starting with the Upanishads, many schools have contemplated on the nature of this absolute truth. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [1:4:6] says:
“All adorations of the different deities are the adorations of the One Being because, all these gods that we worship in religion are nothing but the projections of the One Being.”
The Vedantic Schools such as the Advaita identified this as the undifferentiated, attribute-less Nirguna Brahman. Tirumular, the celebrated Harijan Saiva saint, famously declared, echoing the Vedantic wisdom, that duality exists only until ignorance is removed, and gave an analogy to expound this thought: one, who does not realize that it is merely a carving, perceives elephant in a piece of wood; once he realizes the truth, the elephant [perception] disappears and only the piece of wood [reality] remains [Tirumantiram 2290].
Yet, not all schools of Hinduism subscribe to this interpretation of the highest truth as Nirguna Brahman. Even among the Vedantic schools, interpretations vary. For example, the Visishtadvaita School of dualism considers Narayana or Bhagavan or Purusha to be eternal, and reconciles the Brahman and the Purusha. Numerous Bhakti or devotional traditions consider Bhagavan as eternal, and are not occupied with the notions of Advaita. It is safe to state that Hindus that subscribe to an ultimate Bhagavan are more numerous than those that subscribe to the thought of Nirguna Brahman. For each, this ultimate Bhagavan is Siva, Vishnu, Kali or one’s own kula devata or family deity. Even during periods of sectarian rivalry, exalted poets like Kambar declared that Vishnu and Siva are one and the same.
What do textbooks teach?
A proposed textbook [Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, pp. 146-151] teaches:
“Brahman is the Hindu name for a supreme power or a divine force, that is greater than all the other gods. […] To Hindus only Brahman exists forever. […] [Hindus] devote entire lives to uniting with Brahman.”
The first statement is not an accurate portrayal of even Advaita, which considers the Brahman alone to be satya or the truth, and all else to be mitya or mere perceptions of truth. It is not as if all are satya and the Brahman is graded higher than the rest. The second statement summarizes the Advaita thought better. The third statement is incorrect even according to Advaita, in which school of thought the Jiva does not unite with the Brahman. Instead, at realization, there is no more duality. At that stage, there is nothing to perceive, and nothing apart to merge into. But, none of these statements reflect the thoughts of numerous other Hindu schools, which consider the Bhagavan and the Jiva or the soul to be eternal and separate.
According to the California Department of Education guidelines, textbooks must summarize the Hindu knowledge systems. So, ideally, textbooks should present the various Hindu schools of thoughts, according to the tradition of each, without attempting to reconcile them into a unified Hinduism. That has not been the case for decades. Anti-Hindu ideologues that tirelessly campaign against Hindu initiatives, never bothered to correct this situation all these years, even though they had the opportunity.
What did the Vedic Foundation edit propose?
It is very clear that the Hindu groups wanted to project the diversity of Hindu traditions by presenting different schools of thoughts, and that they were not trying to present one sectarian school of thought as representative of Hinduism. They never attempted to project the God of any one sampradaya as the presiding deity of Hinduism. Instead, the Vedic Foundation [VF] insisted on the inclusion of Goddess worship, which forms an integral part of Hinduism [Ref.: State of California, Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission’s Memorandum, dated November 22, 2005, edit 26]. Elsewhere, VF wanted a reference to “many gods” to be replaced with the phrase “many forms of God” [Ref.: State of California, Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission’s Memorandum, dated November 22, 2005, edits 43]. Apparently, this elicited the derision from the anti-Hindu ideologues, and the resultant accusation that VF attempted to portray Hinduism as a monotheistic religion, with God spelt with an upper case ‘G.’
Anyone with the minutest knowledge of Abrahamic religions should know that the Second Commandment explicitly forbids any form of God. So, obviously, VF, which was arguing for “many forms of God,” was not attempting to portray Hinduism in the mould of Abrahamic monotheism. As seen earlier, the thought that “One truth manifests manifold” is a very old Hindu tradition.
Witzel et al did not stop at that. They ridiculed the suggestion that Hindu Gods should be portrayed with an upper case ‘G’ [Ref.: State of California, Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission’s Memorandum, dated November 22, 2005, edit 16], and declared that since lower case ‘g’ is used for the gods of ancient Greece and Rome, a similar treatment of Hindu gods is fine. But, there is a fundamental difference: Christianity destroyed the Pagan religions of Greece and Rome. Hinduism, on the other hand, is alive. Should the Pagan religions of Greece and Rome be alive, and have a huge following, those practitioners would certainly require that textbooks treat their gods with the same respect they accord the Christian-Islamic God - G.W. Bush confirms that Christians and Muslims worship the same God!
Now, upper case is not a feature in the Devanagari script. It is a feature of the Roman script, in which writing God with an upper case ‘G’ is a convention that accords respect to divinity. Why on earth Hindu divinities should be written with lowercase ‘g?’ What would a sixth grade child perceive when she observes that Hindu gods are written with a lower case ‘g,’ while the Christian-Islamic God is written with an upper case ‘G?’ If she is from a Christian or Islamic background, then she could have been indoctrinated that her religion and God alone have the key to deliverance, and that Hinduism is a satanic cult. Have we not seen the Southern Baptists declare that the Hindus are lost, and ‘pray’ for the ‘redemption’ of their souls? Do textbooks not lend credence this kind of bigotry by writing Hindu deities with a lower case ‘g?’ One could understand such advocacies coming from 19th century bigots, but how can CDE allow some anti-Hindu ideologues to impose such bigoted double standards on textbooks?
One might very well ask if it is accurate to replace the textbook claim that the Brahman manifests as deities, with the claim that all deities are many forms of one God. As I pointed out earlier, even according to the Advaita School, Nirguna Brahman does not manifest as deities. Most devotional schools of Hinduism, which have most adherents, indeed subscribe to the notion of a personal God, and perceive all divine manifestations as His/Her lila or creative activity. Neither the existing text nor the proposed edit represent Hinduism in a comprehensive manner, but clearly, a larger number of Hindus would identify with the proposed edit than with the existing text.
To present the different schools of Hinduism according to their practitioners’ perspectives, an extensive edit would be required. It would be in order, but CDE constrained the Hindu groups to restrict their suggestions to a mere rewording of existing text. So, the Hindu groups had to work from a position of disadvantage. But, one could safely conclude that regardless of what the Hindu groups suggest anti-Hindu ideologues would anyway demonize them. If Hindus suggest that the deities are many forms of one God, these anti-Hindu ideologues accuse them of imitating Christianity and Islam. If they follow their traditional practices like cremating the dead, the likes of Witzel, as a report reveals, mock them.
But, why should we be surprised? After all, did not a report reveal that these ideologues, whom Witzel leads, pleaded ignorance of the nature of edits proposed by the Hindu groups, yet opposed those edits? Some of those ideologues, the report reveals, sought the collusion of fundamentalist Christian missionaries and Khalistanis [US State department reports that Khalistani terrorists massacred over 21,000 innocent Sikh and Hindu civilians]. After all, of what use is truth in the politics of hate? Clearly, this is a case of anti-Hindu ideologues first pronouncing Hindus guilty and then, leaving scruples aside, looking for evidence to somehow justify the accusation. In such a scenario, if no real guilt can be established, an imagined guilt would suffice."

The author writes in his bio that he "is an India-born, Silicon Valley-based orthodox, practising, agnostic Hindu."

Hi Heather....No, you never did really focus exclusively on the central point of the topic. Terrific read, no doubt. Some gross biological misconcepts there Heather. Spiritually we're one race.

I look fwd to reading some good posts from you and some other good writers.

Cheers...Sachin

hi all!

our fighting between us as hindus, muslims, christians is like the various types of cells of our bodies fighting between themselves. we belong to one organism called earth just as those cells belong to one body. in my book i have shown that we evolve like one organism at the level of the earth as well as at our individual levels and, more importantly, not because of our own efforts which affect that evolution only marginally and at rather shallow level, but because of our going through what science would call four basic interactions at all system levels. here is the quote. sorry for the long post but some of you may have the matching interest in the presentation.

********
With this we would come to our present culture, which began around the beginning of the AD era.

Here, simply because we have more historical details available with us, we would explain not only that this culture developed according to four basic interactions, but also that it developed or rather ‘grew’ just like us human beings. Confirming further that four basic interactions are indeed at the base of all evolving systems - living, non-living, all.

In his already mentioned book A History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell divides this AD era culture’s development up to the twentieth century approximately into four periods: The Fathers, approximately from AD 0 so to say to AD 400; The Schoolmen, from AD 400 to AD 1500; From the Renaissance to Hume, from AD 1500 to AD 1800; From Rousseau to the Present Day, from AD 1800 onwards.

If we were not too close to this period, with a little allowing for overlapping, we could have rightly improved upon this division as: The Fathers and The Schoolmen, The Age of Romanticism, The Age of Reason, and finally almost our present Age, The Age of Enlightenment or Intelligence or Intuition.

Based on the studies of already quoted Indian philosopher S. Radhakrishnan, we could have the corresponding periods in the East as: The Sutra and The Scholastic Period; The Age of Bhagati Movement represented by Ramakrishna Parmahansa, Vivekananda etc; The Age of Reason represented by Sri Aurobindo, Sri Ramana Maharishi and J.Krishnamurti; and finally our present Age.

Now before we proceed further, we would show that all the four Ages representing the evolution of the Western culture are, in fact, identical in meaning and content with those representing the evolution of the Eastern culture.

What the Age, The Fathers and The Schoolmen of the Western culture really means is, that our present culture then was in its childhood and needed first the guidance of fathers and subsequently of teachers, of the schoolmen. Just as a child would first need the guidance of his father and then of his teachers.

To say it in an other way, our present culture then was only growing as we do in our childhood and that means was displaying the characteristics of gravitational interactions.

Similarly, the Age represented by The Sutra period and The Scholastic period in the East as per Radhakrishnan’s writings and observations, means the same thing: Sutra literally means ‘a set rule,’ ‘a set advice,’ ‘a proven rule or formula’ just which a father would give to his child for safe, good, successful living. So that The Sutra period in fact represents the same period of our present global culture in the East, which is represented by The Fathers in the West.

Again, The Scholastic period verily means the period belonging to the schoolmen, to the teachers.

As to the Bhagati Movement in the East, it is verily the Age of Romanticism of the West. Bhagati is romance with God; the romance is bhagati of the opposite sex. The former is so because it has more of the intuitive content in it, as all the Eastern philosophies would generally have, while the later is so because it has more of the rational content, again as all the Western philosophies would generally have.

It came around 17th to 19th centuries both in the East as well as in the West.

Similarly, the Age of Reason in the West is epitomized more than enough by a single sentence of Sri Ramana Maharshi: Where is the world except in your mind? It surely is a good enough parallel to what the rational science of the West has culminated into saying: Where is the world except in your observation?

And mind you, Sri Ramana Maharshi uttered these words around the same period scientists in the West discovered their Quantum theory - around about the first quarter of the Twentieth century!

So we can rightly say that whether in the West or in the East, our present culture stands divided into four like periods or Ages: Of Fathers and Schoolmen, of Romanticism, of Reason and finally - perhaps our ongoing - of Intelligence, of Intuition. In other words, of our culture’s childhood, of its youth, of its middle-age and finally, of its old-age. And that means stands divided into periods belonging to gravitational interactions, electromagnetic interactions, strong interactions and finally, weak interactions as we have explained in the previous chapters.

********

I just wanted to add two points, for the consideration of others here:

1. Why teaching Hinduism is not the same as teaching other religions.

- Hinduism, is not some singular belief system, that has a particular deity or religious figurehead, rather it a matrix of, sometimes conflicting, belief and philosophical systems and is the fabric of ancient Indian society. It is built up on foundation of knowledge, rationalization and self inquiry and not fidelism and dogmas that the Abrahamic religions are based on.

The secular schools of Hinduism, the Darsanas, such as Yoga, the Nyaya-Vaeshishika, Mimmasa, Samkhya and Vedanta, hold differing views on the nature of reality and god, but are nonetheless part of the same Hindu tradition.

The Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaiseshika schools have made many contributions in logic, physics and metaphysics that even today are highly sophisticated and comparable to their modern equivalents.

So shouldn't they be part of our education? This is why I submit you can teach Hinduism.

2. The discussion above about how women were treated in Hinduism is shortsighted. Are they treated any better in Christianity or Islam? Women have historically been treated as subordinates and inferior. They were denied the right to participate in religion, in science and philosopy and were relegated to house keepers and baby-making machines.

But in Hinduism, this was NOT the case. The woman could and did perform the sacred Yajnas alongside men. They could and did become Risi's and teachers and teach men. They could and did freely debate philosophical and religious issues.

They were considered mothers,sisters, daughters, wifes and goddesses and held in very high esteem. They could wear cosmetics, jewelry and perfumes and move freely around society.

In the Laws of Manu, it says in explicit terms that a household that does not respect, honour and adorn it's women will be unsuccesfull and perish. That household that does respect it's women, will be ever prosperous.

It also says that on holidays and festivals, women should be given gifts, clothes, ornaments etc

Here is what a historian, Will Durant has noted about the status of women in Hinduism:

"Women enjoyed far greater freedom in the Vedic period than in later India. She had more to say in the choice of her mate than the forms of marriage might suggest. She appeared freely at feasts and dances, and joined with men in religious sacrifice. She could study, and like Gargi, engage in philosophical disputation. If she was left a widow there were no restrictions upon her remarriage."

The later attitude of Indian society to women was a civil issue, it is not something inherent within Hinduism. In Hinduism, the identifty of names, caste and gender are material constructs, the soul is beyond that. A woman, has as much capacity to succeed as a man - that is the real Hindu view.

Even the caste system is not something Hindu, it is a social construct of the time. The concept that your caste is determined by your birth was dismissed by Lord Krishna in the Bhagvad Gita and when Yudhishtra is asked by Dharma Raja whether it is birth that determines the caste of somebody, Yudishtra says that it's their actions that determine their caste/identity, not their birth.

Again, we are all just spiritual beings, we don't have a form, a gender, a name, a race or caste, those are all material and mental constructs that limit us.

I would really appreciate that people who do make such allegations as defacto truth, do their research.

Mallika - You're absolutely right. Perhaps they can start with high school? 6th grade kids can be so mean. By the way, they still don't teach that Europeans came and raped this land. You have to take special college level courses for that.

The main issue here is equal treatment. If they want to trash Hinduism, fine. But let them start with Christianity. Add Islam and Judaism into the mix. Then I'll shut up. You'll be amazed at the sensitivity with which Christian themes are treated. Please do check your kids books when they're older and see for yourself.

Mallika:

I agree with you that all tales of discrimination ought to be taught and as honestly as possible. Unfortunately that is not possible.

Now, I would argue that though the genesis of apartheid was pretty simple - a race went with the aim to colonize and as a walk up to that goal.. the rights of the natives got trampled. It was fait accompli of that goal. So Apartheid and racism came as a GIVEN in the colonizing of South Africa.

The "subjugation of women" in the "Hindu societies" was not that temporally or geographically or even socially identifiable phenomenon!

If she was burnt as a Sati .. she was also treated like a Goddess. Shiv was considered useless without the Shakti (Shiv represents the matter and Shakti the Energy - which is the basis of Shiva's Dance and also the articulated the thought behind E=mc2). As far as the caste system was concerned - its intersting that the anti-Hindu analysts (like that Harvard prof) have a propensity to say that there is really no difference between Hindu CUlture and Hindu Religion.. but will shy away the moment you point to the Witch-hunting.. THAT becomes a whole different issue!! Who are we kidding here?

And btw, in case you didnt notice - the English Literature has a new text book in the US Schools now - no not Charles Dickens works... but Bible!

Not that its wrong to have Bible.. I think, if correctly interpreted, Bible is as powerful a spiritual tool as any.. but that aint the norm these days. It is used by people to put words in poor Jesus' mouth!

I am convinced beyond doubt that ultimately it will be our OWN understanding that will help our kids to understand the range of religious thoughts in their correct perspectives as they grow up. Just that the age to engage with them on such a dialog has reduced!

Also, I cannot side with people who want to "framework" Hinduism in to a religion! That will mean creating another Box. I would rather provide my kids the freedom to learn all philosophies.. and REMAIN free! They should have the compassion in their heart to love Jesus, Krishna, Sufis, Ram, Guru Nanak Dev.. without having to cut out any one of them from their world-view.

Once they learn to live in freedom they would feel claustrophobic at the site of a "Box".. so the fear of "conversion" that, I know, many Hindus have here in the US will not be a possibility... because they would rightly ask "COnversion from "whom" to "whom"???

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh -

"I am convinced beyond doubt that ultimately it will be our OWN understanding that will help our kids to understand the range of religious thoughts in their correct perspectives as they grow up. Just that the age to engage with them on such a dialog has reduced!

Also, I cannot side with people who want to "framework" Hinduism in to a religion! That will mean creating another Box. I would rather provide my kids the freedom to learn all philosophies.. and REMAIN free! They should have the compassion in their heart to love Jesus, Krishna, Sufis, Ram, Guru Nanak Dev.. without having to cut out any one of them from their world-view."

Wise, appreciated and timely words to live by.

It is my belief that when it comes to Spiritual texts, the power of them comes from the individual's interpretation of them. The question should continually be asked: "What does this text mean to me?" The problem these days (and I suspect this isn't new at all) is that we allow others to interpret the words of these texts for us. If a Spiritual path is truly individual (and I believe strongly that it is) than what the words mean to me is what is important, not what the words mean to some religious scholar or historian.

Really, the same thing can be said about history. For the most part we could argue until the end of time about "what really happened", when the truth is we will never, ever really know. So really, it doesn't matter what really happened (besides, what "really" happened depends upon the witness you talk to). The British or Christians may frame Hinduism a certain way, but so what? What matters is what you think. What matters is the power and peace that your beliefs have given you, that's really all that's real. The rest is just an opinion...and you know what they say about opinions: they're like assholes...everyone's got one.

Peace,
Scott.

Sunny,

I agree with your comments on how women being treated in India. Here is an example taken from Thirukkural. This was written about 2000 years ago.I hope the western world won't come up and say that this not true.........

1.2.2 வாழ்க்கைத் துணைநலம்
1.2.2 The Worth of a Wife

51. மனைக்தக்க மாண்புடையள் ஆகித்தற் கொண்டான்
வளத்தக்காள் வாழ்க்கைத் துணை.
A good housewife befits the house, 51
Spending with thrift the mate's resource.

52. மனைமாட்சி இல்லாள்கண் இல்லாயின் வாழ்க்கை
எனைமாட்சித் தாயினும் இல்.
Bright is home when wife is chaste. 52
If not all greatness is but waste.

53. இல்லதென் இல்லவள் மாண்பானால் உள்ளதென்
இல்லவள் மாணாக் கடை.
What is rare when wife is good. 53
What can be there when she is bad?

54. பெண்ணின் பெருந்தக்க யாவுள கற்பென்னும்
திண்மைஉண் டாகப் பெறின்.
What greater fortune is for men 54
Than a constant chaste woman?

55. தெய்வம் தொழாஅள் கொழுநன் தொழுதெழுவாள்
பெய்யெனப் பெய்யும் மழை.
Her spouse before God who adores, 55
Is like rain that at request pours.

56. தற்காத்துத் தற்கொண்டாற் பேணித் தகைசான்ற
சொற்காத்துச் சோர்விலாள் பெண்.
The good wife guards herself from blame, 56
She tends her spouse and brings him fame.

57. சிறைகாக்கும் காப்பவென் செய்யும் மகளிர்
நிறைகாக்கும் காப்பே தலை.
Of what avail are watch and ward? 57
Their purity is women's guard.

58. பெற்றாற் பெறின்பெறுவர் பெண்டிர் பெருஞ்சிறப்புப்
புத்தேளிர் வாழும் உலகு.
Women who win their husbands' heart 58
Shall flourish where the gods resort.

59. புகழ்பு¡¢ந்த இல்லிலோர்க்கு இல்லை இகழ்வார்முன்
ஏறுபோல் பீடு நடை.
A cuckold has not the lion-like gait 59
Before his detractors aright.

60. மங்கலம் என்ப மனைமாட்சி மற்று அதன்
நன்கலம் நன்மக்கட் பேறு.
An honest wife is home's delight 60
And children good are jewels abright.

Yogi Selliah

The best example to see the stupidity of all those Hindus blined by faith is Sid sarth.

If I don't accept the fundamentalist view point, I don't have to be a firangi sucker. If you think so, it is plainly due to your inferiority complex. I think people who call those who oppose Hindu fundamentalist theories as firangi suckers (for non Indians by firangi he means foreigners) suffer from severe inferiority complex. Probably this inferiority complex shows up in their desire for having a theory that might call Hindus as indigenous species when all scientific evidence shows otherwise.

Whether it is christian, islam or hindus. All religious fanatics are same. Just plain stupid.

For non Indians,

The laws of Manu which is quoted here has been rejected by a big section of Hindus who call themselves Dravidians. They claim that it is more suited for people who claim themselves as Aryans.

Anyhow my opinion about Manu Shastra is that it is the set of male chauvinistic rules which will fit a section of the society which engaged in the caste suppression.

Ye blind Sid Darth,

If people are absent for a longer period of time, it means they have other priorities than responding to posts here. Wow, what a great Hindu explanation about absence in blogs.

For the convenience of Hindu fanatics here, Prof. Amardeep Singh has compiled the list of blogs where this issue is discussed. You all can go there and whine about the indigenous Aryan theory crap.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2006/01/hindutva-in-american-schools-links.html

Scott:

I agree with you!

If I joined the side that is resisting the Harvard folks to twist the "Hindu" stuff is because I consider that to be against the belief I hold.

But even if this battle is lost.. doesnt not mean that openness has to go away. There is no benefit of a Box in any case.

Re: personal interpretation of a scripture or book. I agree. I would also argue that reading another book also helps me understand the one I hold more dear. Because different angles to present a view can help me look at the same stuff from a totally different perspective! That is the greatest spiritual gain from openness.

And Krish.. you can now please take you Aryan Invasion Theory and shove it up your (_|_)!!

You are becoming repetitive, despotic and just plain stupid! AFter all how long can a handful of invectives interspersed with a few pronouns create interesting reading post after post!??? Just quit it man!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Another note about Manu Shastra (laws of Manu) to non Indians.

Manu Shahstra can be compared to the White supremacist philosophy in US. The laws of Manu Shahstra could be compared to the laws in US before civil rights movement and women's rights movement. So it is easy to make a comparision between the supporters of Manu Shastra who talk about indigenous Aryan heritage and White Supremacist movements.

The justice system based on Manu Shastra is what is known as "Caste based justice system". Americans here can easily correlate this with the system that was in vogue in this country.

This is one of the reasons why I call some of the Indians hypocrits. They will talk liberal policies in US (supporting civil rights etc) all the while supporting racist and conservative policies at home (where it suits them better). This lead to someone quoting "Desis - liberals abroad and conservatives at home".

BTW, the trash talk I get here is what Craig or Skeptisch will get when they talk about their beliefs with white supremacists group or Evangelicals. It is no wonder I am getting the same kinda attack from people in Hindu religion.

All the guys out here are whining that I am criticizing Hindu religion. I was even called foreign sucker. Here are my questions to all ye Hindu scholars who jump on me (this is not directed towards some fools here for whom I don't give a shit),

1) Why can't all Hindus have equal access in temples (Hindu places of worship)? Why is it that only people from priviledged sections of the society (whom many of you proudly claim as upper class) can do the Pujas etc? I do agree that FEW states are slowly opening up FEW temples to the people from underpriviledged sections of the society (whom you all refer to as lower class). But it is miniscule and Hindu society, by and large, is racist in this aspect.

2) Why can't women have the same rights inside the temple as men? Why can't you take out the criteria in your religion which bars women from entering the temple during their menstrual periods?

3) Why is this bloody Manu Shahstra supportive of only the priviledged sections of the society?

There are thousands of such questions I can raise. But fix atleast the above three aspects before calling me firangi sucker.

You have the shameless RACISM inherent in the Hindu society (I am using Hindu society to differentiate with Indian society) and you have not fixed it at all. Do it first before calling me whatever name. If you can't do it, you are PLAIN IMPOTENT. Stop yelling. Show in action.

[quote]Hindus as indigenous species when all scientific evidence shows otherwise.[/quote]

Who is saying Hindus are an indigenous species, how is that possible, were all human.

If you mean that Indians are not indigenous to India, then please indicate this scientific evidence, because I am obviously ignorant of it.

Krish,

The laws of Manu are based on the society at the time, where it was the man who worked and the woman who looked after the household, the children and studied the shaastras.

Obvious, in modern society, the Laws of Manu cannot apply. But, from the verses quoted above and in light of what I said, how could you say it was chauvanistic.

The woman was more respected in the Vedic period, than she was anywhere else in the world. How can that go amiss on you?

I really am not sure why so many, and disturbingly Indians here are fighting so fiercely to support AIT. Is it just because the west says so? I heard of the Indian inferiorty complex, and even see it, but I didn't know it gone to such an extent that Indians have become their own worst enemies.

Does it help to know that some scholars fighting against AIT are neither Hindu, Indian, but white foreign born people?

It is widely discredited today, even in western books it is being slowly conceded. Max Muller, who introduced AIT, was a Christian missionary and they were trying to understand Indian history through the prism of what they knew about history, which was Euro-centric. They noted that the similarity between the language of Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages was too great, so proposed that a race called the Aryans must have invaded from Central Asia.

However, there were no such records in India that indicated the Arya ever had a foreign origin, but there was far more evidence supporting that the Indus influence had extended far and wide out of India. They could not accept this.

So when they translated the Vedas, they tried to force into it the idea of power struggles between the Aryan warlords and the "Dravidians". A particular verse that was used to support these efforts, was the myth of how Indra slayed the 99 metal forts of the demon Vritra. This was used to justify that the Aryans had ransacked all the Dravidian settlements.

When really this myth is referring to how Indra(the god of weather) causes rain to fall.

This is the kind of "evidence" AIT is built upon, speculation ad nauseum and Eurocenticism.

You need to understand that the British were extremely racist at that time. They were not about to accept 'Pagans' as their equals.

What we have known about India today, is what they wanted to portray about us. After a very long time, Indians, as well as non-Indians are challenging it. Indians are challenging it, because we actually have political clout today and our own intellectuals and historians are working hard to change all the propoganda the British left and restore India's heritage.

It will not affect me at all, personally, even if it were true that we had migrated from Central Asia. After all, we are all a part of the same human race.

But what does affect me, that it is not true, and if it is not true, it should not be entertained any further. Would you not be irked, if we were still being taught the Earth was flat, despite all the evidences to the contrary?

Why are our intellectuals's research, evidence and discoveries not good enough?

This is not just AIT. But, everything from Yoga, Ayurveda, Indian philosophy, Indian literature, arts, music, dance, entertainment is always compared by Indians unfavourably to the west.

This issue, is an issue that should concern all Indians and if they unite, they can change this. But on the contrary, they are fighting amongst each others. Somebody just commented above, how were so good at ripping ourselves apart.

I don't see such a lack of patriotism and faith in ones own kind anywhere else. Look at China, and how the Chinese have done to educate the world about China's achivements.

What will it only take a totaliterian regime to make Indians respect themselves and feel proud to be Indians? Or will it take another 100 years of foreign rule to rekindle the patriotism?

I am an NRI, and I am proud to be Indian and I am proud of my Indian heritage, of our very rich culture and our achivements. Go and read the Vedas, Upanishads, the Bhagvad Gita, The Mahabharata, the Ramayana, Yoga, Ayurveda, Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimmasa, the Brahmanas. Then read the Buddhist texts, or the Sikh texts. There are millenias of philosophy and wisdom to be uncovered in them, that you will not find anywhere else.

Still I read these texts and find myself in awe of the knowledge of our forefathers.

Krish has once again exemplified one of the glaring atrocities of this whole debate. Witzel and his cohorts jumped in to attack the Hindus *without* bothering to read what the changes even were. Similarly, Krish is jumping around, cursing and swearing crudely *without* bothering to read what the Manu Smriti even says.

That's precisely how the public is under the impression that hindus are fundamentalists. People who dont know their ass from their elbow go around shooting 5 messages at a time, spreading their stench all over the place, hoping that people will just believe them. Pathetic.

I am with Sunny, he seems like a pretty straight up and knowledgeable dude.

Dr. Forrest Baird, a noted American philosopher, once in a philosophy of religion class he was teaching, drew a circle on the board, and put Islam and Hinduism on one side, and Judaism and Christianity on the other. He then told the class of middle and upper class kids, how Islam and Hinduism are against God, and how it is our Christianly duty to proselytize all of you non-believers.

Now my sorry loser ass was not about to stand up and tell the esteemed Dr. Baird he is full of ----; but I have truly been saddened since that day (three or four years ago). Such forces at work to keep Calvinistic theology alive and intolerant, I imagine it will take a nuclear war to fix this mess we have created.

It kind of puts quitting graduate school in perspective, like, what is the point, I am just a drunken convicted felon, who is going to listen to my scummy poor Trotsky egalitarian trash.

The Republic is going to come to be one day, one way or another, I was just hoping we could do it peacefully, instead of allowing these fools to enlave the masses with their 'war on terror' bs, and get their Middle Eastern, and world-wide war.

I tried . . .

"Who is saying Hindus are an indigenous species, how is that possible, were all human"

This is what I am saying from the beginning. Just read what I have been told for this statement. I just mentioned that I am against indigenous Aryan origin theory. I did not support AIT. Just see what Fanatics have been talking about me. It may not be you but definitely many Hindu fanatics have said so about me and it is up for anyone to see.Even you have gone off track about AIT in your above post. I just said I am against attempts by Hindu Fundamentalists to take off AIT and put their indigenous Aryan origin theory there. Thatzs all I told and I stand by this statement. I will oppose any attempt to take AIT and put their theory there. As simple as that. ANYBODY WHO CAN READ ENGLISH WILL KNOW THAT I DIDN'T SUPPORT AIT AND I OPPOSED INDIGENOUS ARYAN ORIGIN THEORY. Just because all of you assume that I support AIT because of the fact that I oppose idigenous aryan origin theory are just blind. You unnecessarily wasted your post arguing against AIT.

"The laws of Manu are based on the society at the time, where it was the man who worked and the woman who looked after the household, the children and studied the shaastras."

If the men were working and women were looking after the household, it was not because it was the way it was supposed to be. It is just because of the male chauvinitic nature of the society and it took its shape in the manu shashtra too. Don't tell me Manu Shastra was not biased towards men. Anybody will know that it is inherently male chauvinistic.

"his is not just AIT. But, everything from Yoga, Ayurveda, Indian philosophy, Indian literature, arts, music, dance, entertainment is always compared by Indians unfavourably to the west."

Coupling all of them into one group is ridiculus. This is exactly my argument. I do agree that West is unfavorable to India on certain issues. But I am against taking up issues like Indigenous Aryan heritage, Aurveda etc along with issues like Indian literature, arts, music, dance etc. I don't respect Ayurveda for scientific reasons but I do respect Indian arts, music etc. It is the attempt by Hindiutva gang and Ayurveda supporters to couple all this issues into one banner which I am opposing. I will only support issues based on its merit. I will not support when it is combined as a package. If you guys want to call me firangi sucker for this, I just don't care.

"I don't see such a lack of patriotism and faith in ones own kind anywhere else. Look at China, and how the Chinese have done to educate the world about China's achivements."

This is a typical right wing kind of argument. Why should I support indigenous Aryan theory without any scientific arguments. I need not show my patriotism just by supporting bullshit theories. It is like republicans calling those people who oppose Iraq war as unpatriotic.

"I am an NRI, and I am proud to be Indian and I am proud of my Indian heritage, of our very rich culture and our achivements. Go and read the Vedas, Upanishads, the Bhagvad Gita, The Mahabharata, the Ramayana, Yoga, Ayurveda, Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimmasa, the Brahmanas. Then read the Buddhist texts, or the Sikh texts. There are millenias of philosophy and wisdom to be uncovered in them, that you will not find anywhere else."

This is crazy. Just because someone is an Indian, he/she need not support everything Indian. For me it may be just crap. It doesn't make me any less patriotic. It is this attitude to couple everything Indian into one banner and force people to support it blindly is what I oppose. If I am called firangi sucker or unpatriotic, I don't care.

I am not opposing everything that Indians do in the California issue. I am only opposing what Hindu fundamentalists are trying to do in this issue. I have told several times. I am pretty sure that Hindu fanatics here will not listen to it and still trash talk. It is not surprising for me as it is the nature of any fanatic. I am not surprised at Divya jumping in here as she is a known fanatic.

All ye whiners, listen before you start whining again.

I just told that I am against the attempts of Hindu fundamentalists to twist the history in California. HAF was trying their best to include the indigenous Aryan origin theory. I am against this attempt. Definitely Aryan invasion theory has no proof. It doesn't give anyone a right to include indigenous Aryan origin theory. As simple as that. I am just against including this theory. My challenge is still open. Prove that I supported Aryan invasion theory in this thread. Then I will listen to all the crap. As long as you don't prove it, take your crap load and go to hell. Who cares.

I will any day OPPOSE any attempts by Hindu fundamentalists to twist history by changing the history books in California. It doesn't mean I support Aryan invasion theory.

I will also OPPOSE any attempts to show Manu Shahstra as something great. It is a bullshit male chauvinistic, racist theory.

If you have any points against the above two arguments of mine, take up the issue with me. If you don't have anything on the above two issues, take your crapload elsewhere. I am not interested in any other discussion. Hope I made my point clear.

You go Krish. If I ever put form to my thoughts, would you speak them for me. lol.

Get em!

love and peace

Krish: As much as this may piss you off still further, I find that you and Divya are two of the most unique voices on the Intentblog.

You both stand behind your reasoning to the "nth" degree; rarely, if ever, do either of you solicit others to join "your side of any one debate"--ie., you both stand your ground against "all-comers" without looking for allies to support your position; and frankly, I've learned more from the varying debates sparked about India/Pakistan, Hindu/Muslim, and many many other polarized topics, than I'm ever going to learn in any classroom--be it Harvard, or my local Junior College!

In spite of the vehement retribution I may receive for saying so--you are a great compliment to each other; you both have fascinating minds.

I have noticed that Divya can cut her opposition's logic to ribbons, and she spares no one, not even Deepak, when she feels the truth about a thing is being bent or slandered toward even the remotest hint of a personal agenda.

The fact that you are singularly the only voice here that can cause Divya to through up her "cyber hands" in pure frustration and disgust, and do it repeatedly!, is possibly the highest indirect compliment to your intelligence there is!!!

You continue to force her, and others, to go the extra mile with ever bringing forward new material to support their contentions regarding the nearly unfathomable depth of human truths that are the sum-total of the collective knowledge contained within the ageless wisdom of the Holy Teachings of the Hindu--you two exemplify the saying: You are only as good as your competition--and I have grown to love Divya's mind as one "laser-sharp" focus when it comes to discerning what is hidden behind the "veil of illusion."

Keep it up my friend! Dave

Krish:
You are so deep in it that you have developed acquired anosmia.You need to get out some and meet people and breath some fresh air.Maybe you might meet TANZAN and exchange some inciting material.
You need to be told that you are the life time PRESIDENT of the World Misology Society.
High fiber diet and plenty of liquids and some Phirangi laxatives might do the trick.[You may want to thank me later in your reply.]

Indigenous East Indians

http://ravikopra.blogspot.com/2006/01/indigenous-east-indians.html

Krish: I generally supported many of your beliefs that you have written in regards to this particular post and the supposed "indigenous Aryan" race originating from India. However, I began to notice this deep-rooted hatred that you have for hinduism which I, as a hindu, find quite offensive. You try to cover it up with endless rhetoric against "fundamentalists" in general (something I absolutely agree with), but really only talk about Hindu fundamentalists. The same things you say about Hinduism (which are actually completely irrelevant to Hinduism and in reality pertain to CULTURE) I could say about Islamic Society. I could call Islamic society mysogynistic as well as Christianity.

Any REAL hindu completely disregards the Laws of Manu. This was written by Brahman men to maintain their societal positions.

Regarding gender relations in the temple, once again I can say the same thing about a Masjid. At a local Masjid here in the Bay Area, women barely attend. Why?, I asked one of my Muslim friends, and he said women do not attend because they are distracting to men. Why are women to blame for their bodies? Despite this, I don't think Islam has unfair treatment of women--again this is a cultural thing. In South and East Asia as a whole women are treated equally (in many parts). Here religions range from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity.

I am tired of people calling Hinduism "racist". Get the facts straight.

And as far as the AIT goes, I'm a beliver in it. It is inevitable that at one point or another, that there was a fusion of culture and "race" with Central Asians (modern day Russia or Iran) which can be observed by looking at Indo-European languages. I think most Indians are a mix of "indigenous" Indians (I put that in quotes for lack of a better term-the so called Dravidians have DNA linkage to one of the oldest Bush tribes in Africa) and Central Asian. I have many friends from Gujarat (Parsis) and a small group of Malayalees that trace their lineage to Persia for many, many generations. The bottom line is people have been mixing, mingling, and migrating from the beginning of time. "Race" itself is a bunch of BS and is basically a social construct. Even white people came from Africa at one point or another--let's just all be human until we can figure everything out for sure, which will probably never happen.

>>****CORRECTION**** Why are women to blame for their bodies? Despite this, I don't think Islam has unfair treatment of women--again this is a cultural thing. In South and East Asia as a whole women are treated equally (in many parts). Here religions range from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity.

Instead of "equally" i meant to say "unequally".
I said the complete opposite of what i was trying to say. Apologies...

Kirsh,

I was surprised to see you make the following statement:

" Go and read the Vedas, Upanishads, the Bhagvad Gita, The Mahabharata, the Ramayana, Yoga, Ayurveda, Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimmasa, the Brahmanas. Then read the Buddhist texts, or the Sikh texts. There are millenias of philosophy and wisdom to be uncovered in them, that you will not find anywhere else."

On the "Are we alone?" blog you seemed to think all religions were "crap"

You wrote:

"Eastern religion doesn't teach this nonsense. But there are other nonsense interpreted by practictioners of those religions. In short, all religions are crap."

I am happy to hear that you "do beleive" there is wisdom to be uncovered in religious writings.

I would respectfully add,that it can be found in both Eastern and Western religions

Kind Regards,

Stan

Manu Smriti 2.215

http://ravikopra.blogspot.com/2006/01/manu-smriti-2215.html

Dear Dave,
I disagree with you. I feel you offer one of the most 'unique' voices to Intent, with your great ability to share ideas, insights, personal experience, humor, and research. And to do so with integrity, and no need to condescend, or make nasty remarks about others. Thank you! Your voice stands well above most.

Dear Mallika,
I admire your willingness to debate such interesting topics. I am curious, however, when you say:

"K, you asked about teaching my children -- I hope to teach them to question, to not take anything for granted, and to understand the perspective behind a voice, an opinion, a "fact". And to enjoy a good debate, recognizing there are many sides to a story".

Do you wish for your children to dialogue and debate, without name-calling, and nasty personal digs, and debate with a higher level of communication, then sometimes takes place on this blog?

And as your children grow, and use the internet, and writing, do you want them to use fake names, and sling arrows to hurt others, unnecessarily? Others, they do not even know personally. I do not see this in your writing, and do not see you or your husband modeling this kind of interaction or callous approach.

I respect you, Mallika. I cannot, truly, imagine you will encourage your children to talk the way some intent commenters do.

Love,
~ Kate

It’s nice to have a break, even if enforced, and come back to something as interesting this. Makes me want to stand up and applaud :), this read has been fascinating. How the end of the Indus civilization came about has always been an abiding mystery to me. Even though there is no consensus yet, it remains something of absorbing interest and I guess we simply need more data. Perhaps a few more excavation sites, if unearthed in the region, will hold the key.

The links provided here and the Californian school controversy have been of great interest too. Thank you all for the wealth of knowledge made available even though many peripheral questions arise – but that is the best part of it.

[quote]Else you can write whatever bull you want, I don't care.[/quote]

I was under the impression I was genuinely trying to make an effort to understand your issues against Hinduism. If you would note, what I had written, were mostly inquiring into your issues and making you aware of the positives of Hinduism, rather than lecturing you.

It's not nice to say what somebody is saying is bull, but if that is your nature, then I an really sorry. I will still treat you with the respect and decency, even if you can't reciprocate.

[quote]If you really checked out what HAF and few other groups tried to do in the california issue, you can understand why I am against it. Indigenous Aryan theory is not my theory. It is the theory put forward by Hindu fundamentalists. I am only criticisizing the attempts to put in this theory. Do you understand what I am saying?[/quote]

Alright, then, we can concentrate on just this issue. But perhaps you should reflect on what you are saying. You have expressed very negative views about Hinduism here, and when I try and reason with your views, you equivocate. If you don't want to be asked such questions, simply don't make such inflammatory statements about Hinduism then.

Anyway, You do not support AIT, yet you are vehemently against "Indigenous Aryan theory" ??? Honestly, I don't understand. Care to elaborate?

If Aryan invasion or migration is not the case, then doesn't it follow suit that the Arya of India are indigenous?

Kirsh,

You wrote:

Stan, not sure what you are talking. For me, all religions are crap. I stand by it. If I HAVE to respect religions, I respect all religions on the same footing. Hope I am making it clear about my ideas.

Sorry I am still not clear on what you are saying or thinking. I do recognize a lot of anger and frustration in your posts, and now contraditions.

On the "Are we Alone " blog, Desh and I were discussing the meaning of some Biblical passages relating to possible life on other planets.
AJ was ridiculing us for quoting scripture in any form, and you chimed in with the following post

"A.J., well said. Which sane person will ever refer to such crap."

Then on this thread you said:

" Go and read the Vedas, Upanishads, the Bhagvad Gita, The Mahabharata, the Ramayana, Yoga, Ayurveda, Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimmasa, the Brahmanas. Then read the Buddhist texts, or the Sikh texts. There are millenias of philosophy and wisdom to be uncovered in them, that you will not find anywhere else."

and the above :

" If I HAVE to respect religions, I respect all religions on the same footing."

I am sorry but this seems to be a very clear reversal of your previous advise, about never refering to such "crap".

Do you, or don't you, beleive that all religions hold some truth, and therefore offer something for us to learn?

Stan, it was me who said that. I know it can be confusing knowing who authored what post; basically at the end of each post, the author and date are given.

Sunny, Kirsh,

Very sorry about that.

One of the statements I attributed to Krish, WAS in a post authored by Krish, but I see now he was only quoteing you Sunny.

My question to Krish however still stands,

Do you, or don't you, beleive that all religions hold some truth, and therefore offer something for us to learn?

KRISH:
Lighten up man,it's only a blog for heaven's sake!
Loosen your tie or your 'langoat'and allow more blood to your anoxic brain[oops!! another old world word which you have to translate for your 'phirangi' admirers....sorry]
Look at TANZAN who remains so cool after receiving ZANNAT from a KAZI and is so discriminating in the choice of language and the art of surrogate/pinch hitting.

OH YAH!

Dear Mallika Chopra,

I think California should be more concerned with getting their own history correct before trying to re-write India's History.

Some examples, you won't find in their history books:

When Abraham Lincoln was signing the emancipation proclamation freeing the African slaves, California in that same year passed a law making it legal to own Native American Indians as slaves.

As bad as that was, it paled in comparison to their next atrocity,The government of California then put up a 5 USD dollar bounty, for anyone bringing them a male Indian scalp. This effectively reduced the Indian population of California from 360,000 in 1860 to a mere 30,000 in 1880.

We won't even go into how California was stolen at gun point from the Mexican Government.

Regards,

Stan

that's the american way, take and no give back