India is Paying the Price For VD Savarkar’s Advocacy of Rape

[Joe Shearer]

Hi Joe.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...dest-indian-tradition/article9800756.ece/amp/

Plus the above commenter was quoting someone who was justifying rape of Muslim women as a weapon of war. The guy is a Hindu Saint with big following.

Dear Sir, that was a bad point to pick on. He was quoting a creep called Savarkar, who was one of the advocates of the Two Nation Theory. Many Pakistanis don't know that there was a segment of Hindus who enthusiastically advocated this theory, in flat opposition to Gandhi and the Congress, and their model, that might whimsically be called the One Nation Theory. Savarkar is noted for two things besides his support for the Two Nation Theory: his cringing petitions to the British for merciful treatment when jailed in the Andamans (the cringing included holding strictly neutral, even inclined towards the jailors' point of view when a prison mutiny occurred, on the excellent grounds that taking a stand in favour of the inmates might lose him the favour of the British - that will show you the inner man), and the second being his zealous publicity campaign, in anonymity, about that heroic freedom fighter, 'Veer' Savarkar. He even ghost-wrote his own adulatory biography, giving examples of his courage and bravery in opposing the British; in real life, he was a meek little church-mouse, and the British found nothing in his low profile to offend them or to cause his pardon to be rescinded.

He belonged to the Hindu Mahasabha, that still exists today, but that was a parallel organisation to the RSS, and shared membership. While matters are not perfectly clear on this point. Gandhi's assassin was actually a Hindu Mahasabha member at the time of his crime, and the RSS got an unwilling pass on that account. However, again, in reality, there were ready exchanges of members; Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, a darling of the Sangh Parivar, was actually head of the Hindu Mahasabha.

It really pains to have the entire Hindu community tarred and feathered on account of this creature and his writings; it does not matter that in this particular case, he was making the usual war-like noises and saying that the Hindus should have retaliated in kind, and not stayed close to their dharma. This was a case of an armchair pilot fighting (and winning) famous victories in his own mind, and in no way reflected his real-life behaviour. It is another thing that the lumpenproletariat - the Communist term for the kind of human being that this cult attracted - were led to consider this kind of combat against unarmed women and children that Savarkar's writings inspired.

Once again, I sincerely request you - and others - not to conclude that all Hindus belonged to this thinking. They did not, they do not, they will not. There is a criminal fringe, and their crimes are indiscriminate with regard to religion. The five who were executed for that rarest of rare crimes that moves our Supreme Court to award the death sentence had raped a Hindu woman; most cases that you find out about were committed against Hindu women. The number of Muslim women attacked was historically low, except during riots; the Gujarat riots under Modi's benign aloofness was one such period of darkness when the brunt of the attack was borne by women.

There is no way to bend your minds in any direction, it is only with a request to examine the evidence and sift it to come to the right conclusions that I let this matter rest with you and other decent people considering the matter.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

well they did a very poor job that after 1000 year only 20% of the population was Muslims in 1900s, that too mostly migrants (from central asia/iran/arab) or who were converted in love of saints throughout pakistan, bengla and punjab region that are even respected by the most fundamentalist Hindus..
or Hindus are fundamentals doing fear-mongering..facts are facts...
if you won't see an example of how its done..look at spain

I told the earliest of invasions were barbaric. By the time of hi/Lodi and Mughals they were more interested in accumulating and holding onto power than engaging in rampant violent conversions (which they did only during wars and not normally except for Aurangzeb). That's why India has always been a place of refugee for persecuted populations. Be it Jews from Christians, Christians and Parsis from Islam they found home in India.
The first time they were successful in India proper was in 12th century. By that time the zeal had reduced but not entirely. Ghor and Ghazni were involved in active plundering.
The countries which fell to Islamic sword in early 2 centuries are completely Islamic today. Includes Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Even they had their own great civilisation and religions. If you had me believe 100% people converted by themselves everyone will laugh.

Even in India Islamic rule in South India before Aurangzeb was temporary. Once in 13th century and that's it. A reason you see less Muslims down here and more importantly less Hindu Muslim friction than in North. If not for Tipu Sultan Kerala's Muslim population would have been even low.

Interesting snippet: When a Hindu convert Kusrau Khan took power his Muslim nobility mostly Turks called upon another another Turk ruling in Afghanistan to.invade India proper. That was the status of local Hindu converts had in place. Not that I am complaining. But it's the way it is.

 

[Joe Shearer]

FYI, VD Savarkar was a Self proclaimed atheist.
He professed Hindutva as political ideology to defend Hindus against what he saw as political Islam.

I understand what you are saying, but am forced to point out that this defence had its repercussions on ordinary Muslims who had nothing whatsoever to do with political Islam. It is on the level of the incendiary remarks made by BJP leaders during the Delhi elections, and to their utter social irresponsibility in allowing these thoughts and ideas loose among a gullible electorate.

I told the earliest of invasions were barbaric. By the time of hi/Lodi and Mughals they were more interested in accumulating and holding onto power than engaging in rampant violent conversions (which they did only during wars and not normally except for Aurangzeb). That's why India has always been a place of refugee for persecuted populations. Be it Jews from Christians, Christians and Parsis from Islam they found home in India.
The first time they were successful in India proper was in 12th century. By that time the zeal had reduced but not entirely. Ghor and Ghazni were involved in active plundering.
The countries which fell to Islamic sword in early 2 centuries are completely Islamic today. Includes Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Even they had their own great civilisation and religions. If you had me believe 100% people converted by themselves everyone will laugh.

Even in India Islamic rule in South India before Aurangzeb was temporary. Once in 13th century and that's it. A reason you see less Muslims down here and more importantly less Hindu Muslim friction than in North. If not for Tipu Sultan Kerala's Muslim population would have been even low.

Interesting snippet: When a Hindu convert Kusrau Khan took power his Muslim nobility mostly Turks called upon another another Turk ruling in Afghanistan to.invade India proper. That was the status of local Hindu converts had in place. Not that I am complaining. But it's the way it is.

Your point is askew. May I suggest very respectfully that you look at a YouTube video on Islam in India, by Robert Eaton - yes, the Robert Eaton. Even in those parts of India, principally north India, longest under Muslim rule, the nature of society was not as bad as we imagine, not as good as politicians try to tell us it was. It was somewhere in between, but it does not justify today's gross Islamophobia.

I told the earliest of invasions were barbaric. By the time of hi/Lodi and Mughals they were more interested in accumulating and holding onto power than engaging in rampant violent conversions (which they did only during wars and not normally except for Aurangzeb). That's why India has always been a place of refugee for persecuted populations. Be it Jews from Christians, Christians and Parsis from Islam they found home in India.
The first time they were successful in India proper was in 12th century. By that time the zeal had reduced but not entirely. Ghor and Ghazni were involved in active plundering.
The countries which fell to Islamic sword in early 2 centuries are completely Islamic today. Includes Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Even they had their own great civilisation and religions. If you had me believe 100% people converted by themselves everyone will laugh.

Even in India Islamic rule in South India before Aurangzeb was temporary. Once in 13th century and that's it. A reason you see less Muslims down here and more importantly less Hindu Muslim friction than in North. If not for Tipu Sultan Kerala's Muslim population would have been even low.

Interesting snippet: When a Hindu convert Kusrau Khan took power his Muslim nobility mostly Turks called upon another another Turk ruling in Afghanistan to.invade India proper. That was the status of local Hindu converts had in place. Not that I am complaining. But it's the way it is.

If you will promise not to be offended, I have a project for you.

Taking the year 1200 AD as a benchmark year, any individual alive today would have 6,71,08,864 ancestors alive then, from whom he or she was descended. That's 6 crores, 71 lakh and some more male and female ancestors.

The project: please can you tell us how the invasion by the Turks, the Afghans and the Mughals affect these 6 crore 71 lakh people? Also how it was different from the invasions of the Ephthalites, the Huns, the Kushana, the Parthians, and the Scythians immediately after the Bactrian Greeks? You need not answer about the Tibetans, who ruled large parts of eastern India, a well-buried secret of Indian history, but need only think about the south.

The point is that today's indignation and outrage against the heinous crimes committed by these outsiders is largely spurious. Nobody has the slightest clue how his or her ancestors were impacted; everyone has a story, but it is someone else's story, it is reported by Muslim chroniclers, it is alleged in folk-lore, it is witnessed by the temples destroyed, never that one's own people were affected.

Why do we need to speculate on what acts of pillage, of rape, of torture, of murder, of genocide were committed, in that particular span from 1200 to 1757?

 

[Safriz]

FYI, VD Savarkar was a Self proclaimed atheist.
He professed Hindutva as political ideology to defend Hindus against what he saw as political Islam.

Hi,
As far as know Hinduism allows Atheism as part of Hinduism.
So one can be a Hindu and an atheist at the same time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_atheism

 

[Suriya]

Hi,
As far as know Hinduism allows Atheism as part of Hinduism.
So one can be a Hindu and an atheist at the same time.

In Hinduism, we don't have any punishment for Atheism, they aren't banished from Hindu fold.

My rebuttal was at your specific false claim that 'Savarkar was a Hindu saint'. The truth is he wasn't. In fact he wasn't religious at all.

Your knowledge on Hinduism and probably most of Pakistani members here is at kindergarten level.

 

[Mentee]

Make no mistakes pakistanis!!!


This is the kind of degenerate enemy you have to fight with. Even the thought of defeat sends chilling sensation down the spine. Imagine what they gonna do to our women and kids if they somehow got a hold of our land.

 

[waz]

Do you know RSS has Muslim chapter called Muslim Rashtriya Manch ??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Rashtriya_Manch

Yep history has seen many of these organisations who've tried to reach out to the minority they hate. Why? At times it's PR and at times to infiltrate the hated ones.
As for the ones who join such organisations there's been plenty who have betrayed their own through the years e.g. Vital Hasson, and there will continue to be more.

 

[Safriz]

In Hinduism, we don't have any punishment for Atheism, they aren't banished from Hindu fold.

My rebuttal was at your specific false claim that 'Savarkar was a Hindu saint'. The truth is he wasn't. In fact he wasn't religious at all.

Your knowledge on Hinduism and probably most of Pakistani members here is at kindergarten level.

Fair argument.....

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

I understand what you are saying, but am forced to point out that this defence had its repercussions on ordinary Muslims who had nothing whatsoever to do with political Islam. It is on the level of the incendiary remarks made by BJP leaders during the Delhi elections, and to their utter social irresponsibility in allowing these thoughts and ideas loose among a gullible electorate.



Your point is askew. May I suggest very respectfully that you look at a YouTube video on Islam in India, by Robert Eaton - yes, the Robert Eaton. Even in those parts of India, principally north India, longest under Muslim rule, the nature of society was not as bad as we imagine, not as good as politicians try to tell us it was. It was somewhere in between, but it does not justify today's gross Islamophobia.



If you will promise not to be offended, I have a project for you.

Taking the year 1200 AD as a benchmark year, any individual alive today would have 6,71,08,864 ancestors alive then, from whom he or she was descended. That's 6 crores, 71 lakh and some more male and female ancestors.

The project: please can you tell us how the invasion by the Turks, the Afghans and the Mughals affect these 6 crore 71 lakh people? Also how it was different from the invasions of the Ephthalites, the Huns, the Kushana, the Parthians, and the Scythians immediately after the Bactrian Greeks? You need not answer about the Tibetans, who ruled large parts of eastern India, a well-buried secret of Indian history, but need only think about the south.

The point is that today's indignation and outrage against the heinous crimes committed by these outsiders is largely spurious. Nobody has the slightest clue how his or her ancestors were impacted; everyone has a story, but it is someone else's story, it is reported by Muslim chroniclers, it is alleged in folk-lore, it is witnessed by the temples destroyed, never that one's own people were affected.

Why do we need to speculate on what acts of pillage, of rape, of torture, of murder, of genocide were committed, in that particular span from 1200 to 1757?

I will take a look. And I am well aware of synocracies which today's extreme RW try to sell that how great we were before British came. The truth was if I was born some 80-90 years back I wouldn't even have been let into temples whether it was north or south. I am not trying to impress North is bad. Like all bad apples there are people in North. But the fact is you cannot sell a part with 100% fake components but one can with 50%. There is already existing friction btw communities which are exploited by politicians on both side. Without friction noone can manufacture anything. That project will take 100's of years.

Second part sir. No one can give a firm estimate on how many people were impacted. The truth is even without Islamic invasions it's possible indic kingdoms themselves would have involved in wars impacting 7 crore people. Down south Cholas and Chalukyas fought mindless wars for 100 years. What was its end result and impact I do not know. It's true when invasions came in, came along group of people who settled in this land and adopted our culture. True they didn't call themselves Hindus, but boudhars, Jainers, Shaivite, Shaktism etc. This changed with Islamic invasions when foreigners Turks/Arabs and Persians (Afghans were considered part of Hind) for probably the first time refused to quite integrate with indic culture. They created their own and till this time when one group oppressed against other, for the first time all such groups felt their rights being oppressed by a foreign cultural challenge.
The laws of the land and warfare had changed. It's considered part of Dharma not to attack womenfolk after a war ( it's another case many stories and epics contains story of attacking womenfolk) but it actively changed when womenfolks of kings and Nobles are actively claimed and sent to harems. Some of them are proudly written in their memoirs. Temples were demolished. Some facts are irrefutable. If not for accounts by memoirs how are we to know which one is true or not. Even if memoirs aren't accurate it gives an idea of how people lived in that era.

Small question. Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai holds special significance in all Sangam literature of Tamilakkam. Thousands of literary evidence is available. What do you think the attitude of Hindus in today's TN will be if the madurai temple had a mosque in its place? Do you honestly think there would be peace?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will take a look. And I am well aware of synocracies which today's extreme RW try to sell that how great we were before British came. The truth was if I was born some 80-90 years back I wouldn't even have been let into temples whether it was north or south. I am not trying to impress North is bad. Like all bad apples there are people in North. But the fact is you cannot sell a part with 100% fake components but one can with 50%. There is already existing friction btw communities which are exploited by politicians on both side. Without friction noone can manufacture anything. That project will take 100's of years.

You know that it is not about the north, or about the south. My mother told me what happened when she was eating with her pappaan friends and the family ayah crossed the verandah in their view. In some ways, the caste system was as cruel in the south, perhaps worse, than in the north. If you have Malayali friends, ask them how Ezhavas were treated four or five generations.

While I agree that there was latent feeling, my whole point - here and in other threads, in other fora, in other discussions - is that these latent feelings would have stayed latent without the active intervention of the interested. Half my mother's family, people from the Bangladeshi district of Barisal, were killed during partition; so what am I supposed to do about it today? Should I search out and kill Barisalis? Or simply bad mouth them? Or broaden my focus to all Bangladeshis? Or broaden it one more step and hate all south Asian Muslims? Or simply get rid of the minute divisions and decide that all Muslims should be got rid of? What would happen if I thought like this, considering that none of this nonsense is possible? Other than creating a serious neurosis, and creating every possibility of violence in the case that the provocation became too much or there was some hope of evading individual responsibility, therefore culpability for that violent act?

Second part sir. No one can give a firm estimate on how many people were impacted. The truth is even without Islamic invasions it's possible indic kingdoms themselves would have involved in wars impacting 7 crore people. Down south Cholas and Chalukyas fought mindless wars for 100 years. What was its end result and impact I do not know. It's true when invasions came in, came along group of people who settled in this land and adopted our culture. True they didn't call themselves Hindus, but boudhars, Jainers, Shaivite, Shaktism etc.

A good point. Let us go to your next argument.

This changed with Islamic invasions when foreigners Turks/Arabs and Persians (Afghans were considered part of Hind) for probably the first time refused to quite integrate with indic culture. They created their own and till this time when one group oppressed against other, for the first time all such groups felt their rights being oppressed by a foreign cultural challenge.

I believe that you are accepting without questioning the carefully synthesised reasoning of the Two Nation Theory supporters. Please look at the video that I suggested. Eaton is an acknowledged authority on the subject of Islam in India. You might be surprised at the conclusions that he comes to, about the adaptation of Islamic culture to the social conditions of the sub-continent.

The laws of the land and warfare had changed. It's considered part of Dharma not to attack womenfolk after a war ( it's another case many stories and epics contains story of attacking womenfolk) but it actively changed when womenfolks of kings and Nobles are actively claimed and sent to harems. Some of them are proudly written in their memoirs. Temples were demolished. Some facts are irrefutable. If not for accounts by memoirs how are we to know which one is true or not. Even if memoirs aren't accurate it gives an idea of how people lived in that era.

Again, you are basing your responses and your position on what has been claimed by those classes that were dispossessed in this latest series of invasions. They had exactly, precisely similar things to say about Buddhists in their time, and the reason why they are quiet about Buddhists and vociferous about Muslims (and Christians; don't forget the prejudice and the hate speeches against Christians that almost match the prejudice and the hate speeches against Muslims) is because they had already rallied and seriously weakened Buddhism. Otherwise, if you take the trouble of exploring Hindu feelings towards Buddhists before 800 AD, you will be shocked.

It is those same people who bitterly resent losing their social power, their power, for instance, to humiliate and debase those not from their kin-groups, who promoted hate of the Buddhists earlier, and are promoting hate against Muslims currently.

Small question. Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai holds special significance in all Sangam literature of Tamilakkam. Thousands of literary evidence is available. What do you think the attitude of Hindus in today's TN will be if the madurai temple had a mosque in its place? Do you honestly think there would be peace?

It would have been totally peaceful. If there had been living memory of a conversion of the temple, there would or could have been trouble. As it is, you are projecting things in a way that makes it seem that the conversion happened generations ago. I refuse to believe that Hindus in today's TN would wake up in the morning, read some Sangam literature and go about their day's routine feeling aggrieved and wounded.

I have a question for you. What do you think should be the attitude of Buddhists to the conversion of their temple to a Vishnu temple at Thirumala? Why is there peace?

 

[ziaulislam]

I told the earliest of invasions were barbaric. By the time of hi/Lodi and Mughals they were more interested in accumulating and holding onto power than engaging in rampant violent conversions (which they did only during wars and not normally except for Aurangzeb). That's why India has always been a place of refugee for persecuted populations. Be it Jews from Christians, Christians and Parsis from Islam they found home in India.
The first time they were successful in India proper was in 12th century. By that time the zeal had reduced but not entirely. Ghor and Ghazni were involved in active plundering.
The countries which fell to Islamic sword in early 2 centuries are completely Islamic today. Includes Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Even they had their own great civilisation and religions. If you had me believe 100% people converted by themselves everyone will laugh.

Even in India Islamic rule in South India before Aurangzeb was temporary. Once in 13th century and that's it. A reason you see less Muslims down here and more importantly less Hindu Muslim friction than in North. If not for Tipu Sultan Kerala's Muslim population would have been even low.

Interesting snippet: When a Hindu convert Kusrau Khan took power his Muslim nobility mostly Turks called upon another another Turk ruling in Afghanistan to.invade India proper. That was the status of local Hindu converts had in place. Not that I am complaining. But it's the way it is.

you are confusing muslim rulers..muslim rulers fought even each other(and so did hindhu rulers) during that time..if there were cases of forced conversions it had nothing to do with Islam, and were mostly not sustained anyway..but it wasn't systematic..otherwise i wouldn't have been talking to you....
how difficult do you think is forced conversation if someone intends to do it..history fille dup with examples where when it was done it was total

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

You know that it is not about the north, or about the south. My mother told me what happened when she was eating with her pappaan friends and the family ayah crossed the verandah in their view. In some ways, the caste system was as cruel in the south, perhaps worse, than in the north. If you have Malayali friends, ask them how Ezhavas were treated four or five generations.

While I agree that there was latent feeling, my whole point - here and in other threads, in other fora, in other discussions - is that these latent feelings would have stayed latent without the active intervention of the interested. Half my mother's family, people from the Bangladeshi district of Barisal, were killed during partition; so what am I supposed to do about it today? Should I search out and kill Barisalis? Or simply bad mouth them? Or broaden my focus to all Bangladeshis? Or broaden it one more step and hate all south Asian Muslims? Or simply get rid of the minute divisions and decide that all Muslims should be got rid of? What would happen if I thought like this, considering that none of this nonsense is possible? Other than creating a serious neurosis, and creating every possibility of violence in the case that the provocation became too much or there was some hope of evading individual responsibility, therefore culpability for that violent act?



A good point. Let us go to your next argument.



I believe that you are accepting without questioning the carefully synthesised reasoning of the Two Nation Theory supporters. Please look at the video that I suggested. Eaton is an acknowledged authority on the subject of Islam in India. You might be surprised at the conclusions that he comes to, about the adaptation of Islamic culture to the social conditions of the sub-continent.



Again, you are basing your responses and your position on what has been claimed by those classes that were dispossessed in this latest series of invasions. They had exactly, precisely similar things to say about Buddhists in their time, and the reason why they are quiet about Buddhists and vociferous about Muslims (and Christians; don't forget the prejudice and the hate speeches against Christians that almost match the prejudice and the hate speeches against Muslims) is because they had already rallied and seriously weakened Buddhism. Otherwise, if you take the trouble of exploring Hindu feelings towards Buddhists before 800 AD, you will be shocked.

It is those same people who bitterly resent losing their social power, their power, for instance, to humiliate and debase those not from their kin-groups, who promoted hate of the Buddhists earlier, and are promoting hate against Muslims currently.



It would have been totally peaceful. If there had been living memory of a conversion of the temple, there would or could have been trouble. As it is, you are projecting things in a way that makes it seem that the conversion happened generations ago. I refuse to believe that Hindus in today's TN would wake up in the morning, read some Sangam literature and go about their day's routine feeling aggrieved and wounded.

I have a question for you. What do you think should be the attitude of Buddhists to the conversion of their temple to a Vishnu temple at Thirumala? Why is there peace?

While I will reply on other points later after seeing the videos and some books (Kaval kottam written by Su Venkatesan, Communist MP from Madurai) which I doubt will watch for next 1-2 weeks (working on a ventilator project with delivery within 2 weeks) I will reply for the last one.

I know ancient Kanchi was a hotplace for Buddhism. Tamil literature has celebrated Jainism and Buddhism and it was estimated most of Tamils were either Jains or Buddhist by end of 6th century AD. Then slowly came out the Bhakthi movement. Where Nayanmars and alwars. I am not sure if any other literature has so much diverse literature as Tamils in early middle stages. They went about converting kings, winning debates and blessing people. It's all recorded in their literature. I studied Tamil in school days and there is a quite bit of Bhakthi poetry. Then came Adi Shankaracharya and Ramanujar who fought caste systems long back in 10th century. When Karunanidhi was asked why he was writing a show called Ramanujan in tv he replied if Ramanujan teaching had widespread acceptance there was no reason for him to oppose Hindu religion. Now Bengal has quite a violent history for Buddhist oppression through the Senas. Maharashtra too had lots of jains and Buddhist temples to this day. I also do not know if there was any oppression there. Buddhism in North India declined after Harshvardhan and was given death knell when Nalanda and Takshashila was sacked. Guptas were ardent devotees of Lord Muruga and it's interesting case of Karthikeyan pray declined in North after them.

As for Buddhist temple in Tirupati these are some of things unleashed by Dravidian groups for legitimacy for abusing Hindu gods. Most groups say it was a Murugan Temple appropriated by Ramanujar. Who is to say who is right? Another group say it's a female Shakti statue? While the earliest literary evidence for Tirumala is around 2nd century BC probably the time Buddhist expansion was quite high in Sangam regions. What's the literary evidence for a Buddhist or Murugan or shakthi temple at the place. As a lover of history I will never say it's improbable that it may have been another place of worship at that point. But as of now possible literary evidence points to the contrary.

If, if, if it had been Buddhist temple and it was converted, and there are enough Buddhist to lay claim then I will advocate returning it back. Afterall Hagia Sofia was returned back. If people of this area themselves changed the stupas to Hindu temples after their conversation it's another argument. If India had been completely Muslim these issue wouldn't have mattered much today.

 

[JafarQureshi]

Whoa. I havent read this book but this article gives an inglorious turn to his viewpoint. It's true Islamic invaders never fought wars as established in this land. They raped, forcibly married, converted womens and kids. These are all documented proudly by them.
He just argued if Hindus had simply responded in kind they would have thought thrice before attacking a kingdom. But since they know Hindus will never attack womenfolk of enemy nations they had the freedom to do almost anything. Whether middle aged kings really thought like that I am not sure but it's his viewpoint. The earliest invasions were the most barbaric ones.
Nowhere he mentions or asks Hindus of today to rape women.

Muslim rulers did it because we were superior but you sanghis do it because of your inferiority complex of being ruled by us Muslims for 1000 years. Big difference there.

 

[Joe Shearer]

While I will reply on other points later after seeing the videos and some books (Kaval kottam written by Su Venkatesan, Communist MP from Madurai) which I doubt will watch for next 1-2 weeks (working on a ventilator project with delivery within 2 weeks) I will reply for the last one.

I know ancient Kanchi was a hotplace for Buddhism. Tamil literature has celebrated Jainism and Buddhism and it was estimated most of Tamils were either Jains or Buddhist by end of 6th century AD. Then slowly came out the Bhakthi movement. Where Nayanmars and alwars. I am not sure if any other literature has so much diverse literature as Tamils in early middle stages. They went about converting kings, winning debates and blessing people. It's all recorded in their literature. I studied Tamil in school days and there is a quite bit of Bhakthi poetry. Then came Adi Shankaracharya and Ramanujar who fought caste systems long back in 10th century. When Karunanidhi was asked why he was writing a show called Ramanujan in tv he replied if Ramanujan teaching had widespread acceptance there was no reason for him to oppose Hindu religion. Now Bengal has quite a violent history for Buddhist oppression through the Senas. Maharashtra too had lots of jains and Buddhist temples to this day. I also do not know if there was any oppression there. Buddhism in North India declined after Harshvardhan and was given death knell when Nalanda and Takshashila was sacked. Guptas were ardent devotees of Lord Muruga and it's interesting case of Karthikeyan pray declined in North after them.

As for Buddhist temple in Tirupati these are some of things unleashed by Dravidian groups for legitimacy for abusing Hindu gods. Most groups say it was a Murugan Temple appropriated by Ramanujar. Who is to say who is right? Another group say it's a female Shakti statue? While the earliest literary evidence for Tirumala is around 2nd century BC probably the time Buddhist expansion was quite high in Sangam regions. What's the literary evidence for a Buddhist or Murugan or shakthi temple at the place. As a lover of history I will never say it's improbable that it may have been another place of worship at that point. But as of now possible literary evidence points to the contrary.

If, if, if it had been Buddhist temple and it was converted, and there are enough Buddhist to lay claim then I will advocate returning it back. Afterall Hagia Sofia was returned back. If people of this area themselves changed the stupas to Hindu temples after their conversation it's another argument. If India had been completely Muslim these issue wouldn't have mattered much today.

Well summed up. I hope you see for yourself the point I was making about the ferocious struggle for power among 'Indic' groups themselves. It is difficult for you not to see it after your own very precise and exact narrative above. I rest my case on your question about the Meenakshi Temple. Incidentally, that is one of our Shakta temples, hence peculiarly close to me. It was with wry amusement that I realised that you had inadvertently picked what would be for me a particularly sensitive topic, were I not inured to disregard for these sectoral beliefs.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Dear Sir, that was a bad point to pick on. He was quoting a creep called Savarkar, who was one of the advocates of the Two Nation Theory. Many Pakistanis don't know that there was a segment of Hindus who enthusiastically advocated this theory, in flat opposition to Gandhi and the Congress, and their model, that might whimsically be called the One Nation Theory. Savarkar is noted for two things besides his support for the Two Nation Theory: his cringing petitions to the British for merciful treatment when jailed in the Andamans (the cringing included holding strictly neutral, even inclined towards the jailors' point of view when a prison mutiny occurred, on the excellent grounds that taking a stand in favour of the inmates might lose him the favour of the British - that will show you the inner man), and the second being his zealous publicity campaign, in anonymity, about that heroic freedom fighter, 'Veer' Savarkar. He even ghost-wrote his own adulatory biography, giving examples of his courage and bravery in opposing the British; in real life, he was a meek little church-mouse, and the British found nothing in his low profile to offend them or to cause his pardon to be rescinded.

Savarkar and Jinnah who advocated the Two Nation Theory were actually ahead of their time as compared to romanticists like Gandhi and Nehru. Of course, it's easier for me to judge as I have lived their future India. Savarkar was against the against the caste system as well and he wanted Hindus to be united. He wasn't regressive in the sense that he didn't want Hindus to go back to just learning the Vedas and Shastras but he wanted Hindus to modernize and take up the mantle for progressiveness just like the Western world and these views are similar to Nehru's as well. He was a man who was actually well read in history as well.