Sustaining the myth of hostility

[Rig Vedic]

- I am not denying the anecdotes of scholarly debate, but the violent repression of Buddhists is also on record. The "assimilation" was so thorough that there are precious few survivors left to tell the other side of the story.

The so-called "violent repression" is mostly concocted. At the most there one or two incidents of repression related to the idiosyncrasies of some individual minor ruler, nothing like the religiously motivated systematic persecution of Buddhists by Islamic iconoclasts.

One link was provided earlier, two more from the book Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple, by Koenraad Elst are -

2. Ashoka and Pushyamitra, iconoclasts?

6. The details about "Hindu iconoclasm"

 

[Kazhugu]

One should avoid making generalizations about groups, each individual is different and that individuality should be respected.

In the case of Muslims we have seen how there is a systematic attempt to stifle debate and keep the common Muslim in ignorance.

well that is why i took extra care to make sure I dont say "all muslims". I said significant number of muslims.

And what you said is just one reason...some other reasons is the mental image of Prophet as someone totally perfect, someone not capable fo doing a wrong that is so ingrained in the minds of most muslims that whatever you say will be rejected by their mind as a conspiracy....yet another being the proliferation of the bogus televangelists like zakir naik who keep spreading bullshit....

i dont know...but on this front, i honestly dont see a good picture of the future....

 

[Wickerman]

actually that begs the question why is that its the abrahamics who find it difficult to "integrate" into the dharmic setup in india....i'll tell you..because of the inherent exclusivist tendencies which are the core of their religions/dogma.....because most of their ideals are exactly the opposite of what this civilization stands for....tolerance, skepticism, acceptance of differences, respect to diversity etc....but atleast renaissance helped the christians to shed some of their social ills and become more progressive..(thouh same cannot be said about some christian, the new converts, in india)..but the muslims world over are stuck up in their time warp and many are actually going on a regressive path....

why is that sikhs or buddhists or jains or parsis dont find it difficult to integrate with hindus or vice versa ?

and let me be honest bro....the history between hindus and muslims and how the islamic invaders came here, what they did is not something that can be easily forgotten....i dont know your faith...but personally every time i go to kashi or mathura or ayodhya and when i see those structures standing as living examples of the brutal past I cant help but remember them....

and second thing..after partition in which a huge chunk of land was sliced off and given off to them to assuage their insecurity, its their turn to adapt and try to live with the rest....not the other way around....

A lot of it is generalization. I have seen many muslims actually integrated and living in harmony in India.

But there are also elements in Indian society which force themselves onto Muslims in certain very basic stuff. Like the cow slaughter act for instance. Which is absolutely hilarious and ridiculous at the same time. Its like a Saudi law. Sure Hindus dont want cows slaughtered, and they dont need to if they dont want to, but why shouldnt muslims? Or Christians? Forget religion. Why shouldnt people eat beef, just because they find it tasty? In what way are Hindus that support that ridiculous, non secular law any more tolerant than Muslims?

This goes both ways. We cant just generalize one community.

 

[Kazhugu]

- The link already concedes that, by the time Hsuag Tsang came to India, Buddhism was already in "precipitous decline". Prior to that, however, Buddhism was the dominant religion in the subcontinent. The "assimilation" was already underway.

did it also say why there was a precipitous decline ?

- I am not denying the anecdotes of scholarly debate, but the violent repression of Buddhists is also on record. The "assimilation" was so thorough that there are precious few survivors left to tell the other side of the story.

can you quote the exact verifiable links of the "violent repression" that are on record so that we people can see that ?

- No one has ever denied the atrocities committed by the Muslim invaders. Muslims are mature enough to accept the totality of their history, the good and the bad. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of some Hindus who continue to perpetuate the myth of a tolerant history and whitewash the historical record of Hindu excesses.

not that you guys are any mature...but your own historians found a vicarious pleasure in gloating over the achievements of the ghazis and there are many structures that are living proofs of the barbarity....so its simply you cannot gloss over them...

there needs to be something to whitewash that....got the point ?

 

[Kazhugu]

A lot of it is generalization. I have seen many muslims actually integrated and living in harmony in India.

thats why in the first post i said "significant number of muslims" and not "all muslims".

But there are also elements in Indian society which force themselves onto Muslims in certain very basic stuff. Like the cow slaughter act for instance. Which is absolutely hilarious and ridiculous at the same time. Its like a Saudi law. Sure Hindus dont want cows slaughtered, and they dont need to if they dont want to, but why shouldnt muslims? Or Christians? Forget religion. Why shouldnt people eat beef, just because they find it tasty? In what way are Hindus that support that ridiculous, non secular law any more tolerant than Muslims?

bad analogy.... cow slaughter is explicitly and clearly banned by law..that is why muslims must not do it..not only muslims but any community...to obey the laws of the land....and if the authorities are not enforcing it, then the people will take law into their hands......and in many cases the slaughter of cow is not for meat but with the express intention of starting communal riots...case in point, Cow slaughtered inside Kerala temple compound....Slaughter of Pregnant cow near Temple...since it happened in kerala nothing big happened..if this had been UP or MP or haryana you could imagine the bloodshed....

by the way..unlike cow-slaughter which is legally proscribed, reading of books like satanic verses, watching movies like da vinci code, even the entry of a PIO (salman rushdie) are not legally proscribed..but they were done....care elaborating on that ?

regarding why they should not eat beef..they are free to eat bovine beef...infact if they go to west bengal during durga pujo they can get buffalo beef that was sacrificed in the temple...

 

[Rig Vedic]

A lot of it is generalization. I have seen many muslims actually integrated and living in harmony in India.

But there are also elements in Indian society which force themselves onto Muslims in certain very basic stuff. Like the cow slaughter act for instance. Which is absolutely hilarious and ridiculous at the same time. Its like a Saudi law. Sure Hindus dont want cows slaughtered, and they dont need to if they dont want to, but why shouldnt muslims? Or Christians? Forget religion. Why shouldnt people eat beef, just because they find it tasty? In what way are Hindus that support that ridiculous, non secular law any more tolerant than Muslims?

This goes both ways. We cant just generalize one community.

As regards cow slaughter, it is a cultural thing. We value harmony with nature, respect for life, and coexistence. When we drink the milk of a cow, the cow becomes like a mother. There is a special bond.

Personally I do not revel in the slaughter of any animal. But I can understand why culturally, the cow has a special status.

Now the question is whether there should be laws regarding the cultural values of a large majority, in any nation. I think it is acceptable to an extent. For example, in France, out of sensitivity to the native culture, there is a ban on Hijab in schools.

 

[Developereo]

I don't have an online text, but this book is worth reading. Here's a synopsis:

Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India | Indologica

Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India examines the reasons of the structural subalternity of Indian Buddhism to Brahmanism, and the mechanisms, characterized by intimidation and violence, which led to its downfall in India.
[...]
it is in Gupta times that we witness, among other things, the destruction of Nagarjunakonda
[...]
The scenario in which the repression of the Buddhists and of the social sectors to which they gave representation took place, is the gradual taking possession by the Brahmans of the entire agrarian horizon. With the Vajrayāna, seen as the theoretical and operational answer to the attacks on the religion, a strict relationship was created between Buddhists, natives and outcastes, which led to a long, fierce war that characterized the period from the eighth to the twelfth century.
[...]
When the orthodox realized that they would have never been able to defeat the invaders and that the welding between Muslims and Buddhists, already successfully tested in eighth-century Sind, was resurfacing in the Gangetic India of the twelfth century, they accepted Muslim rule in exchange for the extirpation of Buddhism and the repression of the social sectors in revolt. Contrary to what is usually believed, the great monasteries of Gangetic India, from Sarnath to Vikramaśīla, from Odantapurī to Nālandā, were not destroyed by the Muslims, but appropriated and transformed by the Brahmans with only the occasional intervention of the Muslim forces.

P.S. I haven't bothered to list the Hindu rulers whose repression of Buddhists has been documented by historians. I am sure you guys already know about them and will dismiss it all as a "fabrication" or "exaggeration".

 

[Kazhugu]

I don't have an online text, but this book is worth reading. Here's a synopsis:

actually i was expecting something on the lines of this..though I have to concede that i was expecting specifically the pushyamitra sunga story and not the sena one...

ok the real thing goes on like this...bakthiyar khilji invaded the kingdom of lakshmana sena who was the then ruler of the sena dynasty (a hindu kingdon out of bengal) and the vikramshila university suffered damage in the war....it was not destroyed in a case of motivated religious bigotry, but during war....and who specifically destroyed it is still not decided as there is no conclusive proof......so basically the author takes one half of one half (i.e. one quarter) of the story and leaves out the other to suit his view...not much different from how pushyamitra sunga is castigated by these same revisionists how he destroyed buddist viharas and leave out the unconvenient part of those viharas harboring minander who invaded the sungas and was defeated...

btw in your words, this is the gem from your link...

When the orthodox realized that they would have never been able to defeat the invaders and that the welding between Muslims and Buddhists, already successfully tested in eighth-century Sind, was resurfacing in the Gangetic India of the twelfth century, they accepted Muslim rule in exchange for the extirpation of Buddhism and the repression of the social sectors in revolt.

now how can that be possible or what was the need....wasnt buddhism already in "precipitous decline" in the 8th century ? and we are talking about the 13th century here.....and sure the welding between muslims and buddhists were so great that regions of afghanistan gandhara etc which were buddhist continue to flourish today...

so now that your post has been clarified...read this SPREADING THE BIG LIE to understand the myth of the hindu persecution..which unlike your link, is with references and not personal opinions.

 

[Wickerman]

bad analogy.... cow slaughter is explicitly and clearly banned by law..that is why muslims must not do it..not only muslims but any community...to obey the laws of the land....and if the authorities are not enforcing it, then the people will take law into their hands......

I AM talking about the LAW. The LAW is ridiculous. It is non secular and infringes upon the freedoms of other people.

I am a half Christian/half Hindu. Actually Atheist by personal belief. I love beef and the way it tastes, so my interests in beef has nothing to do with communalism or whatever. I just wanna eat. But I cant, why? Because a non secular law has been passed. This law is against other cultures and their freedom. When such laws are made how do you expect people to "integrate". This very law prevents it. Albeit in a minor way.

and in many cases the slaughter of cow is not for meat but with the express intention of starting communal riots...case in point, Cow slaughtered inside Kerala temple compound....Slaughter of Pregnant cow near Temple...since it happened in kerala nothing big happened..if this had been UP or MP or haryana you could imagine the bloodshed....

These are outliers. Slaughtering any animal outside of an abattoir without humane methods of slaughtering should actually be made illegal.

by the way..unlike cow-slaughter which is legally proscribed, reading of books like satanic verses, watching movies like da vinci code, even the entry of a PIO (salman rushdie) are not legally proscribed..but they were done....care elaborating on that ?

Thats exactly what I am talking about!!

Both communities do not integrate or have their issues.

The blame is solely not on muslims. Hindus do their part to mess things up. Muslims do it too. Integration is a two way street.

As regards cow slaughter, it is a cultural thing. We value harmony with nature, respect for life, and coexistence. When we drink the milk of a cow, the cow becomes like a mother. There is a special bond.

Personally I do not revel in the slaughter of any animal. But I can understand why culturally, the cow has a special status.

Now the question is whether there should be laws regarding the cultural values of a large majority, in any nation. I think it is acceptable to an extent. For example, in France, out of sensitivity to the native culture, there is a ban on Hijab in schools.

So like I said, Hindus need not slaughter animals. Any animal for that matter.

But why infringe on others interests? I personally have a problem with this law, because I LOVE beef. Am an atheist, so nothing religious there. It just tastes awesome for me! and I dont like this law that makes beef rare to get.

BTW I think most times, even outside India it is the male of the species that is slaughtered. Not the female. For breeding reasons. You know male/female ratio in any species needs to favor the females.

So Hindus shouldnt really have a problem with others eating whatever they wanna eat!

 

[Fireurimagination]

I AM talking about the LAW. The LAW is ridiculous. It is non secular and infringes upon the freedoms of other people.

I am a half Christian/half Hindu. Actually Atheist by personal belief. I love beef and the way it tastes, so my interests in beef has nothing to do with communalism or whatever. I just wanna eat. But I cant, why? Because a non secular law has been passed. This law is against other cultures and their freedom. When such laws are made how do you expect people to "integrate". This very law prevents it. Albeit in a minor way.



These are outliers. Slaughtering any animal outside of an abattoir without humane methods of slaughtering should actually be made illegal.



Thats exactly what I am talking about!!

Both communities do not integrate or have their issues.

The blame is solely not on muslims. Hindus do their part to mess things up. Muslims do it too. Integration is a two way street.



So like I said, Hindus need not slaughter animals. Any animal for that matter.

But why infringe on others interests? I personally have a problem with this law, because I LOVE beef. Am an atheist, so nothing religious there. It just tastes awesome for me! and I dont like this law that makes beef rare to get.

BTW I think most times, even outside India it is the male of the species that is slaughtered. Not the female. For breeding reasons. You know male/female ratio in any species needs to favor the females.

So Hindus shouldnt really have a problem with others eating whatever they wanna eat!

That is what is suppose to mean assimilation isn't it? when people respect each others sentiments but alias, surely we don't want majority pushed to the wall for minority appeasement and see rise of right wing fundamentalist in the Hindu fraternity which has been real tolerant and accommodating till date

 

[Kazhugu]

I AM talking about the LAW. The LAW is ridiculous. It is non secular and infringes upon the freedoms of other people.

if you look deeply you cant call it non-secular...why ? because it does not infringe on the rights of the people to perform their religous rites or worship....cutting a cow is not part of any religion while hindus revere the cow...so that was the reasoning for the introduction of the law....

These are outliers. Slaughtering any animal outside of an abattoir without humane methods of slaughtering should actually be made illegal.

just one outlier can cause hundreds of deaths....are you ok with that ? many riots in indiahave started with the slaughtering of cow and such provocative actions...and i dont know from which part of india you are from...but if you see in hyderabad, certain areas of mumbai, maratwada region etc, the cows are mostly slaughtered in open places which are communal time bombs....

Thats exactly what I am talking about!!

Both communities do not integrate or have their issues.

The blame is solely not on muslims. Hindus do their part to mess things up. Muslims do it too. Integration is a two way street.

the law on cow-slaughter is completely irrelevant as to the larger question of integration....you yourself said that you eat beef....many christians eat beef....some hindus also eat beef...so are you refusing to get integrated..? see how hollow your logic is...and again...if you knew the actual situation on ground, you would know that beef, yes beef from cow, is freely available in most parts of UP, bihar, delhi, hyderabad etc...so are the muslims over there completely integrated...? hardly...kerala is a state that has complete freedom of palate....have you been recently to malappuram or kasargode or kannur and seen what is happening on the ground ? have you heard of the old city in hyderabad..? your reasoning is completely off-track and does not satisfy the empirical evidence.....cow slaughter or not..a sense of superiority complex and a sense of contempt towards the idolators is embedded in their mind right from childhood which makes it impossible for them to integrate....and paradoxically they also have a sense of deprivation and entitlement...which again causes them to turn more inward and added to that a very poor leadership that is intent on increasing the victimhood for vote purposes and not solve it...all in all..i dont see a good future for them...unless ofcourse they can throw off the curren leadership and clergy and learn to evolve with modern times at the same time respecting the sentiments of the majority....

 

[Developereo]

it was not destroyed in a case of motivated religious bigotry, but during war....

The destruction happened within the context of Buddhist revolt against the Brahmanic order and the ongoing reaction to quash the upstarts. The book also examines the social elements used to marginalize and repress Buddhists (along with outcastes).

now how can that be possible or what was the need....wasnt buddhism already in "precipitous decline" in the 8th century ? and we are talking about the 13th century here.....and sure the welding between muslims and buddhists were so great that regions of afghanistan gandhara etc which were buddhist continue to flourish today...

Buddhism was in decline but certainly not eradicated by the time of arrival of the Muslims. The Muslim-Buddhist alliances were opportunistic and localized rather than systemic. The Arab conquest of Sindh was helped by the tensions between the Hindu ruler Dahir and his majority Buddhist subjects. It was this kind of opportunistic alliance which the Hindu rulers in the wider Indian subcontinent wanted to avoid.

which unlike your link, is with references and not personal opinions.

The link is to a book of academic research. What I presented was merely a synopsis of the book.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I AM talking about the LAW. The LAW is ridiculous. It is non secular and infringes upon the freedoms of other people.

I am a half Christian/half Hindu. Actually Atheist by personal belief. I love beef and the way it tastes, so my interests in beef has nothing to do with communalism or whatever. I just wanna eat. But I cant, why? Because a non secular law has been passed. This law is against other cultures and their freedom. When such laws are made how do you expect people to "integrate". This very law prevents it. Albeit in a minor way.



These are outliers. Slaughtering any animal outside of an abattoir without humane methods of slaughtering should actually be made illegal.



Thats exactly what I am talking about!!

Both communities do not integrate or have their issues.

The blame is solely not on muslims. Hindus do their part to mess things up. Muslims do it too. Integration is a two way street.



So like I said, Hindus need not slaughter animals. Any animal for that matter.

But why infringe on others interests? I personally have a problem with this law, because I LOVE beef. Am an atheist, so nothing religious there. It just tastes awesome for me! and I dont like this law that makes beef rare to get.

BTW I think most times, even outside India it is the male of the species that is slaughtered. Not the female. For breeding reasons. You know male/female ratio in any species needs to favor the females.

So Hindus shouldnt really have a problem with others eating whatever they wanna eat!

Mate have u ever been to chennai? Here there a lot of streets with Beef biryani shops and Beef curry available... In my area i can see some 10-12 shops.. My Hindu frinds eat beef... Nobody is opposing it for a change... In Tamil Nadu, hindus and muslims are quite assimilated, maybe cos, there was no bloody past like that was in N India.. S India was mostly insulated from communal riots...
But imagine the situation in North... Friction between the two communities run from the past..

 

[Kazhugu]

The destruction happened within the context of Buddhist revolt against the Brahmanic order and the ongoing reaction to quash the upstarts. The book also examines the social elements used to marginalize and repress Buddhists (along with outcastes).

o m g...you even have an idea of what you are writing...the reason why buddhism declined was because it got afflicted with the same ills of brahmanism.....corruption, political interference, discrimination etc...and again why would the orthodoxy need the help fo the muslims to crush the upstarts in the 13th century when Hieun Tsang reports (from your earlier link) that buddhism was in a terminal declin even in the 7th century ? .....so many contradictions...and in this specific context, with due respect to your imaginative skills, the university itself was destroyed in war and which side destroyed it is still not clear...

but if you analyse the background....there are two things to suggest it was khilji who destroyed it...reasons...

1. lakshmana sena was the 4th ruler of the sena dynasty and vikramshila was in existance from the 8th century that is 400 years before his reign....a dynasty that had till now patronized the same university is unlikely to destroy it..

2.it was the same bakthiyar khilji who went on to ransack and destroy the biggger and more famous nalanda university....the commonality between them - both buddhist centers of learning..

Buddhism was in decline but certainly not eradicated by the time of arrival of the Muslims. The Muslim-Buddhist alliances were opportunistic and localized rather than systemic. The Arab conquest of Sindh was helped by the tensions between the Hindu ruler Dahir and his majority Buddhist subjects. It was this kind of opportunistic alliance which the Hindu rulers in the wider Indian subcontinent wanted to avoid.

but unlike the 8th century areas of pakistan, the indo-gangetic plains of the 13 th century was no stronghold of buddhism because of the fullscale revival of hinduism in the 8th and 9th centuries and it does not need outsiders to crush (if necesssary)a few unarmed monks....more contradictions...

The link is to a book of academic research. What I presented was merely a synopsis of the book.

unless on sees the book in fulll and the references, its credibility is anybody's guess....and i would take the words of 5 indian historian with impeccable credentials than the word of a person i ve not even heard before....

Mate have u ever been to chennai? Here there a lot of streets with Beef biryani shops and Beef curry available... In my area i can see some 10-12 shops.. My Hindu frinds eat beef... Nobody is opposing it for a change... In Tamil Nadu, hindus and muslims are quite assimilated, maybe cos, there was no bloody past like that was in N India.. S India was mostly insulated from communal riots...
But imagine the situation in North... Friction between the two communities run from the past..

actually we cant even speak for whole of south india....if you go to andhra..telengana region where there are many muslims you could see the difference.....things are worsening in kerala too because of the gulf returned wahhabis and saudi money....

 

[Rig Vedic]

But why infringe on others interests? I personally have a problem with this law, because I LOVE beef. Am an atheist, so nothing religious there. It just tastes awesome for me! and I dont like this law that makes beef rare to get.

It is like a Muslim in France saying that he wants Muslim girls to wear Hijab in schools. The larger issue is whether, and to what extent, you respect the cultural norms of a large section of the population. AFAIK, the laws regarding cow slaughter vary from state to state.