Two Nation Theory originated by Hindus.

[nForce]

Dear Sir,

I am surprised at your reply. Would you care to explain?

Sincerely,

Please go through the following link...


Caste system in Hinduism

 

[Joe Shearer]

Please go through the following link...


Caste system in Hinduism

Dear Sir,

I have.

It says that the Vedas have not sanctioned the caste system. It says that the Vedic system should be propagated.

May I take it as a tacit acceptance that the reality today is not the Vedic system but something else?

To repeat, can the son of a Chandal become a Brahmin? Can you answer that straight, instead of dodging?

Sincerely,

 

[nForce]

Dear Sir,

I have.

It says that the Vedas have not sanctioned the caste system. It says that the Vedic system should be propagated.

May I take it as a tacit acceptance that the reality today is not the Vedic system but something else?

To repeat, can the son of a Chandal become a Brahmin? Can you answer that straight, instead of dodging?

Sincerely,

Yes,the reality is quite different from Vedic system.


Hinduism is based on the Vedas.Now the Brahmin,Kshyatriya,Vaishya and Shudra were mere designations given to the people depending upon the job that they do.It does not allow these designations to be passed to the progeny.It does not allow the way of caste system that we perceive today.Having said that,I conclude that the purest form of Hinduism has got nothing against the caste change.
But at the same time I do understand your concern as well.You need to understand that the basic form of the Hindu way of life has been tainted and also abused by many over the ages.Nowadays,the society may or may not come in between if any body wishes to change his caste,but my answer is on an idealistic basis.Does the religion allow you to change your caste??The answer is simply yes....
Will you be able to do it ,gaining acceptance from the society??highly unlikely.....Who is to be blamed here???definitely not the religion,but the people who practice the tainted form of religion.

But I must also say,that nobody can actually stop one from changing his caste if he wishes to go ahead with it.

I hope this answers the question.

 

[billi]

That is not so hard to explain,
two nation theory means that the MUSLIMS and HINDU are separate nations and cannot live together, for one will be over shadowed by the other due to sheer proportions of numbers.

Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan, but it didn't join Hindu India,
so how is the two nation theory disproved ?

Even though it separated from Pakistan it didn't consider going back to Bharat nation.

THAT is think is the best proof of the validity of the two nation theory.

Now, to answer you question why there are so many "muslims" in India.

I always think that the term "so many" is used loosely, will you please quantify what is the percentage of muslims in India ?

You will have your answer, and just in case you don't get it then.

here is what I suggest you do:

Estimate the population of Muslims in India @ 1947.
Plot the quartile that actually did migrate to Pakistan.
The numbers will tell you the story.

Remember every one who says he is a muslim, may not be a muslim.

check the demographics before you reply.

see before partition muslims were about 33%
after partion 1/3 went to pak , 1/3 to ban, 1/3 remained in india, give or take a few percentage (which itslef is millions)
there was a bunch about 4-5 % which migrated from current india to current Pak/Ban. but most of them about 30 out of 34-35 million remained in india. read anywhere the net flow of people went from pak to india.
currently muslims are at 15%, up from 10-11% during independence. if they want a separate country doors of pakistan is open to them i think.

you say about ban not joinig india. Give me 1 instance where a country willingly joined another country? even if india was an islamic country Ban would not have joined it. What I am saying is that tnt said that because they are muslims we are 1 nation, but that is false.
what india said was that, lets not split, we can sort out diferences. but again like i said , the muslims of subcontinent did not have the foresight of being the dominant power in untied india. tht is due to a very narrow vision of jinnah.

 

[billi]

Yes,the reality is quite different from Vedic system.


Hinduism is based on the Vedas.Now the Brahmin,Kshyatriya,Vaishya and Shudra were mere designations given to the people depending upon the job that they do.It does not allow these designations to be passed to the progeny.It does not allow the way of caste system that we perceive today.Having said that,I conclude that the purest form of Hinduism has got nothing against the caste change.
But at the same time I do understand your concern as well.You need to understand that the basic form of the Hindu way of life has been tainted and also abused by many over the ages.Nowadays,the society may or may not come in between if any body wishes to change his caste,but my answer is on an idealistic basis.Does the religion allow you to change your caste??The answer is simply yes....
Will you be able to do it ,gaining acceptance from the society??highly unlikely.....Who is to be blamed here???definitely not the religion,but the people who practice the tainted form of religion.

But I must also say,that nobody can actually stop one from changing his caste if he wishes to go ahead with it.

I hope this answers the question.

all religion is manmade and bull **** and cause of all world problems.period !!

 

[MadDog]

Bro...i understand...you are asking which of the four schools of thaught of sunnis and which school of thaught of shias will be implemented....buddy...as far as the four schools of thaught are concerned...all four of the imams have more or less said the same thing ...eg...while praying where to keep the hands...it doesnt matter.....as far as the sunni-shia thing is concerned....when something is being implemented on a nation wide scale....there could be discussions between ulema from all the sects...so that when implementing laws they dont face any problem....there is always a beggining....

As far as views of Mr Jinnah are concerned....there can be a debate...some say he wanted a secular state while others say he wanted an islamic one....eg: once at the opening of state bank of Pakistan..he spoke against the western concept of interest based banking...and said he wanted an islamic banking...
"The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind."
Chowk: Personal: Quaid-i-Azam\'s speech : CONDEMNING WESTERNISM

So i can quote various speeches showing that he wanted an ideologicaly driven state....
Most important of all...plz dont consider only Mr Jinnah....there were muslim leaders before him...who wanted a seperate state...there were philosphers like allama iqbal...who after getting depressed from breakup of Ottoman caliphate....gave the idea of a new ideologicaly driven state...hope this clears everything

 

[niaz]

Guys...come on...every1 on this forum is intelligent enough...to
tell that muslims of subcontinent (and later Pakistan) had same culture , same holidays , same language script ( urdu is in arabic script just like persian) and same faith (which plays vital part in a muslim's life) as the muslims in Persia, Arab world and Afghanistan had.
This means that muslims are part of one nation....and they can't stay with hindus...cuz they wanted a seperate state ...with Islamic laws...would it be acceptable to hindus....that they live with muslims in majority and under Islamic law...OBVIOUSLY NO.
SO PLEASE WE SHOULD NOT EVEN DISCUSS THIS TOPIC...CUZ
EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THESE 2 TYPES OF PEOPLE ARE FROM SEPERATE NATIONS.with differences ranging from culture, language script, faith , traditions, holidays and literaly everything.....Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) himself told muslims that they are one nation....so plz close this thread.

What you say is only partially true. Historically there has been no such thing as Muslim Ummah after the ‘Rashideen’.

80 years of Umayyad rule was continuously rife with power politics. In addition to Karbala, they were uprisings of Abdullah ibn Zubair (RA), of Zaidis and in Kufa & Basra of Mukhtar Saqafi. Eastern end of the empire was always simmering. Umayyad State was also more westward looking and concentrated on the expansion into North Africa and Spain. Thus there were two independent Muslims empires in existence from 750 AD onward

Then there was Fatimid Khilafat in Egypt that also lasted almost two hundred years. Fatimid even had Khutba proclaimed in their name in Mecca & Medina for about 100 years. For most of the tenth century there were 3 Caliphates in existence, Umayyad in Spain, Fatimids in Egypt and Abbasids in Baghdad.

Ottoman Caliphs never ruled Persia, Afghanistan or Central Asia.

Only common thing with Arabs is Islam and little else. In practice Pakistanis find it very hard to get visit visa in most Arab countries proves my point.

There are no doubt historical links with Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. However these are also only tenuous. Fact remains that in addition to the religion, language makes a huge difference; else there would be no Bangla Desh. It is also evident from the fact that Arab League is far more active than OIC.

Sad to state that Muslims never acted upon or followed ‘Muslim as one nation’ Hadith.
Sooner we realize this fact the better.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What you say is only partially true. Historically there has been no such thing as Muslim Ummah after the ‘Rashideen’.

80 years of Umayyad rule was continuously rife with power politics. In addition to Karbala, they were uprisings of Abdullah ibn Zubair (RA), of Zaidis and in Kufa & Basra of Mukhtar Saqafi. Eastern end of the empire was always simmering. Umayyad State was also more westward looking and concentrated on the expansion into North Africa and Spain. Thus there were two independent Muslims empires in existence from 750 AD onward

Then there was Fatimid Khilafat in Egypt that also lasted almost two hundred years. Fatimid even had Khutba proclaimed in their name in Mecca & Medina for about 100 years. For most of the tenth century there were 3 Caliphates in existence, Umayyad in Spain, Fatimids in Egypt and Abbasids in Baghdad.

Ottoman Caliphs never ruled Persia, Afghanistan or Central Asia.

Only common thing with Arabs is Islam and little else. In practice Pakistanis find it very hard to get visit visa in most Arab countries proves my point.

There are no doubt historical links with Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. However these are also only tenuous. Fact remains that in addition to the religion, language makes a huge difference; else there would be no Bangla Desh. It is also evident from the fact that Arab League is far more active than OIC.

Sad to state that Muslims never acted upon or followed ‘Muslim as one nation’ Hadith.
Sooner we realize this fact the better.

Dear Sir,

Just to bear out the highlighted point, Bangladeshi friends in the Gulf complain that they are worse off, they are at the bottom of the totem pole.

Sincerely,

 

[Trident]

You mean a Shudras or Chandalas child born out of Shudras father and mother can easily become a Brahman ?

You have NO answer !!!!!

yes they can....we can find brahmins in various sub castes here in the south catering to their community...there are brahmins in my community as well who are no way related to the main brahmin u were talkin about....but the common thing between them are they are scholars in vedic literature and agama shastras...which is the basic norm to be a brahmin....times are changing very slowly but effectively still a long way to go...

christiancouncil.in - Dalits to learn Vedas at Tirupati
Tirupati Vedic schools open doors to Dalits

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes,the reality is quite different from Vedic system.


Hinduism is based on the Vedas.Now the Brahmin,Kshyatriya,Vaishya and Shudra were mere designations given to the people depending upon the job that they do.It does not allow these designations to be passed to the progeny.It does not allow the way of caste system that we perceive today.Having said that,I conclude that the purest form of Hinduism has got nothing against the caste change.

But at the same time I do understand your concern as well.You need to understand that the basic form of the Hindu way of life has been tainted and also abused by many over the ages.Nowadays,the society may or may not come in between if any body wishes to change his caste,but my answer is on an idealistic basis.Does the religion allow you to change your caste??The answer is simply yes....
Will you be able to do it ,gaining acceptance from the society??highly unlikely.....Who is to be blamed here???definitely not the religion,but the people who practice the tainted form of religion.

But I must also say,that nobody can actually stop one from changing his caste if he wishes to go ahead with it.

I hope this answers the question.

yes they can....we can find brahmins in various sub castes here in the south catering to their community...there are brahmins in my community as well who are no way related to the main brahmin u were talkin about....but the common thing between them are they are scholars in vedic literature and agama shastras...which is the basic norm to be a brahmin....times are changing very slowly but effectively still a long way to go...

christiancouncil.in - Dalits to learn Vedas at Tirupati
Tirupati Vedic schools open doors to Dalits

Gentlemen

I am rather saddened by the responses you have furnished. These are not fair or correct responses.

Before I go further, some declarations:

I was born Hindu, a Shakta, into a caste which is considered dwija and bears the thread;
I am not a Brahmin; I have close relations who are, but are not observant, and who do not follow the rituals required;
I am an agnostic and do not support any religion.

My point of view is for historical and sociological accuracy, transparency and honesty. Please bear these in mind in considering my responses.

Does the religion allow you to change your caste??The answer is simply yes....
Will you be able to do it ,gaining acceptance from the society??highly unlikely

I am not concerned with making an evaluation of a religion. Such an evaluation is impossible, because all religion is a matter of faith, not of rational, scientifically verifiable fact. The question was a social question, not a religious one, and it was simple: can we change castes?

Your first response was that, yes, the religion (presumably you mean Sanatan Dharma in the widest possible sense) does allow it. How would this change of caste occur, according to you? Would it suffice to declare oneself Brahmin? Is a declaration in court required? Would the tahsildar accept such a change and issue an appropriate caste certificate (nobody said that only conversion into Brahmin status was involved; theoretically the other direction should also be examined)?

How would the religion allow it?

Your second question and the answer are the only ones that matter: would this be possible with social acceptance?

No.

No ifs, buts or maybes; just No.

Nobody's family would intermarry with that family or give their daughters to that person, nobody would eat with that family or person, none of the marks of 'jati', as distinct from varna, would be observed.

The fact is that today, jati cannot be changed. Period.

yes they can....we can find brahmins in various sub castes here in the south catering to their community...there are brahmins in my community as well who are no way related to the main brahmin u were talkin about....but the common thing between them are they are scholars in vedic literature and agama shastras...which is the basic norm to be a brahmin....times are changing very slowly but effectively still a long way to go...

christiancouncil.in - Dalits to learn Vedas at Tirupati
Tirupati Vedic schools open doors to Dalits

They are scholars in vedic literature and agama shastras, which is the basic norm to be a Brahmin?

Please answer me: do they call themselves Brahmin? Do others call them Brahmin? Do they have a gotra? Do they marry Brahmin women? Do they eat with Brahmins, or Brahmins with them?

It is not very well known that the bulk of worship was conducted in India by other than Brahmins; there were simply too few Brahmins and too many temples, too many pujas for them all to have been done by Brahmins. Any dwija - twice-born Hindu - can conduct certain ceremonies and rituals, and Brahmins are not required for this. Some ignorant priests interpreted the laid down rituals to say that Dalits should not conduct this rite or that rite, they even went to the extent of barring Dalits from attending such rites, but these were the excesses of the worst period for Sanatan Dharma.

What you have reported is the correction: other castes, including Dalits, are being taught agama law and ritual at Tirupati. That has nothing to do with changing caste.

This argument itself is completely irrelevant, and should have been settled, at the outset, correctly. There are very effective answers.

One would have been the example set by Sri Ramanujacharya. I will not go further in a post to a defence-related forum managed by Pakistanis, but those who are interested may delve into that great reformers work and the philosophical as well as social reforming nature of Visisht-Advaita, as distinct from Advaita or Dvaita. It will not be possible nor desirable to discuss it here. Another example is the co-option of Jats from their original tribal status into Indic society, or the better known example of Rajput co-option. A third example (fourth, actually) is the case of the eastern hill-tribes, especially the Manipuris, but also to some extent, long before them, the Ahom.

If you wish to defend yourself from the mocking attacks of someone from another religion, by all means do so, but use the right examples and the right arguments.

(To me, regrettably, all religious arguments are futile, and the only persons with whom I can agree on this forum are two: one carries Agnostic in his nick itself, the other has declared her stand boldly and bravely in the face of savage attacks, some of them personal attacks).

Instead, it is embarrassing to see attempts at brushing aside a palpable weakness in Hindu social systems with examples and explanations which are unnecessary. Please be straightforward and forthright about it. No religion is perfect; there is no need to claim perfection.

And please, it is preferable to keep religion out of these discussions. I joined to learn about defence-related matters, not to study comparative religion. I would refer readers to a post two or three posts before, by our friend 'billi'. His pithy, earthy observation really does it for me.

Sincerely,