Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Pt. Multankar Ji,

Bathing does not hurt others? Does it?

Since 1978 on average Baki killed or helped to kill 50 people per month in India. Why? It's because the vicious devilish ideology of religion, its recent most avatar ie Islam.

That is why I say there should be total ban on Abrahmic/Allahic religion all over the world. They have destroyed whole world from south America to south Asia. Islam is an Arabic imperialism, nothing less.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Pandit Mandarji,

"A total ban on bathing in the ganges might prevent a lot of unnecessary disease and death through drinking filth and "save the world" than the few hundred victims of terrorism here n there...."

Human bathing is all right but I agree there should be bathing of Bhainse, Cows and unwashed non-APT Mulla nearby. Central Asian Mullas and Muslas brought venereal disease and G-musti to the subcontinent. These brutes only understand reply of solid erect Dostum in rectum.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Total ban on Abrahmic concept called Religion will save the world.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Recounting the history of caste, in other words, is one way of narrating the social history of colonialism in India. This is a history in which the past itself was colonized, in which the domain of civil society was abandoned to theories about the weight of tradition, in this case the totality represented by the caste system. Caste became the colonial form of civil society; it justified the denial of political rights to Indian subjects (not citizens) and explained the necessity of colonial rule. As India was anthropologies in the colonial interest, a narrative about its social formation, its political capacity, and its civilization inheritance began increasingly to tell the story of colonial inevitability and of the permanence of British imperial rule. If caste occupied the place of the social and constrained the possibility of the political, colonial rule could consist largely of the enumerative technology of the census and the ethnographic survey, producing by the late nineteenth century the "ethnographic state."

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Folks Caste is a myth and a danda to beat and divide people.

"The primary aim of the western strategic community is to make sure that India will never have a solid majority for a single party rule that means a single political unity. This use of caste communities may be considered as the biggest weapon which the superpower has on India in the 21st century; which it can use in the future to unmake the nation as we know as India."

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 For most of my day I was Shudra, i.e. involved in the actions and concerned about the body cleansing, maintaining and growing activities. Even for a profession or biz I started

apprenticeship (Shudra), editing papers and patent applications of the senior/guru. Those years spent gave me roots or feet.

As I evolved more and more other activities of

organizing a group (Kshatra),

trading with others and accounting (Vaishya) and strategy for seeking common good (Bramhanya)

"The etymology of the word can be traced back to the vedic age. Shudra comes from the word "shuchAt dravanam" a person who is in suffering/mourning/pain, who needs mental or physical cleansing. Shudra was a common Sanskrit word, any person regardless of his/her varna to could be addressed as shudra. An implied version of this common form has become traditionally associated with the varna system. It is also mentioned in the purusha-sukta of Rig veda where shudras are said to have emanated from the feet of the lord (padbhyAm shUdrO ajaayata). A very symbolic statement indeed. It denotes that the three other varnas which made up the parts of purusha (the lord) were supported by the shUdras as the feet form the supporting system of the entire body. This can be understood clearly from the fact that the shudras were basically farmers, potters, cobblers etc (anything the other three varnas would not do viz, teaching, fighting and trade) and hence they formed a support system for the entire society. Unfortunately, direct misinterpretations of these vedic hymns have caused a lot of unrest and confusion in the modern Hindu society. Vedas do not establish supremacy of any varna over the other nor do they say head of the Lord is superior to his feet. Sri Krishna in Bhagavad Gita clarrifies(Chapter 4 verse 12 states "Chaaturvarnyam mayaa srishtam gunakarma vibhaagashah" meaning that the fours varna were established based ones karma/duties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 It's high time the world has NPT like APT (Allaha/Abrahma Proliferation Treaty). Nuclear energy at least has some peaceful use but G-giri in the name of Abrahma and Allaha has no use what so ever. Abrahmic re-legions are basically armed legions for enslaving "other" people and destruction of cultures and civilization. Look at what happened Iran, Kurds and even our own converted Gs. They moan and write lots of columns about 9/11 but conveniently forget 3/25 (71) and Dracula's 8/16 (46) day of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day

Can some one come up with a table with first column showing innocent people died because of atomic weapon and second showing the same due to Abrahmic concept of re-legion. The rows can have people enslaved, women raped, language vanished, cultures destroyed and generations mind polluted. Atomic energy does not rape women or enslave people.

I request our resident his-storian Murarilal Lakhanpurkar aka Murad ScumBaig to help in this project and draft this APT. Khali Mamu can help him.

Automobiles Can Banish Unemployment and Poverty Murarilal G,

Gadi for every family will cause environmental disaster. Mass transportation is good for environment, community building and stress free lives. Just as gadi your other writing and paid G-giri pollutes and destroys society.

Where is your progressive identity Murarilal Lakhanpurkar?

How is the research going on Gomati Mutt and HanumanBadi? Have you heard about Begam Rubia and Begam Aliya?

Faith and Religion Murarilal G,

Gadi Ko Maro Goli! I have not yet seen your progressive identity card with name Murarilal Lakhapurkar and also heart felt condolence for slaying of Swami and four swaminis/students. You are a hopeless Gandu #1. So please feed it back your preaching secularism in your cula ie rear hole. You are not different from "wordy" gandus such as Allaha Ki Maa who by their words cause deaths of millions and plunder.
=============

Till When will the Conversions Go On?

Tarun Vijay worries about the indifference among Indians for social destabilization being caused by the well-funded conversion campaign

Kandhmal is a tribal district of Orissa. Out of its total population of about 6 lakhs, about 52 percent belong to the Kandh tribe, who are mostly Hindus. In 1857, the local Kandh hero Chakra Bishoi rallied the local people and fought a brutal battle with the British. Immediately afterwards, the British let loose an army of missionaries to trigger mass conversions in the area so as to teach the Kandhs a lesson and pacify the area. The Kandhs, however, did not budge from their Hindu faith or their loyalty to the country and did not allow the strategy of British imperialists to succeed.

The missionaries took it as a personal insult and challenge. As a strategy to defeat the Kandhs, they kept assembling a lot of foreign funds in the area for proselytisation. This barrage of foreign money and aggressive proselytisation had the maximum affect on the local Panas community. Today about one and a half lakh converted Panas live in Kandhmal.
In this background, Swami laxmanand Saraswati arrived in the area in 1969, determined to work for the social and economic upliftment of the tribal people of Kandhmal district. He established an ashram called Chakkpad Ashram that carried forward the tradition of Adishankar in which service of poor people is considered worship of God by other means.

He gave education to thousands of tribal children, strengthened their Hindu faith and by acting as their protector and guardian thwarted many conversion campaigns driven by foreign funds. He was truly a revolutionary saint carrying forward the tradition of Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave and Thakkar Bapa who considered the service of poor and deprived as God worship.
On the day of Janashtami on August 23, some 10 to 15 people carrying AK-47 rifles assassinated him. In the firing, along with him were killed Mata Bhaktimayi, who was the matron of the girl’s hostel at the ashram, Swamiji’s disciple Amritanand and a child’s parent.

The violent incidents that followed were condemned by both the Pope as well as the Italian government. Prime minister Manmohan Singh, instead of rebuffing this attempt of foreign powers to comment on our internal affairs, actually expressed embarrassment at his own country.

India’s Catholic schools remained shut in protest of the violent incidents in Kandhamal that followed the death of Swamiji. In these Catholic schools, most of the students are Hindus, but these schools were not closed when a Hindu saint was murdered in cold blood. With this, the church as introduced to the country the tactic of using school children as pawns to pursue political agendas. This will have its own consequences in future.

Vatican was not bothered in the least that a peaceful Hindu saint doing social work was mercilessly killed by goons who it has been widely alleged are under the protection of the church. Nobody in his right mind can condone any kind of violence because no matter if a Hindu or Christian dies, we are all Indians. But the church and the UPA government in Delhi even communalized the pain of the Hindus over the death of the Swami.

In last year December, there was another attempt on Swamiji’s life which was not successful. After this attempt, many letters were written to the State Government and district administration for providing security to Swamiji but absolutely no action was taken by them. On August 9, in the Kulmaha village near Kandhamal, the Christians held a meeting. The meeting was attended by a notorious office-bearer of the All India Christian Council, the same person who some years ago gave a speech against India in the American Congress.

It essential for law-enforcement agencies to investigate the reason for the presence of this man in Kandhamal for many days preceding Swamiji’s murder. On August 13, a letter was received at Swamiji’s ashram threatening to eliminate him. The local newspapers or Orissa gave this letter a wide coverage, but absolutely no connection was taken by the state government to provide some kind of security to Swamiji.

Swamiji was well known in Kandhamal as a social reformer working in areas such as persuading people not to take alcohol and tobacco, maintain personal hygiene, regularly worship God and send their children for higher education. He established a Sanskrit school for the tribals. Many of his programmes in the areas of economic empowerment and medical facilities are still running in Kandhamal. Who could have gained by his murder? Local Christian elements immediately spread a canard that the Naxals-Maoists are responsible for his murder. This mischievous propaganda stopped only when the Maoists issued an official press release saying they have nothing to do with Swamiji’s killing.

Actually, no religion has been as brutal and barbaric for tribals all over the world as Christianity. The tribals in every Christianised country were converted on the strength of their slaughter. In 1493, Columbus discovered America. At that time, there were ten crore (100 million) tribal Red Indians in Americas as well as the Caribbean islands. Within 100 years of Columbus’ arrival, 70 million of these tribals got slaughtered by European Christians. In Cuba, Puerto Rico and Jamaica, there were 3 million tribals. Within 50 years of Columbus’s arrival, only 200 tribals were left. The rest got slaughtered. (Reference: “The Dark Side of Columbus’ Legacy” by Henry Ramsager.) The tribals of Australia, New Zealand and Brazil were similarly slaughtered or converted.

Social tension in India gets created when church becomes aggressive, abuses Hindu gods and goddesses and gets about converting people by hook or crook using massive resources. Nobody minds if anyone converts to any faith out of his own conviction and free will. But when conversions are done using deceit and force as a strategic move to reduce the Hindu population in an area, it is natural for Hindu anger to boil over.

Why is aggressive Christianity limited only to Hindu and Buddhist countries, and is never seen in Islamic countries? Instead of respecting the natural secularism ingrained in Hindus and Hinduism, the church tries to benefit from it to ensure their extinction.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Lookback: Udayan Namboodiri

Jodhaa Akbar is not a historical film, yet its makers are unapologetic about reopening old wounds by claiming it happened. Mischief, not love, is its central theme and it's time the Government did something about this odious trend

Setting off a pre-launch riot is a wearisomely familiar ploy deployed by Bollywood moghuls to ensure front-page space for products that would normally make only the Friday film column. It's as if nothing enhances a film's box office prospects more than a bus burnt or smashed furniture in a Legislative Assembly or, best of all, a bleeding boy in Baroda.

Jodhaa Akbar belongs to this perverse genre. The director must have known early enough that people from the martial castes of Rajasthan have issues with the hoary tradition of Akbar's "marriage alliances" with some 16th century Rajput potentates. Since conforming to facts is sacrilege in Bollywood, all that Gowarikar needed to do was use his artistic licence to flesh out the storyline with the Rajput perspective which, undoubtedly, would have set the cash registers ringing in the core market. And, if that was too much for his abilities, all that he could have done is introduce the words "the following film has no relation with historical facts".

Instead, the maker of Lagaan went gung-ho with crudity. The film's official web site, www.jodhaaakbar.com, has this to say about the storyline:

"Set in the 16th century, this epic romance begins as a marriage of alliance (sic) between two cultures and religions, for political gain, when King Bharmal of Amer giving his daughter's hand to Emperor Akbar. When Akbar accepts the marriage proposal, little does he know that in his efforts to strengthen his relations with the Rajputs, he would in turn be embarking on a new journey -- the journey of true love. From the battlefield where the young Jalaluddin was crowned, through the conquests that won him the title of Akbar the Great, to winning the love of the beautiful Jodhaa, Jodhaa Akbar traces the impressive graph of the mighty emperor and his romance with a defiant princess."

In this Saturday Special focus, BB Kumar (main article) and Anand Sharma (The Other Voice) have comprehensively eliminated the fiction about "Jodhabai" from whatever transpired in the sensuous corridors of Akbar's zenana in Fatehpur Sikri, which in the heyday of Mughal imperialism, was home to some 5,000 inmates. This is no 'saffronisation' -- even self-styled 'eminent' historians like Shireen Moosvi have gone on record with their disapproval with the culture of parodying history. Everybody who is semi-educated in Indian history has the right to feel a little disgusted by a Bollywood entertainer's sleight of hand for the truth.

Before long, the murmurs of protest already expressed in the Rajput community would spill over into the streets of Rajasthan's cities. There would be lathi-charges, cracked skulls and, who knows, even a martyr or two. Nothing, it would seem, would gladden Gowarikar more.

Apologists -- and there would be many before February is out -- would claim that much is sought to be made out of a little "oversight". There was no Jodhaa -- so what? Who can deny there was a marital alliance? Fine, but why make the admission after the damage caused by the original sin has caused so much trouble? Was it too much to expect Gowarikar to insert a qualification about Jodhaa Akbar's historical veracity? After all, KA Abbas had done as much in Mughal-e-Azam because contemporary historians had objected to the depiction of Anarkali as a historical figure.

It is strange that accumulated experience has not taught our Governments the necessity of protecting history as sacred. In the United States, nobody can make a film on any war fought by America without clearance from a department in the Pentagon whose sole job is to evaluate scripts. Even the Government of India has such a rule, but it pertains only to foreign filmmakers. The Censor Board should evolve a mechanism by which anticipated points of controversy are at least debated by the right people prior to certification. In Jodhaa Akbar's case, all that was necessary was to summon Gowarikar before a grand jury comprising Rajput community elders, the Rajasthan Government and historians, and ensuring that a minor adjustment or two is inserted. The scissors should be used only as a last resort.

The problem with India these days is its hyperbolic media. Generation of controversy is the summum bonum of self-preservation in this business. Suggestions of reining in artistic licence for maintaining public order are enough to send one shrill media madam into a rage over "cultural policing" and her competitor ranting blue murder over "Hindutva". In Jodhaa Akbar's case, watch out for more of the latter in the coming weeks. Secularist bombast is, after all, the leitmotif in media slogans raised to protect a MF Husain today, a James Laine tomorrow.

In 1990, one of the first acts of P Upendra, the Information Minister of the VP Singh Government, was to cancel the permission given by the Rajiv Gandhi Government to Roland Joffe to shoot City of Joy based on Dominique Lapierre's novel by the same name. The reason? Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, his counterpart in Calcutta, had decided that the book was racist; it degraded Calcutta which, contrary to the book, was such a 'socialist haven' and, generally, showed Indians in poor light.

The movie, made later after the right deals were struck, slipped into oblivion. But the need to recall that episode is important today. For, today's battleground for the descendants of Rana Pratap is the television studio. And they could use this bit of history as a useful incendiary to hurl back at the Liberals.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 The other voice: Anand Sharma | Sahitya Akademi Award winning novelist and historian

The makers of Jodhaa Akbar could have avoided injuring Rajput pride by making some minor adjustments with historical facts

About two years back, Ashutosh Gowarikar contacted me. He said that he was preparing the final script of a movie on Akbar and Jodha Bai of Jaipur, then known as Amer, and wanted my inputs on it.

We talked about the historical background to that legend and specific events from that era. Then he mentioned that his film was to focus on the "love" between Akbar and Jodha Bai. My immediate reaction was to point out to him that though there was a 'marriage' between Akbar and a princess of Amer, events show that there was hardly any love affair to precede it as the two had not even met before that 'marriage' was held.

But, Mr Gowarikar did not react and only said that he would get back to me before finalising the script, which he said would be shot in and around the city that is now called Jaipur. However, that was the last I heard from him. If he had indeed spoken to me again, I would certainly have corrected his perception with some basic facts.

In the middle of 16th century, Raja Bharmal, who ruled over Amer (Jaipur), was under tremendous pressure from all sides. On the one hand, he was facing the threat of an attack from the powerful Meena chieftains, and, on the other, the ruler of Jodhpur was making determined efforts to snatch some of his territory, including the strategically located Sambhar.

In January 1562, Akbar, then 20, was on his way to Ajmer. He had camped at Dausa, about 50 km from Amer. Raja Bharmal went to see him with the hope that Akbar could help him. Historical records confirm the meeting had taken place. Akbar reciprocated to the friendship offer because he knew the value of making peace in the neighbourhood of Delhi. The young emperor hoped to solidify alliances by marrying into the families of the rulers of Amer, Bikaner and Jodhpur.

In the meeting, it was agreed upon that Raja Bharmal would offer to get his daughter, Heera Kanwar, married to Akbar. The official records of the Jaipur royal family show that on February 6,1562, Heera Kanwar's wedding was solemnised with the Mughal ruler at Sambhar. Naturally, this caused a scandal in the Rajput society. The ruling families of Mewar and Udaipur severed ties with Amer. They also advised the other Rajput royal families to follow suit as it was against their pride to marry their daughters to non-Rajputs. A Muslim groom was out of question.

It remains a mystery how this Heer Kanwar came to be known as Jodha Bai. The origin of the legend that Jodha Bai was the mother of Prince Salim, who later became Emperor Jehangir, is equally vague. Mughal records show that the woman who Akbar married in Sambhar was renamed Mariam Jamani. It is also believed, albeit without corroborating written evidence that Raja Bharmal passed off a daughter he had sired through a concubine as the princess.

Now, coming to the aspect of 'love' between Akbar and the Rajput princess, what is certain is that the proposal of marriage was mooted at Dausa in January when Akbar was on his way to Ajmer. However, he never entered Amer. So, by no stretch of imagination could love have blossomed between the 20-year-old Emperor and the mysterious woman in such a short time because the wedding was conducted in the first week of February, a matter of weeks.

Though I cannot rule out the fact that there was indeed a union -- later, with Heera Kunwar converting to Islam and adopting a new name, it became a proper marriage under Islamic Law -- I find it difficult to accept the love affair angle which Gowarikar has built his 'magnum opus' on.

Akbar stocked his harem with at least 10 other Rajput women, all of whom were described as "princesses" by contemporary court hacks. These were from Gwalior, Dungarpur, Jodhpur, Bikaner and Merta.

But the history of Jodhpur, known as Marwar Ri Khayat and written by the court historian of Maharaja Man Singh, mentions that there was indeed one Jodha Bai, an offspring of one Udai Singh, who was married to Akbar's son Salim. This took place in 1588, that is, 26 years later, and produced a son, Khurram, who later became Emperor Shah Jahan. This Jodha Bai's Islamic name was Taj Bibi.

But another historian, Shyamal Das, opines that Jodha Bai is a total concoction -- the real name was Man Bai. The name Man Mati was also in circulation. Anyway, this woman was indeed the mother of Khurram and she committed suicide in 1603.

Many Rajput organisations of Rajasthan are opposing the screening of Gowarikar's film. They believe, and rightly so, that it is a distortion of history and demand that the Rajasthan Government's Department of Culture look into the matter.

Such needless controversies could easily be avoided if the script had been submitted to a responsible body for whetting. Whenever a foreign producer wants to make a film on India or on the history of India, he must approach the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry for permission. Such producers have to submit the script of the proposed film for clearance.

In a similar fashion, if anybody wanted to produce a film on the history of Rajasthan, he or she should get the permission from the State Government to ensure that history is not fooled around with.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Prejudice and past

BB Kumar

Indian audiences don't usually take kindly to films that distort history. The Jodhaa in Jodhaa Akbar is pure flight of fancy, while the Akbar is a secularist's back-projected mahamanav

Indian history, especially of the medieval period, does not lack documentation. This has, however, not prevented several colonial and Marxist historians from distorting and whitewashing inconvenient facts. What is interesting is the tri-junction of interests promoted by the Imperialists, the Marxists and groups promoting Semitic religions in India at the cost of Hinduism. The gravity gets compounded when Bollywood is recruited by this Axis to attempt the conversion of lies into popular truths.

Bollywood has been making films on historical characters for many decades now. Often, directors neglect facts and merrily distort them by taking refuge in what they call "commercial compulsions". However, such insidious tricks end up hurting the sensitivity of viewers. For instance, Jodhaa Akbar, a mega-budget venture of director Ashutosh Gowarikar, with Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in the lead roles, attempts to project the Mughal era as the 'golden' period.

This travesty of truth has sparked off protests in Rajasthan and the momentum may increase after its release. The leaders of the Rajput community maintain that Jodha was Jehangir's wife and not Akbar's, unlike what was shown in K Asif's Mughal-e-Azam earlier and is now depicted in Jodhaa Akbar.

As a matter of fact, nobody called Jodhaa has ever been associated with Mughal emperor Akbar. Abul Fazl, Badauni and Nizamuddin Ahmed never mentioned any Jodha. Similarly, the Tuzuk-i-Jahangir, the Ambar Raj Gharana Vanshawali, etc, are silent about Jodhabai as Akbar's wife.

History says that a Hindu princess called Hira Kunwari was the wife of Akbar. She was a daughter of Raja Bharmal of Amber, and was married to Akbar as a political contract. She was one of the three main wives of the Mughal ruler, and gave birth to Jehangir, though many do not believe so.

Gowarikar claims to have "hired a team of historians and scholars" to help him keep things historically accurate. After two years of strenuous exercise, he came out with the statement: "There was no reference in any book about what happened between Jodhaa and Akbar. I have taken extreme care to make sure viewers believe in the relationship." Thus, the director erred by making a 'historical film' without any historical basis. Second, he has given the movie a romantic angle, ignoring the fact that premarital contact, and that too between a 16th century Rajput princess and a Mughal ruler was not only impossible, but its mere suggestion could lead to mass jauhar.

Akbar was notorious for his glad eye. The sensuousness that prevailed in his royal court is recorded by his chief hack, Abul Fazl, who wrote in Ain-i-Akbari: "The dancing girls (from Akbar's harem) used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well-known courtier wanted to have a virgin he should first have His Majesty's permission."

One of his motives behind waging war was to appropriate women for his harem. At the height of his power, the zenana at Fatehpur Sikri had about 5,000 women. But the Rajput women of Chittor preferred jauhar rather than be estimated by the Mughal's lecherous eyes.

Gowarikar, by highlighting a so-called marriage between a Rajput woman and Akbar, has added grist to the secular mill. Our 'secular' mercenaries, who often don the garb of historians, would like us to believe that everything was good during the medieval period. They put forth the idea that the accounts of destruction of Hindu temples by even Muslim chroniclers constitute nothing but flights of fancy. The Mughal era, therefore, was one of 'communal harmony'.

It needs mention that Akbar, at least in his initial days, was not as accommodating as secularists project. He indulged in massive massacres of 'infidels' (read Hindus) and destroyed quite a few temples. The secularists are strangely silent when asked why, despite 'marrying' Hindu women, they never gave their daughters to any Hindu prince?

Another uncomfortable question that meets with deathly silence is why the women were converted after 'marriages' and none of the children of such unions were allowed to follow the religion of their mothers.

Why is so much of greatness attached to Akbar? Maybe it's because he was the first Muslim ruler to open the doors of the state to non-Muslims. Yet this broadening of state administration was influenced by political considerations.

Akbar first attempted to restructure the nobility between 1560 and 1575 when revolts by Turani nobles severely compromised his position. No wonder it was during this period that he entered into matrimonial alliances with Rajput kings, besides abolishing the pilgrim tax (1562) and jizya (1564). Yet, the moment the clouds of uncertainty were cleared, he reverted to his old habit, which was most disdainfully seen at Chittor in 1568, when Akbar ordered the massacre of 30,000 peasants taking refuge in the fort. Seven years later, jizya was re-introduced.

Finally, Akbar turned 'secular' in 1580-81, when he faced existential crisis at the hands of his fellow religionists. Only Indian Muslim and Rajput nobles remained loyal to him during that period, while his foreign nobles -- Turanis and Iranians -- either revolted or remained non-committal. This understanding led to a definitive shift in Akbar's attitude, leading to the abolition of jizya for the second time in 1580.

But did the 'secularisation' of Akbar impact his administrative set up? It doesn't seem so. Power continued to remain the preserve of Islamic groups coming from West Asian countries. At least 70 per cent of the ruling class consisted of immigrants, primarily Turanis and Iranians.

As WH Moreland writes, in the course of 40 years of Akbar's regime, only 21 Hindus were recruited into the ranks of the upper nobility, of whom 17 were Rajputs. In the lower nobility, the Hindu representation was a paltry 37, of whom 30 were Rajputs.

Finally, does it pay to distort historical facts? If not, then what's the need for Gowarikar to do so? If one goes by the experience of the Shahrukh Khan-starrer, Asoka, making a movie on well-known historical characters is a risk, as it unnecessarily raises viewers' expectations. Asoka sank at the box office without any trace. Will Jodhaa Akbar follow suit?

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 THE MYTH OF AKBAR


It is curious but true that the very historians who refuse to see the pre-Akbar period of Muslim rule as a nightmare for Hindus, hail Akbar as the harbinger of a dazzling dawn for the same Hindus. They point out as to how Akbar abolished the pilgrim tax and the jizyah, how he appointed Hindus to high positions, and how he extended to them this or that concession which they had not enjoyed earlier. One may very well ask these worthies that if these discriminatory taxes and disabilities did not exist earlier, how come you find Akbar freeing the Hindus from them? All that one is bound to get by way of an answer will be another bundle of casuistry.


There is no dearth of Hindu historians who heap Akbar with the choicest encomiums. Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava is a typical example. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru goes much further and proclaims Akbar as the father of Indian nationalism. A Hindu who takes all these high-sounding stories with a pinch of salt, is rather rare nowadays.


On the other hand, most Muslim historians and theologians frown upon Akbar as a villain in the history of Islam in India. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi who believes that Hindus were far more happy under Muslim rule than under that of their own princes, accuses Akbar of jeopardising Pax Moslemaica by tempering with the established tenets of Muslim polity. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has written that if Ahmad Sirhindi had not come to the rescue, Akbar had almost finished Islam in India. It is only in post-Independence India that some Muslim historians have come forward to present Akbar as the pioneer of Secularism in this country. But we know what Secularism means in Muslim mouths, particularly if the Muslim happens to be a Marxist as well. For them, Akbar is no more than a Muslim hero for Hindu consumption.


One has, therefore, to go to the original sources in order to find the truth about Akbar. The story which these sources tell can be summed up as follows:

1. There was nothing Indian about Akbar except that he lived his life in India, fought his wars in India, built his empire in India, and dragged many Indian women into his harem. He knew nothing about India�s spiritual traditions, or India�s history, or India�s culture except for what he heard from some native sycophants who visited his court for very mundane reasons. No Hindu saint or scholar worth his salt cared to meet or educate him about things Indian. It was only some Jain munis who came close to him. But then Jain munis have always been in search of royal patronage like the Christian missionaries. Moreover, Akbar used these munis for influencing some Rajput princes who would have otherwise remained recalcitrant.


2. Akbar was every inch an Islamic bandit from abroad who conquered a large part of India mainly on the strength of Muslim swordsmen imported from Central Asia and Persia. He took great pride in proclaiming that he was a descendant of Taimur and Babur, and longed to recover the homelands of his forefathers in Transoxiana. He continued to decorate his name with the Islamic honorific ghãzî which he had acquired at the commencement of his reign by beheading the half-dead Himu. The wars he waged against the only resistant Hindu kingdoms - Mewar and Gondwana - had all the characteristics of classic jihãd. Whenever he wanted to celebrate some happy event or seek blessing for some great undertaking - which was quite often - he went on a pilgrimage to the dargah of Muinuddin Chishti, the foremost symbol of Islam�s ceaseless war on Hindus and Hinduism. He sent rich gifts to many centres of Muslim pilgrimage including Mecca and Medina, and carried on negotiations with the Portuguese so that voyages by Muslim pilgrims could be facilitated. In his letters to the Sharifs of Mecca and the Uzbek king of Bukhara, he protested that he was not only a good Muslim but also a champion of Islam, and that the orthodox Ulama who harboured doubts about him did not understand his game of consolidating a strong and durable Islamic empire in India.


3. The concessions which Akbar made to Hindus were not motivated by any benevolence towards Hindus or Hinduism on his part. He was out to win Hindu support in his fight with two inveterate foes of every Muslim empire-builder - the Muslim chieftains and the die-hard Ulama. Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughlaq had faced the same foes earlier, but failed to overcome them because they could not break out of the closed circle of the foreign Muslim fraternity in India. Akbar succeeded in fixing both the foes because he tried a new method, and discovered very soon that it worked. He fixed the Muslim chieftains with the help of Rajput princes and their retinues. He fixed the Ulama partly by making them fall foul of each other in the Ibadat Khana, and partly by flirting with jogis and Jains munis and Christian missionaries in order to frighten them. They had nothing except royal patronage to fatten upon. There is no evidence that Akbar�s association with some spokesmen of rival religions was inspired by any sincere seeking on his part, or that the association improved his mind in any way. He remained a prisoner of Islamic thought-categories to the end of his days.


4. Nor did he have to pay a heavy price for Hindu support. Fortunately for him, he started functioning at a time when Hindu resistance to Islamic imperialism stood at a low ebb except in small pockets like Mewar and Gondwana. Hindu resistance had been led so far by the Rajput princes. But numerous wars fought by them with Muslim marauders for several centuries had exhausted their manpower as well as material resources. Akbar discovered it very soon that he could buy Rajput help in exchange for a few gestures which might have sounded ominous to orthodox Islam at that time but which proved only superficial in the long run. In fact, when one comes to think of it all, Hindus had to pay a very heavy price for those gestures from Akbar. He demanded Hindu princesses for his harem, which meant surrender of Hindu honour. He employed Hindu warriors not only against Muslim rebels but also against Hindu freedom fighters, which meant prostitution of Hindu heroism. For all practical purposes, he made the Hindus wield the sword of Islam not only in his own lifetime but right upto our own times. The pecuniary loss suffered by the Islamic state due to abolition of the pilgrim tax and the jizyah was compensated more than many times by the consolidation of an Islamic empire with a streamlined revenue system such as extracted from the Hindu masses, particularly the peasantry, the heavy cost of extending that empire by means of numerous wars, maintaining Mughal pomp and pageantry, and building monuments like the Taj. By the end of the Mughal empire, Hindu masses stood reduced to the subsistence level.


5. It was during the reign of Akbar that Muslim adventurers from many Islamic countries abroad started flocking towards India on an unprecedented scale, and made the Islamic establishment in the country stronger than ever before. They occupied all the top positions in the army as well as the administration of the Mughal empire. Statistics may be marshalled in order to show that Hindu share in government posts went on increasing till the time of Aurangzeb. But there is no gainsaying the fact that Hindu say in the policies of the Mughal empire went on decreasing from the days of Akbar�s immediate successor onwards. Even during the reign of Akbar, Muslim functionaries at the lower levels did not stop molesting Hindus in various ways normal to Islam. Many instances can be cited. Many a magnate in Akbar�s court were in close contact with the orthodox Ulama and Sufis led by Shykh Ahmad Sirhindi who went about saying publicly that Hindu should either be made to embrace Islam or treated like dogs. They came out into the open as soon as Akbar was dead, and their progeny continued to progress towards renewed power and prestige from the reign of Jahangir onwards till they again rose to the top under Aurangzeb.

It is true that the main fault lay with the Hindus for not being able to see through Akbar�s camouflage, and for helping him in consolidating an imperial power which Islam had never known in India in the pre-Akbar period of Muslim rule. But the fact remains that but for Akbar laying the firm foundations, there would have been no sadist scoundrel like Jahangir, no abominable criminal like Shah Jahan, and no Islamic monster like Aurangzeb for heaping endless torments and humiliations on Hindus. Let there be no doubt that far from being a dazzling dawn, the reign of Akbar was only the beginning of a darker night which continues till today in the form of Nehruvian Secularism.
http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch10.htm

QUOTE
When Akbar had Rajput armies fight his Rajput enemies, he rejoiced at the sight of "Hindus wielding the sword of Islam".� When his archers could not distinguish between the Rajput mercenaries and the Rajput freedom-fighters, he told them that it didn't matter, since anyone killed would be a Kafir anyway.� India's greatest Moghul is often mindlessly lauded by Hindus as a "secular" ruler, but while he should be credited with a certain wisdom, he was and remained an enemy of the Infidels.� Unlike the Delhi sultans, who constantly provoked Hindu uprisings with their cruel politics of jihad (apart from weakening themselves with their internecine fighting), Akbar managed to consolidate a Muslim empire by incorporating a sufficient number of Hindus in his apparatus.�

Thus, his abolition of the jizya (which could seldom be collected in rural areas where most Hindus lived) need not be read as a gesture of communal amity, but rather as a clever way of opening new tax channels to the rural masses through mostly Hindu tax collectors.� He extracted a much larger revenue from Hindu tax-payers in the form of land tax or other secular formulas, than his predecessors had managed to do through the jizya.� And it is through Akbar's tax collecting system that Aurangzeb would later collect his re-instituted jizya.

Muslim Psyche After September 11, 2001 Murarilal G and Khali G,

Give us Marathi speaking Sufi Saibaba who lived in a Masjid but called it Dwarka Mai. Who also claimed his spiritual lineage in Datta or Natha Pantha. Give us Kabeer but DO NOT LIE. We do not need Durbari Gs history. Dont give BS of Choda bais and her laundas like Akbars. Mollywood is for chutya banaw poor Abduls and Amars. Abrahmic folks are for loot, plunder, rape and enslaving of people. It's a curse on humanity.

Khali G would yu please collaborate with me on movie/serial

Abrahmic Gandu bhi kabhi Hindu Tha.

It will do roaring biz like Sans Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi. You are well qualified to throw light on why Shantic (aka Islamic) gandus turned in to plate shitters after conversions. Why do they become more Arabs than Arabs? Why do they throw their language, history prde in ancestry?

One simple question if Sufism converted most of the Indians because of Hindu casticism then WHY

1. in recent history 24% Hindus in Baki land at the time of partition became 2% today?

2. bhangis and bonded labor haris in bakiland is Hindu and Christians?

FOLKS,

CAST IS NOT SAME AS VARNA OR JATI. Nanda of magadha was born in shudra jati but becaeme kshatriya by varana. So also chandragupta morya. One could say Maloji raje Bhonsale , Shivaji the great's grand dad was Shudra but his valiant son could get Raja's daughter as wife.

Caste is an alien word. Yes, there were rigid walls created but if one carefully looks Varanashram fossilized into so called caste because of brutal political Islam. Extreme Boudha and Jaina was the culprit for loss of Kshatra Dharma. Kshatra Dharma is necessary to protect Dharma as a whole. Jaina and Bodha and its influence on Sanatan Dharma was Adharmic and it fell prey to the low life brutes from Arabia and central Asia.


===================
The other side of Sufism
- R.K. Ohri, IPS

A reappraisal of the role of Sufis working as missionaries of Islam

For centuries the Sufi creed and Sufi music have been termed as great symbols of spiritualism and promoters of peace and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims.

The cleverly marketed concept of Sufi spiritualism has been unquestioningly accepted as the hallmark of Hindu-Muslim unity.

It is time we studied the history of Sufis, tried to track the narrative of their coming to India and analysed their explicit missionary role in promoting conversions to Islam.

More importantly, it needs to be assessed how did the Sufis conduct themselves during reckless killings and plunders by the Muslim invaders ? Did they object to the senseless mass killings and try to prevent unremitting plunder of Hindu temples and innocent masses? Did the Sufis ever object to the capture of helpless men and women as slaves and the use of the latter as objects of carnal pleasure ?

These are some of the questions to which answers have to be found by every genuine student of Indian history.

Most Sufis came to India either accompanying the invading armies of Islamic marauders, or followed in the wake of the sweeping conquests made by the soldiers of Islam.

At least the following four famous Sufis accompanied the Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India to attack the Hindu rulers, seize their kingdoms and riches and took recourse to extensive slaughtering of the commoners.

Almost all Sufi masters were silent spectators to the murderous mayhem and reckless plunder of temples ands cities by the marauding hordes across the sub-continent.

Taking advantage of the fact that the Hindu masses are deeply steeped in spiritual tradition and mysticism, the Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing balm on the defeated, bedegralled and traumatized commoners with a view to converting them to the religion of the victors.

The following well-known Sufi masters came to India along with the invading Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India in wave after wave:

Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D.
Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of Islam.

Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.
Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin came to Delhi in the year 1335 accompanying a contingent of the Muslim invaders.
Additionally, the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of conversions by

Bahauddin Zakariya of Multan several decades after the Hindu ruler had been defeated and the kingdom laid waste after repetitive plunder and manslaughter.

Like all Sufi masters, his main task was to apply the balm of spiritual unity on the traumatized Hindu population and then gradually persuade them to convert to Islam. Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and wreckless plunder, nor to the destruction of temples, nor for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement of the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of Ghazni and Baghdad.

Operating from the sidelines of spiritualism they even participated in the nitty-gritty of governance to help the Muslim rulers consolidate their authority in the strife torn country. And significantly, their participation in the affairs of the State was not conditional upon the Muslim rulers acting in a just and even handed manner. On the contrary, the Sufis invariably tried to help the Sultans in following the path shown by the Prophet and the Shariah.

Another important objective of the spiritual and mystic preachings of the Sufi masters was to blunt the edge of Hindu resistance and prevent them from taking up arms to defend their hearth and home, their motherland and their faith, through the façade of peace and religious harmony. The Naqashbandi Sufis had very close relations with Jahangir and Aurangzeb.

The well known Sufi Saint of Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634) held that the execution of the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory. He believed and openly proclaimed that Islam and Hinduism were antithesis of each other and therefore could not co-exist.

Even the Chishti Sufi, Miyan Mir, who had been a friend of Guru Arjun Dev, later on turned his back on the Sikh Guru when the latter was arrested by Jahangir and sent for execution.

It may be recalled that the great Sufi master of the eleventh century, Al Qushairi (A.D.1072) had unambiguously declared that there was no discord between the aims of the Sufi ‘haqiqa’ and the aims of the Sharia. The definition given by Al Hujwiri should be able to quell any doubt about the commitment of Sufis in upholding the supremacy of the Islamic faith over all other religions.

That dogma has been the key component of the philosophy of Sufism not only in India, but across the world - from India to Hispania (i.e., the Spain).

The great Sufi master, Al Hujwiri, laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the ultimate Truth, and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law for all Sufis.

In other words, the Sufism and the ulema represent the same two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally accepted and obeyed by all Muslims. By definition therefore Sufi masters could be no exception.

The renowned ninth century Sufi master, Al Junaid, also known as “the Sheikh of the Way”, and widely revered as the spiritual ancestor of Sufi faith, had categorically proclaimed that for Sufis “All the mystic paths are barred, except to him who followeth in the footsteps of the Messenger (i.e., Prophet Muhammad) [Source: Martin Lings, What is Sufism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1975, p.101]. As pointed out by Reynold A. Nicholson in the Preface to the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ (Taj & Co., Delhi, 1982). “no sufis, not even those who have attained the highest degree of holiness, are exempt from the obligation of obeying the religious law”.

In fact, the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ written by Ali bin Al-Hujwiri, who was also known as Data Ganj Baksh, was widely regarded as the grammar of Sufi thought and practice. Most Sufis have invariably drawn on the contents of this treatise for preaching the sufi thought ( also known as sufi silsilas). As already stated, on page 140 of Kashaf al Mahjub Al Hujwiri loudly proclaims that “the words there is no God save Allah are Truth, and the words Muhammed is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law.

K.A. Nizami in his celebrated book, The Life and Times of Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (Idarah-I Adabiyat-i-Delhi, Delhi) has stated that the Auliya openly used to say that “what the ulama seek to achieve through speech, we achieve by our behaviour.” The Auliya was a firm believer in the need for unquestioned obedience of every Muslim, every Sufi, to the dictates of the ulema.

According to K.A. Nizami, another Sufi saint Jamal Qiwamu’d-din wrote that though he had been associated with the Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya for years, “but never did he find him missing a single sunnat …… ”.

The well known authority on Sufism, S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of Sufism in India’ that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous gifts given to him by Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was unconcerned with the source of the gift, provided it was paid in cash. Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned loyalty and obedience to the ulema.

As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of Hell. In his khutba he would leave no one in doubt that Allah has created Paradise for the Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what they have done”. It has been categorically stated on page 161 in the famous treatise, Fawaid al-Fuad, translated by Bruce B. Lawrence (Paulist Press, New York, 1992) that the Auliya confirmed on the authority of the great Islamic jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, that the perdition of the unbelievers is certain and that Hell is the only abode for them, even if they agreed to confess total loyalty to Allah on the Day of Judgment.

In the above mentioned treatise on Sufi philosphy, Fuwaid al-Fuad, a very interesting instance of enslaving the kaffir Hindus for monetary gain has been cited which shows how another Sufi, Shayakh Ali Sijzi, provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the lucrative slave trade. He had advised the dervish that he should take “these slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”. And it was confirmed by Nizamuddin Auliya that “the Dervish obeyed”.

Obviously therefore, neither spiritual ethics and nor justice to all, including the infidels, were the strong points of Sufi saints.

If the narrative of the preachings and acts of Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer are taken as indication of his religious philosophy and deeds, he emerges as a sufi master who nursed a deep hatred against the infidel
Hindus and showed utter contempt for their religious beliefs.

As elaborated by S.S.A. Rizvi in ‘A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117), there is a reference in the book, Jawahar-i- Faridi, to the fact that when Moinuddin Chishti reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer, where a number of holy shrines of Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef kebab at the sacred place surrounded by many temples.

It is further claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi that the Khwaja had dried the 2 holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the magical heat of Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar recite the Kalma.

The Khwaja had a burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithviraj Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam”. [Source: Siyar’l Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of ‘A History of Sufism in India’].

Throughout the Muslim rule all Sufis enjoyed full confidence, royal favour and patronage of the cruel Muslim rulers. Though foolishly accepted as “secular” by most Hindus seeking spiritual solace after being battered, bruised and marginalised, almost all Sufi saints dogmatically followed the commandments contained in the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia.

Historians have recorded that many Sufi saints had accompanied armies of the Muslim invaders to use their spiritual powers in furtherance of Islam’s conquests. Not one of them raised even a little finger to forbid slaughter of the innocents, nor did they question the imposition of jiziya by Muslim rulers.

In fact, most of them guided the Muslim rulers in carrying forward their mission of conquest and conversion by furthering their campaigns of plundering the wealth of Hindus of which many Sufis willingly partook share.

It was almost a taboo for Sufis, the so-called saints, to accept a Hindu ascending the throne of any kingdom during the heydays of the Muslim rule. . In an example narrated by S.A.A. Rizvi on page 37 of his well researched book, The Wonder That Was India (Vol.II, Rupa & Co, 1993, New Delhi) it is pointed out that when the powerful Bengali warrior, king Ganesha, captured power in Bengal in the year 1415 A.D., Ibrahim Shah Sharqi, attacked his kingdom at the request of outraged ulema and numerous Sufis of Bengal.

In the ensuing strife, the leading Sufi of Bengal, Nur Qutb-i-Alam, interceded and secured a political agreement to the benefit of the Muslim community and satisfaction of Sufis.

Under dire threat King Ganesha was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of his 12 years old son, Jadu, who was converted to Islam and proclaimed as Sultan Jalaluddin - to the satisfaction of the Sufi masters.

Similarly Sultan Ahmed Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), though a practitioner of Sufi philosophy, was a diehard iconoclast who took delight in destroying temples, as stated in the same tome, by S.A.A. Rizvi.

The Sultan also used to force the Rajput chieftains to marry their daughters to him so that they would become outcastes in their own community. And the endgame of the Sultan could as well be that perhaps some of the outcaste Rajputs might then opt to become Muslims.

Unfortunately due to relentless colonization of the Hindu mind during 1000 years long oppressive Muslim rule, the Hindu masses till date have failed to realise that the so-called Sufi philosophy of religious harmony is a one-way street. This trend of Hindus praying at tombs and dargahs has been nurtured by the strong undercurrent of belief in spiritualism among Hindu masses, even educated classes.

That is the crux of the matter. Deeply steeped in their traditional belief in spirituality and mysticism, the Hindus have developed the custom of visiting dargahs and continue to pray at the tombs of Sufis, no Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Godesses.

For them it would be an act of grossest sacrilege and unacceptable violation of the basic tenets of Sufism. That is the truth about the Sufi saints and their philosophy of inter-religious harmony.

Faith and Religion Murarilal G

Since you like "wordy" G-giri, even though I am not into this and do not completely agree with this, it might be interesting to you:

"The deliberately viscious and hateful portrayal of Hindu civlisation in America is due to a phenomenon called "Hindu Phobia." White Christians, especially American intellectuals and elite who are the defenders of White Man's civilisation, have a visceral hatred of Hindu civilisation, driven by racial and religious motives.

The reason is not far to seek. They take a look at the Hindu spiritual literature -- Vedas, Gita, Upanishads and the six philosophies -- and they have their panties in a twist. There is nothing comparable in the entire western civilisation to this literature, and this Hindu literature got written when the Whites were swinging from trees.

Then they see Yoga, Ayurveda, classical dances, etc. which are the finest expressions of human intellect, and the White racist Christians are rolling in agony. Then they come to our ancient sciences, mathematics, astronomy, metallurgy (the Delhi iron pillar that never rusts), and so on and they realise that they are looking at a formidable, very ancient civilisation that is still alive and well and which can still overtake them in a matter of another five decades. India and Hinduism have a depth that their religion and culture can never hope to match.

In contrast to Hindus, most achievements of Western civilisation are not more than 200 years old. This gives rise to an intense hatred and a wish to destroy and burn everything related to Hinduism to the ground. Hinduphobia is the result. This is nothing new. All inferior civlisations (though temporarily militarily powerful) have this urge when they come face to face with an ancient but highly evolved civlisation. This is how Afghans felt when Mohammad Ghuri invaded India from the poverty stricken barren land of Afghanistan. The Westerners of today, like the Afghans of 1000 year ago, find themselves in the same position -- being militarily powerful over India but intellectually and civlisationally much inferior. (This is the "bully v/s the nerd" paradigm.) All the wealth of the white man acquired in the last two centuries doesn't hide the fact that their civilisation is only skin deep and is already falling apart.

In American academia and power elite, Hindu phobia is now reaching the same intensity as phobia of Jews before the second world war. All these lies and spins about caste, Brahmin supremacy (when Brahmins have always been barred from holding political power in ancient and medieval India), projecting Hindus as fundamentalist barbarians (over-emphasis on sati, female infanticide and abortions, dowry, bride burning, etc.) and never mentioning our civilisational achievements are due to the Hindu phobia of Americans.

We have to be very careful and keep American intellectuals and power elite at bay and not allow them to infiltrate our academia and national space, because they carry an intense hatred of Hindus and Hinduism just under their skin and their objective is our destruction. They are united soldiers of White civilisation and we have to be on our guard.

The American power elite and church still remember the 'Hare Krishna, Hare Rama' hippie days of the sixties very well and their teenagers flocking to Goa and Rishikesh. At no cost do they want their youth to get exposed to hindu spiritual literature again. All this deliberate misportrayal of Hinduism and Hindu civilisation is just a pre-emptive move to keep their youth away from the wealth of our culture, especially its intellectual output over the ages. But try as hard as they can, new challenges of Hinduism infiltratng their civilisation keep cropping up for them. These days they are grappling with the wild popularity of Yoga and the trend of White Yogis adopting Sanskrit names and teaching Yoga Sutras to lay people.

This link will show you the fear White Christian elite people have of Hinduism swamping their civilisation:

http://www.amazon.com/Hinduism-Invades- ... 0766180131

Here is a good article by Rajiv Malhotra on Hindu-phobia in American academia and press.

http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/p ... phobia.htm

Here is another article:

Exposing Academic Hinduphobia
http://www.boloji.com/bookreviews/124.htm

Even Wikipedia has a page on Hindu Phobia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduphobia

To understand the real effect our spiritual literature has on the Whites, you have to read what the American intellectuals had to say in mid 19th century when first English translations of Gita, Vedas and Upanishads became available in America.
"

It\'s A Deal After All! Caste Studies by the West:

“In that Country the laws of religion, the laws of the land, and the laws of honor, are all united and consolidated in one, and bind a man eternally to the rules of what is called his caste”
—Edmund Burke 1

For Westerners when thinking of India it is hard not to think of caste. In comparative sociology and in common parlance alike, caste has become a central symbol for India, indexing it as fundamentally different from other places as well as ex-pressing its essence. A long history of western writing— from the grand treatise of the Abbé Dubois to the general anthropology of Louis Dumont; from the piles of statistical and descriptive volumes of British colonial censuses starting in 1872 to the eye-catching headlines of the New York Times— has identified caste as the basic form of Indian society. Caste has been seen by west as omnipresent in Indian history and as one of the major reasons why India has no history, or at least no sense of history.
In the year 1871-72 the first approach was made to the taking of a general census for the whole of India at a given date. Enumerations of the people had already been made in the North-West Provinces in 1853 and 1865, in Oude in 1869, in the Punjab in 1855 and 1868, in the Hyderabad Assigned Districts in 1867, and in the Central Provinces in 1866; while in Madras quinquennial returns have been prepared since 1851-52 by the officers of the Revenue Department, giving with more or less accuracy the numbers of the people in each district, and in British Burma also a tolerably correct census is made each year for the purpose of the capitation rate. Nor was the Government supposed to be without some means of forming an estimate of the numbers under its rule in Bengal, in Bombay, or in the minor provinces, though in Bengal at least the estimate has been found to have been utterly wrong. The Census of 1871 was, however, an attempt to obtain for the whole of India statistics of the age, caste, religion, occupation, education, and infirmities of the population.
In The Discovery of India, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "Almost everyone who knows anything at all about India has heard of the caste system; almost every outsider and many people in India condemn it or criticize it as a whole." Nehru did not like the caste system any more than he admired the widely heralded "spiritual" foundations of Indian civilization, but even he felt ambivalence about it. Although he noted that caste had resisted "not only the powerful impact of Buddhism and many centuries of Afghan and Mughal rule and the spread of Islam," as also "the strenuous efforts of innumerable Hindu re-formers who raised their voices against it," he felt that caste was finally beginning to come undone through the force of basic economic changes. And yet Nehru was not sure what all this change would unleash. "The conflict is between two approaches to the problem of social organization, which are diametrically opposed to each other: the old Hindu conception of the group being the basic unit of organization, and the excessive individualism of the west, emphasizing the individual above the group."

Westerner will ask why it is that caste has become for so many the core symbol of community in India, whereas for others, even in serious critique, caste is still the defining feature of Indian social organization. For a long time, views of caste differ markedly: from those who see it as a religious system to those who view it as merely social or economic; from those who admire the spiritual foundations of a sacerdotal hierarchy to those who look from below and see the tyranny of Brahmans (all the more insidious because of the ritual mystifications that attend domination); from those who view it as the Indian equivalent of community to those who see it as the primary impediment to community. But an extraordinary range of commentators, from James Mill to Herbert Risley, from Hegel to Weber, from G. S. Ghurye to M. N. Srinivas, from Louis Dumont to McKim Marriott, from E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker to B. R. Ambedkar, from Gandhi to Nehru, among many others who will populate the text that follows, accept that caste— and specifically caste forms of hierarchy, whether valorized or despised— is somehow fundamental to Indian civilization, Indian culture, and Indian tradition.

Caste, as we know it today, is not in fact some unchanged survival of ancient India, not some single system that reflects a core civilization value, not a basic expression of Indian tradition. Rather, caste (again, as we know it today) is a modern phenomenon, that it is, specifically, the product of an historical encounter between India and Western colonial rule. It was under the British that "caste" became a single term capable of expressing, organizing, and above all "systematizing" India's diverse forms of social identity, community, and organization. This was achieved through an identifiable (if contested) ideological canon as the result of a concrete encounter with colonial modernity during two hundred years of British domination. In short, colonialism made caste what it is today. It produced the conditions that made possible the opening lines of this book, by making caste the central symbol of Indian society. And it did its work well; as Nehru was powerfully aware, there is now no simple way of wishing it away, no easy way to imagine social forms that would transcend the languages of caste that have become so inscribed in ritual, familial, communal, socioeconomic, political, and public theaters of quotidian life.

Colonial conquest was not just the result of the power of superior arms, military organization, political power, or economic wealth— as important as these things were. Colonialism was made possible, and then sustained and strengthened, as much by cultural technologies (to be tried in Iraq after occupation by US) of rule as it was by the more obvious and brutal modes of conquest that first established power on foreign shores. The cultural effects of colonialism have until recently been too often ignored or displaced into the inevitable logics of modernization and world capitalism; and this only because it has not been sufficiently recognized that colonialism was itself a cultural project of control. Colonial knowledge both enabled conquest and was produced by it; in certain important ways, knowledge was what colonialism was all about. Cultural forms in societies newly classified as "traditional" were reconstructed and transformed by this knowledge, which created new categories and oppositions between colonizers and colonized, European and Asian, modern and traditional, West and East.
Through the delineation and reconstitution of systematic grammars for vernacular languages, the control of Indian territory through cartographic technologies and picturesque techniques of rule, the representation of India through the mastery and display of archaeological mementos and ritual texts, the taxing of India through the reclassification and assessment of land use, property form, and agrarian structure, and the enumeration of India through the statistical technology of the census, Britain set in motion transformations every bit as powerful as the better-known consequences of military and economic imperialism. British colonialism played a critical role in both the identification and the production of Indian "tradition." Current debates about modernity and tradition fail to appreciate the extent to which the congeries of beliefs, customs, practices, and convictions that have been designated as traditional are in fact the complicated byproduct of colonial history. Bernard Cohn has argued that the British simultaneously misrecognized and simplified things Indian, imprisoning the Indian subject into the typecast role it assigned under the name of tradition.

A society based on caste could not be more different from modern Western society, for caste was opposed to the basic premises of individualism, and it neither permitted the development of voluntarist or politically malleable social institutions nor worked to reinforce the modern state. Further, caste conferred citizenship only in social and ritual rather than in political contexts, and opposed the ideas of both individual action and social mobilization. According to some, caste actively resisted the modern state even more than it did the old, for the modern state opposed rather than supported the dharmic order of things. At the same time, many British officials were convinced that caste would stand in the way of nationalist mobilization, claiming as it did primordial loyalty from its members.

Under colonialism, caste was thus made out to be far more— far more pervasive, far more totalizing, and far more uniform— than it had ever been before, at the same time that it was defined as a fundamentally religious social order. In fact, however, caste had always been political— it had been shaped in fundamental ways by political struggles and processes; even so, it was not a designation that exhausted the totality of Indian social forms, let alone described their essence. What we take now as caste is, in fact, the precipitate of a history that selected caste as the single and systematic category to name, and thereby contain, the Indian social order. In pre-colonial India, the units of social identity had been multiple, and their respective relations and trajectories were part of a complex, conjectural, constantly changing, political world. The referents of social identity were not only heterogeneous; they were also determined by context. Temple communities, territorial groups, lineage segments, family units, royal retinues, warrior sub castes, "little" kingdoms, occupational reference groups, agricultural or trading associations, devotionally conceived net-works and sectarian communities, even priestly cabals, were just some of the significant units of identification, all of them at various times far more significant than any uniform metonymy of endogamous "caste" groupings.
Indian society that clearly appealed to British colonial interests and attitudes; they also secured for Indians pride of place in a civilization lexicon of cultural reconstitution, reaffirmation, and resistance. The idea that Varna— the classification of all castes into four hierarchical orders with the Brahman on top— could conceivably organize the social identities and relations of all Indians across the civilization expanse of the subcontinent was only developed under the peculiar circumstances of British colonial rule. Hierarchy, in the sense of rank or ordered difference, might have been a pervasive feature of Indian history, but hierarchy in the sense used by Dumont and others became a systematic value only under the sign of the colonial modern.

The transformations associated with modernity in India were over determined by the colonial situation. On the one hand, what was useful for British rule also became available for the uses of many Indians who were recruited to participate in one way or another in the construction of colonial knowledge. On the other hand, new forms of and claims about knowledge, products as they were in large part of early colonial Orientalism and late colonial state practices, could take root only because colonial interventions actively obliterated the political dynamic of colonial society. Ironically, it was the very permeability and dynamism of Indian society that allowed caste to become modern India's apparition of its traditional being. Under colonial rule caste— now systematic, and systematically disembodied— lived on. In this new form it was made appropriate and reconstructed by colonial power. What Orientalist knowledge did most successfully in the Indian context was to assert the pre-colonial authority of a specifically colonial form of power and representation.
British interest in the institution of caste intensified in very new ways after 1857 revolt. The crises of early conquest and rule began to give way to other issues of control. This was so particularly in the wake of the Great Rebellion of 1857, after which the Company's ambitions of complete conquest were necessarily curtailed, and the British state assumed "direct" rule. For issues of control the primary reason to divide the society along caste so that they can never come together politically and threaten the sovereign power of the British rule. They were successful for a large measure. District-level manuals and gazetteers began to devote whole chapters to the ethnography of caste and custom; imperial surveys made caste into a central object of investigation; and by the time of the first decennial census of 1872, caste had become the primary subject of social classification and knowledge. Although the village continued to be seen as the dominant site of Indian social life, it became understood as more a setting for caste relations than the primary building block of Indian society. By 1901, when the census commissioner H. H. Risley announced his ambition for an ethnographic survey of India, it was clear that caste had attained its colonial apotheosis.

Recounting the history of caste, in other words, is one way of narrating the social history of colonialism in India. This is a history in which the past itself was colonized, in which the domain of civil society was abandoned to theories about the weight of tradition, in this case the totality represented by the caste system. Caste became the colonial form of civil society; it justified the denial of political rights to Indian subjects (not citizens) and explained the necessity of colonial rule. As India was anthropologies in the colonial interest, a narrative about its social formation, its political capacity, and its civilization inheritance began increasingly to tell the story of colonial inevitability and of the permanence of British imperial rule. If caste occupied the place of the social and constrained the possibility of the political, colonial rule could consist largely of the enumerative technology of the census and the ethnographic survey, producing by the late nineteenth century the "ethnographic state."

This colonial knowledge about caste after independence was still being used by Indian government as well as western institutions and universities. The western scholars were again able to gain leverage and control over the caste discourse and politics around them in India by gaining influence over those communities in the 70s. This was the most important event in the history of the independent India, which created social upheaval never seen in the Indian society. The colonial stratification created sub national political communities with grievances which US government found very receptive to their human rights initiative in the late 70s under Carter administration. In the 90s Dalits became the significant community which was receptive to the state department initiative to create political and social movement inside India which disrupted any consolidation of single party rule at the center. The primary aim of the western strategic community is to make sure that India will never have a solid majority for a single party rule that means a single political unity. This use of caste communities may be considered as the biggest weapon which the superpower has on India in the 21st century; which it can use in the future to unmake the nation as we know as India.