Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Naw, there were a gazillion different princedoms, some even with muslim elites over hindi populations, it was very decentralized.
As many on these sharp posters probably know, the Lenista revolution was very popular among Nehru's generation & even what went on eastward inspired local Afro-Asian Asabiya commie groups, so its not surprising who & what the other team looked out for.
The Marathas were beaten by the Durrani and never managed to establish sovereignty over the subcontinent. The fact that they were unpopular to some Hindu rulers is not surprising. Politics make strange bedfellows and I wouldn't expect India to be an exception. I would find it surprising if centuries of Mughal rule did not change Hindu identity. The rise of Sikhism is one obvious change.
Yes but after the 3rd battle of Panipat, the Durrani were also debilitated to the degree that they could never again make inroads deep into the subcontinent. Abdali even wrote a letter about it extolling the Marathas. Also, ten years later the Marathas re-established dominion over North India by defeating the Mughal-Rohilla Pathan alliance of sorts which had materialized in rebellion.
Sikhism is a different story altogether. I believe that its rise could be attributed to the agrarian cultural ethos of Punjab as much as it could Muslim rule over a preponderantly Hindu populace.
Oh by Shiva's fifth arm, no! Hinduism is the oldest organised religion in the world.
Hinduism is the oldest dis-organized religion in the world. My general understanding is that Hinduism prides itself on being "The knowledge that has always existed- expressed in many different ways."
Thus, what is known as "Hinduism" today, had an awful lot of local variation in pre colonial India (though the variations shared core teachings from "the knowledge that always was"). The British may not have created Hinduism, but British railways sure helped unify it as a single religion instead of a "loose coalition of like minded thought".
Hinduism is the oldest dis-organized religion in the world. My general understanding is that Hinduism prides itself on being "The knowledge that has always existed- expressed in many different ways."
Thus, what is known as "Hinduism" today, had an awful lot of local variation in pre colonial India (though the variations shared core teachings from "the knowledge that always was"). The British may not have created Hinduism, but British railways sure helped unify it as a single religion instead of a "loose coalition of like minded thought".
Much like how railroads and the telegraph encouraged nationalism in Europe...
Very good point. I would even venture to say that British railways not only unified Hinduism into a single (well, relatively single religion), but also increased the sense of Indian national identity instead of a variety of local identities.
Lots of absolutely absurd and hear say information. Since Victors write History, its not surprising. Cyptic gets the cookie.
1) British did not create the terms Hindu. The Vedic tradition has been well and alive even before the English calendar. FOr those who believe that census BS, would you think US created the Blacks and Hispanic demographics?
2) Unification of Vedic and Shaiva, Vaishnava and Smartha faiths were done by saint called Adi Shankara. At the peak of British damage in the 19th century, saints like Vivekanand, Sankaracharya( coming from Adi Shankara's lineage) played in pivotal role in Hindu movement resurgence. Again the term Aryan-Dravidian is pure BS. The Tamil literary texts about Shiva are unparalelled in any language. References to Shiva s abode( Present Kangrinpoqe peak/Kailash) existed in literary texts and south INdian temples. In fact the Dravidians have more temples for Shiva than anyone else. There is also an opinion that Shiva was a South Indian King and Rudra was a different person or different incarnations over a period of time.
3) About Muslims doing more damage or unifying Hindus - There are 200 million Muslims include 40 million Shias. The Shias are the oldest who fled persecution in Persia. Who ever fled persecution found a safe place. The Christians came later.
4) And the British cannot create anything constructive. They only divide.
Of course the caste system is alive and well and it provides fodder to those who want to divide.
Lots of absolutely absurd and hear say information. Since Victors write History, its not surprising. Cyptic gets the cookie.
1) British did not create the terms Hindu. The Vedic tradition has been well and alive even before the English calendar. FOr those who believe that census BS, would you think US created the Blacks and Hispanic demographics?
2) Unification of Vedic and Shaiva, Vaishnava and Smartha faiths were done by saint called Adi Shankara. At the peak of British damage in the 19th century, saints like Vivekanand, Sankaracharya( coming from Adi Shankara's lineage) played in pivotal role in Hindu movement resurgence. Again the term Aryan-Dravidian is pure BS. The Tamil literary texts about Shiva are unparalelled in any language. References to Shiva s abode( Present Kangrinpoqe peak/Kailash) existed in literary texts and south INdian temples. In fact the Dravidians have more temples for Shiva than anyone else. There is also an opinion that Shiva was a South Indian King and Rudra was a different person or different incarnations over a period of time.
3) About Muslims doing more damage or unifying Hindus - There are 200 million Muslims include 40 million Shias. The Shias are the oldest who fled persecution in Persia. Who ever fled persecution found a safe place. The Christians came later.
4) And the British cannot create anything constructive. They only divide.
Of course the caste system is alive and well and it provides fodder to those who want to divide.
Are you arguing that the Aryans were native to, and not invaders from outside, the Indian subcontinent?
The sects that make up Hinduism certainly existed long, long before British rule, but did Vaishnavas and Shaivas, for example, view themselves as being part of the same religion before British rule?
Yes. They did not call themselves anything, but were guided by related and yet distinct belief systems - dualism and non-dualism, or advaitam. they read the same texts, worship many deities, yet believe in one universal spirit, paramatma.
I agree with pankaj Mishra, the author of the article in the OP that Hinduism is a coined word with political and nationalistic slant. For a lack of a better, easily understood terms, Hinduism has become the religious umbrella under which many sects reside, quite comfortable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
