Comments on: “Does Europe have a Civilising mission in India?” – excerpts http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/06/26/europe-civilising-mission/ Dedicated to "Bharat" and "Dharma" Wed, 23 May 2012 07:41:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: B Shantanu http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/06/26/europe-civilising-mission/comment-page-1/#comment-164839 B Shantanu Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:14:05 +0000 http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/?p=628#comment-164839 From an email by Rajiv Varma... *** <i>Another area that remains unexplored is the impact of British colonial policies, early 1800s and after. This era of British colonialism has not been analyzed for its impact on the Hindu social system. Some of the British policies (of taking caste census and absolute categorization of population) led to frozen Jaati boundaries. Much of today's "caste" problems stem from this phenomenon in the early 1800s. It seems Jaatis in pre-British times may have been organized around professions, social habits and were endogamous, but they were not frozen by heredity forever. Thus, a sonaar family (goldsmith) belonged to Sonaar jaati as long as they professed that particular profession - which may have lasted for a few generations. But as soon as the son of Sonaar, took up another profession, he gradually moved out of that jaati. However, in the post-Bentinck era, i.e. 1830-35, the jaati boundaries were frozen, which remains the case even today. Thus one could conclude that older system of Jaatis transformed into Castes of today in early 19th century due to British colonial policies. The fluidity that was present before the British, was frozen post-Bentinck. Another unexplored area that need to be investigated is the internal colonization that happened in the Hindu society, largely after the British gained supremacy in Indian affairs. We have to devise a new term for this phenomenon. For a lack of better term this could be called "Recursive Colonialism" (to borrow a technical term from computational sciences). Recursive colonialism refers to a colonized peoples colonizing their own kind - due to various factors. This is when Indians who were colonized by the British colonized other Indians. There were two dimensions of recursive colonization, viz (a) economic, and (b) social. Internal economic colonization manifested in zamindari system where ownership of land (and forests) became person or family oriented instead of community ownership. The concept of a family owning a piece of agricultural land and being passed through inheritance is definitely a 19th century phenomenon. There is very little anthropological data prior to colonial times that indicates families owning large tracts of lands and passing ownership through inheritance. I am not saying this to make any contemporary political point. All I am doing is comparing how it was and what it is today. And ... The social dimension in Recursive Colonialism may have manifested and institutionalized in a in perverse form of untouchability - chooa choot - as was the case in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and other parts of India. The social dimension of Recursive Colonialism put the British on the top, and their Brahmin/Bhadralok intercessors (in Bengal, Madras and Bombay presidencies) under them, but the same Brahmin/Bhadralok intercessor classes may have done the same to the Dravida/Mondal classes in 1800s. This may have resulted in the stratified society as seen today (though a lot of it is melting with economic liberalization). Overall, a lot more inquest is needed to understand the complexities of caste vs. jaati. Only then we as a society will be able to deal with it.</i> From an email by Rajiv Varma…
***
Another area that remains unexplored is the impact of British colonial policies, early 1800s and after. This era of British colonialism has not been analyzed for its impact on the Hindu social system. Some of the British policies (of taking caste census and absolute categorization of population) led to frozen Jaati boundaries. Much of today’s “caste” problems stem from this phenomenon in the early 1800s.

It seems Jaatis in pre-British times may have been organized around professions, social habits and were endogamous, but they were not frozen by heredity forever. Thus, a sonaar family (goldsmith) belonged to Sonaar jaati as long as they professed that particular profession – which may have lasted for a few generations. But as soon as the son of Sonaar, took up another profession, he gradually moved out of that jaati.

However, in the post-Bentinck era, i.e. 1830-35, the jaati boundaries were frozen, which remains the case even today.

Thus one could conclude that older system of Jaatis transformed into Castes of today in early 19th century due to British colonial policies. The fluidity that was present before the British, was frozen post-Bentinck.

Another unexplored area that need to be investigated is the internal colonization that happened in the Hindu society, largely after the British gained supremacy in Indian affairs. We have to devise a new term for this phenomenon. For a lack of better term this could be called “Recursive Colonialism” (to borrow a technical term from computational sciences).

Recursive colonialism refers to a colonized peoples colonizing their own kind – due to various factors. This is when Indians who were colonized by the British colonized other Indians. There were two dimensions of recursive colonization, viz (a) economic, and (b) social.

Internal economic colonization manifested in zamindari system where ownership of land (and forests) became person or family oriented instead of community ownership. The concept of a family owning a piece of agricultural land and being passed through inheritance is definitely a 19th century phenomenon. There is very little anthropological data prior to colonial times that indicates families owning large tracts of lands and passing ownership through inheritance. I am not saying this to make any contemporary political point. All I am doing is comparing how it was and what it is today.

And …

The social dimension in Recursive Colonialism may have manifested and institutionalized in a in perverse form of untouchability – chooa choot – as was the case in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and other parts of India. The social dimension of Recursive Colonialism put the British on the top, and their Brahmin/Bhadralok intercessors (in Bengal, Madras and Bombay presidencies) under them, but the same Brahmin/Bhadralok intercessor classes may have done the same to the Dravida/Mondal classes in 1800s. This may have resulted in the stratified society as seen today (though a lot of it is melting with economic liberalization).

Overall, a lot more inquest is needed to understand the complexities of caste vs. jaati.
Only then we as a society will be able to deal with it.

]]> By: B Shantanu http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/06/26/europe-civilising-mission/comment-page-1/#comment-164576 B Shantanu Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:45:33 +0000 http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/?p=628#comment-164576 From an email by Dr Gautam Sen: *** <i>I have to laugh whenever I observe all this hand wringing about Caste, helpful and interesting though the research below is. I did not know what caste I was until I came to live in England involuntarily more than 40 years ago as a teenager (after a second attempt by communist thugs to murder my father). It was only when white Britons expressed curiosity I troubled to find out. This is how casteist middle class Bengalis were! I only found out last year that the prominent Bengali middle class family (my closest friends) that lived down the road in Calcutta is some splendour were from a lowly caste background ('teli'). Both my friend's mother and sister were very beautiful (the former a badiya and both sister and brother married to badiyas as well - suspect caste background notwithstanding!). The 'teli' caste father was one of the most capable and upright people I have ever met and I will always recall with gratitude that he regarded me as a son and told me so before he died. But even today, I remain a second class citizen in the UK by virtue of my skin colour. Discrimination is rife socially and professionally even in allegedly upright universities like the LSE and Oxbridge - you never get into the old boy's clubs that disburse privileges quietly to their own!. And so bad is the situation that most Asians are in denial (especially cowardly and morally bankrupt Hindus, particularly the money-making lowly East African Asian collaborators who so love the white British). They will instantly deny there is any discrimination at all, even while they are getting kicked in the teeth and crawling on all fours in front of whites. I have seen this countless times in every social situation and the worst are the titled Asians in the House or Lords. Hindu caste discrimination, my foot. Dear fellows ,you cannot escape the mark of Cain that is the colour of your skin in Europe and many of my Iyengar friends are extremely dark and some of the so-called Dalits fair! Gautam Sen Dr. (retired LSE academic)</i> From an email by Dr Gautam Sen:
***
I have to laugh whenever I observe all this hand wringing about Caste, helpful and interesting though the research below is. I did not know what caste I was until I came to live in England involuntarily more than 40 years ago as a teenager (after a second attempt by communist thugs to murder my father). It was only when white Britons expressed curiosity I troubled to find out. This is how casteist middle class Bengalis were! I only found out last year that the prominent Bengali middle class family (my closest friends) that lived down the road in Calcutta is some splendour were from a lowly caste background (‘teli’). Both my friend’s mother and sister were very beautiful (the former a badiya and both sister and brother married to badiyas as well – suspect caste background notwithstanding!). The ‘teli’ caste father was one of the most capable and upright people I have ever met and I will always recall with gratitude that he regarded me as a son and told me so before he died.
But even today, I remain a second class citizen in the UK by virtue of my skin colour. Discrimination is rife socially and professionally even in allegedly upright universities like the LSE and Oxbridge – you never get into the old boy’s clubs that disburse privileges quietly to their own!. And so bad is the situation that most Asians are in denial (especially cowardly and morally bankrupt Hindus, particularly the money-making lowly East African Asian collaborators who so love the white British). They will instantly deny there is any discrimination at all, even while they are getting kicked in the teeth and crawling on all fours in front of whites. I have seen this countless times in every social situation and the worst are the titled Asians in the House or Lords.
Hindu caste discrimination, my foot. Dear fellows ,you cannot escape the mark of Cain that is the colour of your skin in Europe and many of my Iyengar friends are extremely dark and some of the so-called Dalits fair!

Gautam Sen Dr.
(retired LSE academic)

]]> By: shama http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/06/26/europe-civilising-mission/comment-page-1/#comment-6189 shama Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:59:38 +0000 http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/?p=628#comment-6189 May be christians and hindu rulers might had done attrocities on minorities of that time like roman and greek pagans , jews by christian rulers and buddhists or jains by hindu rulers. But i dont speak bad about these religions, all religions speaks good, only the followers dont follow. But when you speak of muslims, i would like to protest on the fact that, if muslim conquest would had been bloodiest in indian history, two muslim nations would not had sprang up from indian subcontinent and even you would not had found 20% muslims in india. Think over it. If you say people were forced to convert, there would not had been 80% non muslims remained in India. This clearly indicates that neither did muslims practiced forced conversions nor was there any bloody conquest, for if there would had been forced conversions, it would had been very easy for muslim rulers to convert all indians to muslims in their approx. 1000 yrs of rule. And if there would had been bloody conquest, no indian would had converted to islam. People accepted Islam by their choice and we should respect evryones choice and wish. Bloody conquests only means that muslims entered india through warfare, and if in the battlefield there is killing, so on the other side even muslims were killed in battle field. There may be a few exceptions among muslim rulers who might had been tyrant, but it doest not mean their act is blown out of proportion and applied to all muslim kings and muslim rule in india. And for your kind information islam spread in india due to the preaching and noble deeds of muslim saints. And for your information Saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti alone was repsonsible for 90 lacs conversions. Thats why you will find more non muslim people attending the tombs of muslim saints. Its very easy to fabricate false claims and blame others but to find truth and understand it by sacrificng prejudices, is something more difficult. May be christians and hindu rulers might had done attrocities on minorities of that time like roman and greek pagans , jews by christian rulers and buddhists or jains by hindu rulers.
But i dont speak bad about these religions, all religions speaks good, only the followers dont follow.

But when you speak of muslims, i would like to protest on the fact that, if muslim conquest would had been bloodiest in indian history, two muslim nations would not had sprang up from indian subcontinent and even you would not had found 20% muslims in india. Think over it.

If you say people were forced to convert, there would not had been 80% non muslims remained in India.

This clearly indicates that neither did muslims practiced forced conversions nor was there any bloody conquest, for if there would had been forced conversions, it would had been very easy for muslim rulers to convert all indians to muslims in their approx. 1000 yrs of rule.

And if there would had been bloody conquest, no indian would had converted to islam. People accepted Islam by their choice and we should respect evryones choice and wish.

Bloody conquests only means that muslims entered india through warfare, and if in the battlefield there is killing, so on the other side even muslims were killed in battle field.

There may be a few exceptions among muslim rulers who might had been tyrant, but it doest not mean their act is blown out of proportion and applied to all muslim kings and muslim rule in india.

And for your kind information islam spread in india due to the preaching and noble deeds of muslim saints. And for your information Saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti alone was repsonsible for 90 lacs conversions.

Thats why you will find more non muslim people attending the tombs of muslim saints.

Its very easy to fabricate false claims and blame others but to find truth and understand it by sacrificng prejudices, is something more difficult.

]]> By: B Shantanu http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/06/26/europe-civilising-mission/comment-page-1/#comment-4680 B Shantanu Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:16:01 +0000 http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/?p=628#comment-4680 Excerpts from “I am provoked to write this” by M.S.N. Menon

Yes. When I’m told that Hindus “live in darkness” I’m provoked.

I’m a Hindu, not the usual one, for I took the trouble to make a special study of human civilisations and religious atrocities. Naturally, I see religions in a different light. Not the way the “faithful” see them.

Religions are full of lies and false claims.

Take Christianity. What is its claim and what is the reality? It claims to have civilised Europe. In fact, it destroyed one of the greatest civilisations of man—the Greek civilisation….

And it also destroyed the Roman empire. One of the first acts of the Christians (that of Emperor Theodisius), when they came to power in Rome, was to order the destruction of the most splendid library in the temple of Serapis. Obviously, the Church had no desire for enlightenment. The Hindus pray for light daily.

The Church converted the pagan temples into tombs…And a Christian mob stripped and cut into pieces a gifted, virtuous and beautiful lady in Alexandria. What was her crime? That she was the leader of the Neo-Platonists!

…The Church had a big hand in slave trade. If there was a conscience problem, it helped to ease it by saying that the black man was the son of the Devil.
…
The genocide of the Incas, Mayas and others has no parallel in human history. They were more civilised than the Europeans. “By millions upon millions” says Draper “whole races and nations were remorselessly cut off. The Bishop of Chiape affirmed that more than 15 million were terminated in his time. From Mexico and Peru, a civilisation that might have educated Europe, was crushed out.” (Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. II)

What about Islam? Space compels me to make it a short review. In his book “In the path of Mahatma Gandhi”, George Catlin, the American philosopher, asks: “What has Islam to offer to compare with the philosophy of Vedanta and the Upanishads?” So much for its “Superiority” claim!

Be that as it may, what is the record of Islam’s atrocities? “The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history,” says Will Durant, the American historian.

The Muslims do not want to be reminded of their past. But it is necessary, says S.Bashiruddin, former Vice Chancellor of Dr. Ambedkar Open University. (See his ‘Deen and Dharma”). He says: “Through the present generation of Muslims is not responsible for what has been done centuries ago, an awareness of such a legacy can sensitize the Muslim opinion leaders…”

With such a record of their past, I would like to know from Christian and Muslim brothers, in which way they are “superior” to the Hindus. Do not tell me that your religious texts do not permit these things. This is an easy explanation. I don’t take it. Men are judged by what they do, not by what they believe or by what is written in their scripture.

]]>