The way they look at us, the way we look at ourselves

In much of the mainstream western media, there are many people who know European and American history perfectly (not the stupid Marxist like in India) and to a less extent historians too. First please read my essay on Christianity
here before continuing this essay.

Now, in the mainstream media many people are against religious abuse in any form. They saw what Christianity had brought on societies and how people were kept in dark for centuaries. For Europe to get scientific advancement it has to get out from the grips of Christianity. They saw how religion (Christianity) had done all in its hand to thwart scientific development. Still the European Society had developed Science and Technology. Whenever they hear something about religious extremism, most of the elites believe all religions are just like Christianity. Whenever they saw a muslim suicide bombing, they feel that only a few muslims are using and spreading lies about islam. They feel that if they could change the deviated few, they can bring islam into peace. What many doesn’t understand is the real cause. They always fail to see that whenever a muslim does a sacrifice of himself, he yells out JIHAD. Whenever a muslim terrorist kill infront of camera and say it was done in the name of god, the elites still fail to see the real reason, because none of the elites had never read any of the original holy books of muslims. They only depend on short words delivered by some muslim leaders. Most of the elites believe that if they can change the deviated few, they can change entire religion. Many elites never had a chance (enough time) to read the scriptures of other religions. All the elites know is they saw what Christianity had done to Europe and they believe all religions are the same.

Its too sad to see the socalled elites in Indian media follow the lead of western media. Don’t they have to see the differences between Christianity and hinduis? No, they conveniently ignore all of those facts and say all religions are same and they feel Hinduism deserves treatment. This is what makes me sick. These elites project an anti-hindu view in media and socalled historians (most of them are Marxist) support it with their blunt lies. They don’t care for the truth. If you try to show them truth, they will call you a hindu nationalist or extremist or they can even link you to hindu terrorists. If you dare speak truth about Christianity or islam, you will called as hater of most peaceful religion. For some unknown reasons even the media is buying up their stuff and printing that crap. Its too sad to see that Indian media is viewing india with the eyes of westerners who experienced the evils in Christianity and its really pathetic to see when they apply same standards of Christianity to Hinduism and where Christianity is shown as divine and Hinduism is less than mundane. Indian media presents these falsified views and the westerners who think Indian media as an unbiased ones, are mislead. How many of the westerners have enough time and financial ability to visit india and check for the facts? None of them can do that. It’s obvious that they follow the Indian media and the Indian media is misleading not only the country but also the westerners.

I would like to go to history and see what had framed the western idea. Christiany no doubt had played a greater role in framing the western ideals, but lets start from beginning whatsoever recorded. Lets see history from Athens, Sparta and Greece.

Lets begin from Athens one of the oldest civilization the westerners feel proud of. It was the year 433 BC just before the Pelepponisean war. The battle is between Corcyra and Corynth. There is a third city near these two cities and it is Athens. These two cities are almost equal in armies and now the victory is decided by Athens. Whomever Athens supports will win. Lets see what the ambassadors from both cities said to the assembly of Athens. First goes Corcyra. The ambassador began by admitting that the city had never helped Athens before and infact had allied to enemies of Athens itself. There were no ties or friendship between both cities and now he came for fear and safety of Corcyra. He also said that his offer would be of mutual interests and his city which commands a heavy navy not greater than of Athens, but great enough to help Athens in future endeavours. He offered a hand of friendship and mutual interests. Now came the turn of corynth. The represent from corynth gave a brilliant speech full of passion. He talked of everything what corynth had done to Athens before. He asked how it could look at its other allies when it put out friendship of past ally in favor of enemy? He referred to Hellenic law and the need to repay corynth for all its past helps. He finally went on to list the many services corynth had performed to Athens and the importance of showing gratitude to one’s friends. Guess what, the Athens had opted for Corcyra who in past had helped enemies of athens instead of their old friends corynth. Such is the great friendship that existed in ancient Greece civilizations.

Now lets go fast forward time for a while into 350 BC Macedonia. Yes your guess is right I am going to talk about socalled Alexander the great who is no more than a mere fool. Alexander the great had subjugated all other Greece states and started an expedition to conquer Persia. He first conquered Egypt and built Alexandria. When there is no city, then what did he conquer? If there is a city, then how can Alexandria bear his name as the builder of the city? Does the historians meant to say that Alexander ordered a city to be built on previously a desert land? Then if I am not wrong it won’t take less than 5 years to build a city and how come Alexander even didn’t stay more than an year in Egypt? Lets say the second argument is right for a while. Lets assume that Alexander went on conquering after appointing a governor for building Alexandria, then who is the governor and why doesn’t his name never found? Are we to believe that Alexander built a city in desert with just a wave of his hand? If there is a city previously and Alexander conquered, destroyed and then rebuilt the city, then how can the city deservere the name of a mutilator? I never heard or read any plausible answer that’s because may be I am the first to ask such a question. Now coming to topic, the way we look at us. For referring to victories of Alexander, many people prefer the book of J. W. M ‘Crindle’s “The Invasion of India by Alexander The Great”. The author had used writings of Arrian, Curtis, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin. This book was a classic and it was written in 1893. Here are the details of author. Throughout the book in

many instances Persians, Indians and many others kingdoms whichever opposed Alexander are reffered to as barbarians. Here is the meaning of barbarians
as shown in online dictionary.


Here is the meaning from Microsoft Encarta.

We can safely conclude that barbarian means an uncivilized or uncultured and aggressive person. Now when Alexander when attacked Persia burnt down Persepolis and enchanted by the Persian style, quickly adopted to it. He behaved and dressed up like a Persian and used to appear in court just like that. This shows Persian culture is so much better than Greece that even Alexander himself couldn’t control his feelings of appreciation and adopted to native culture. When Alexander attacked india without any provocation on part of india, just as any person in world, Indians defended themselves. After attacking many minor kingdoms, Alexander used to burn them to ground and killed their inhabitants. On page 61 we were told that that Alexander got a wound from one of the arrows and on page 62 we can see how Macedonians killed inhabitants of land (who are Indians) who caused an injury to their master Alexander. The Macedonians killed just for injuring their master in a war. I don’t understand how people think when they go to war they shouldn’t get injured and got killed. Isn’t it normal that in war people will gets injured or dead? But for some reason, it still is the wrong on part of Indians whose crime whatsoever was defending their motherland. Now one more point of noteworthy is that alexander’s breast plate was broken by the arrow which hit him. Wasn’t it for the breast plate of armour, Alexander would have been dead on that very moment and nowhere in his entire history of wars his armour got broken by an enemy’s arrow. Such is the skill and technology of Indians and somehow the author have no scruples in calling Indians as barbarians. The armour of Alexander was broken and still Indians were called barbarians. Now who is the barbarian? According to definition who is uncivilized (following Persian style implements how greek styles are inferior to Persian), uncultured and aggressive (killing enemy soldiers). Alexander and their Macedonian bandits fit exactly for the description of barbarian and for some reason the author manages to say that Persians and Indians are barbarians. The author who was a retired professor of university of patna no doubt was British and it is reasonable to assume that he refers Greeks as civilized and everyone else as barbarians. What happened to the brains of Indian elite who are following this author? Doesn’t they have right to filter out the author’s feelings of Indians and don’t they know that they should present india with a glorified colours? For some reason I still don’t understand why the present Indian authors refer to ancient Indians as barbarians. It makes sense when the westerners are referring us as barbarians, but does that make any sense why we should think of us as such? This slave mentality of elites is what is damaging today’s India more than 200 years rule of british.

Now lets see the battle of carthage in 149 BC. In this siege of carthage in Africa, the romans wanted to level of the city. Initially in battle the carthagians had surrendered to romans and gave their weapons and hostages. But still the romans for no apparent reason wanted to destroy the entire city. The siege lasted for more than an year and it ended with selling of 50,000 carthigians into slavery and destroying the city of carthage entirely for no reason. Such is the benevolence of romans who are ancients of present day Europeans. History is replete with more instances of such a benevolence. How can people who came from such a worst traditions understand the greatness of India?

Now let’s see mythology of Greece, The Trojan war. In the Trojan war, achilees pledges that he will not return to war for no apparent reason other than insulting his slave. He lets his best friend die in his insolence. His son neoptolomus take slaves of the defeated Trojans. Throughout the war Greek warriors fight each other for petty reasons. Even in mahabharatha karna pledges that he will not fight until the grand sire Bheeshma is alive. Here his ego is hurt by Bheeshma. In Trojan war warriors fight for slaves. After the kurukshetra war or Ramayana war, there is no record of enslaving enemy women and children. There are even instances of helping enemies for fame in Indian history.

Elites (I call them stupids) compare Prithviraj chouhan and Mohammed Ghori as if both are of equal warriors and have equal principles. Prithviraj Chouhan forgave his enemy after he is defeated mistaking him for a king. What did ghori gave chouhan in return? The very next year ghori attacked chouhan with a huge army and took chouhan as a captive and blinded him and killed him later. This is the difference between ancient india and other countries. In india there are no slaves taken after war (this is situation until muslims entered the scene). In any other country, this is not the situation. In Babylon, in Persia, in Greece, in Roman Empire, in Holy Roman Empire, in Arabia, in Egypt, etc. you name it, there are instances replete with enslaving of enemies and using cunning and deceit in wars. Only in india this was never to find until the hindus ruled india. Untill 19th centuary, india is considered richest in whole world. This is 8 eight centuaries after india lost Islamic sword. For some reason the media is forgetting all of this great history and it is treating Hinduism on par with Christianity. It is because of the media that india today is seen in such a bad light. Even there is one more point to note. Westerners like to see others as poor. It can be noted in bagging of so many awards for Slum dog millionare and no awards are given for lagan. Lagan was not awarded not because it lacked any qualities which the Oscar committee needed, but because it showed that victory of india against british. This is what british can’t digest and so it is no wonder lagan lost. Slum dog Millionare in contrast had shown nothing but poverty of india and the title itself implies that whoever lives in slums are dogs. No wonder it bagged so many awards. It is too sad that Indian media still praising this movie which is nothing but scum. This slave mentality of Indian elite is costing a lot. It can be visible in recent heavy coverage given by Indian media to American president Mr. Obama. I agree that American president do deserve some media coverage, but not as much as what obama got. There are many mistakes which I had conveniently forgot such as black slavery of US, killing of red Indians by Americans, killing of natives in australia and NewZealand by British, genocide of south America just to name a few. The westerners were able to kill many people not only by weapons, but also by diseases. Wherever they go, they take their diseases with them and spread in new places. This is what killed red Indians more than the weapons. The Bengal famine of india had cost india more than one crore people in a centuary. It’s worth noting the recent remarks of Zimbabwe president Mr. Robert Mugabe that British are spreading cholera in his country. The british didn’t gave any explanation for this.
Its no wonder the westerners still today feels the White Man Burden. But I couldn’t grasp why Indian elite feel the same white burden?

Saragarhi – The epitome of courage and self-sacrifice

Saragarhi is an incredible story of 21 Sikhs who gave up their lives for the country knowing fully that each moment they are fighting, they are nearing their certain death. It rivals the fighting of 300 men of Thermopylae against a huge Persian army. A small comparision is made in the end. The 21 sikhs belong to the 36th regiment.
It was 1897. Saragarhi is a small fort in North West Frontier Province which is today in Pakistan. Ranjith singh had built many forts in this area. After the british took control of these small forts, they enforced the forts with heliographic communications. These helped the other parts of british to keep in touch. Even though much of the land was under british control, there were still many skirmishes between local tribes. On 3rd and 9th of September, 1897, Afridi and Orakazai tribals attacked nearby gulistan forts which were beaten back. The relief column from nearby Lockhart reinforced Sargarhi with one NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer) named Havildar Ishar Singh and twenty ORs( Other Ranks). In a renewed effort, on 12th September 1897, thousands of tribals led siege to forts of gulistan and Saragarhi. This made sure that they will capture Saragarhi and also preventing reinforcements from Gulistan. When the officer in gulistan estimated the enemy numbers, it stood around 10,000 to 12,000.
From the early morning, the tribals started battering the fort. The great Sikhs repulsed each charge. The tribals also started making tempts to surrender. These were also looked down. A few attempts made to send a relief column but were repulsed by the tribals. The tribals tried to rush the gate twice, but to their vain both were repulsed ending with losses on their side. As time passed by, even the defending Sikhs are dwindling in number, as their ammunition supplies are decreasing. But this didn’t stop others from fighting. The entire battle events were telegraphed by one Sepoy Gurmukh Singh.
Meanwhile the tribals were able to breach a hole in a wall and some of the soldiers were sent there to deal with the breach. This weakened the people who are defending the gate. The enemy now rushed at both gate and wall. Now the soldiers engaged in hand-to-hand fights and held off the enemy as long as they can. Now the battle was almost over and sepoy gurmukh asked permission for stop telegraphing and start fighting. When he was given permission, he starting shooting tribals down from his vantage. But this didn’t last long. After heavy casualties and lack of ammunition on part of gurmukh, the tribals were able to set fire the tower on which gurmukh was standing. This ended the last of soldier who took 20 with him. The 21 soldiers were killed. But the enemy suffered a heavy loss. The casualties wee 180 and many more were wounded. The tribals set fire to the post. This episode when narrated in british parliament got a standing ovation from its entire members. The 21 soldiers were given Indian Order of Merit Class III posthumasly which today equals vir chakra. All of the families of saragarhi were awarded with 50 acres of land and 500 Rupees.
This episode was one of the 8 greatest military fights selected by UNESCO. This tale was told in French schools. Its too sad that today the Indian generation have absolutely no idea about this great fight.
Many compare this fight with Thermopylae. Even though both are great fights, there a few differences. In Thermopylae it is not 300 as popularly known, but it is 3000. Some writers even went to say it was 4000. But one thing is clear, the Greeks who fought are around 1000. The armies of xerxes stood around 200,000 to 250,000. The path is a very small path which allows only one chariot at a time. At this place, the greeeks were able to construct a small obstacle. On this they stood and fought. But the sikh army is very small. They had an advantage that they were in a fort. But still the army against is huge.
Apart from comparisions, it is still a great tale which inspires courage among fellow people. It is too sad that even the Punjabis today doesn’t know about this war.


the remnants of the saragarhi fort after war

Alternate fuels – Politics

I would like to say something about alternate fuels. Lets see the most famed alternate fuels are solar energy, atomic energy, wind energy, tidal energy, electric energy, geo-thermal energy, hydrogen etc. I am not writing this post to discuss the merits and demerits of each energy source (I am sick of listening/reading them). Well then what am I writing now for? Have you ever thought of why we weren’t unable to develop technologies for producing alternate fuels? I will currently talk about some stuff related to that. First of all we need to understand some ground realities and current politics before discussing about this. First read this.

We know today’s economy is depended on oil and we also know that arab countries are rich in fossil fuels. But if we look at them, except for a handful of countries, majority of countries which have oil are still third world countries like Iran, Iraq, etc. Well why aren’t they becoming rich when they have that kind of money? First I want you to read the above mentioned essay to understand what I have to say.
Now oil is traded throughout the world in only on two stock exchanges – the NewYork Stock Exchange and London Stock Exchange(which is owned by an American company). So if you want to buy oil you should use only US Dollar. Without them you can’t buy oil. So we have to export our goods to US to get more currency for buying oil which we use partially for developing the same goods which are again going to be exported to one of these countries. This means if any country was able to develop technology based on alternate fuels, then they no longer need to export goods to US and other European goods which means end of sovereignty of US.

Now let’s see the countries which are in position to develop technology for alternative fuel, but won’t do that.

USA: This the country which put a man on moon and I don’t think if it was necessary, they can’t develop technology for alternate fuels. But the question is will they develop? The answer is a big NO. Because the moment they develop all countries can produce fuel on their own which means no country will be willing to buy dollar by exporting goods. This makes US to fight with other countries for manufacturing cheaper goods. It has to devalue its currency and increase its manufacturing. But currently the US economy is driven by consumerism and not by manufacturing. This is the reason why US doesn’t allow the technologies to develop.

European countries: Once world-rulers, which are now in a really bad shape. Moreover if there is any alternative available to US dollar, its going to be Euro and hence whatever applies to US applies to European leaders.

Now who else in this world has such a manpower and capability to develop such technology?
Russia: There are only few countries which are left in the list and Russia will be the one. Russia is the major part of what once was USSR and USSR is the first country to send a man to space. As USSR is broken into pieces, Russia is left destitute and it needs money to rebuild. It is noteworthy that Russia is the second most oil exporting country outside of OPEC. As long as Russia needs money, it will keep selling oil and its like shooting his own head with a double-barrel gun if they develop technology for alternate fuels. No doubt they got tons of money in the recent soaring of oil prices. This eliminates Russia from the list.

China: Now china is the other growing country which keeps away from headlines. If we look at china, it is the most populous country in world which means it has more energy needs which in turn means more dollars to buy oil. China doesn’t have enough oil reserves to meet its energy demands. So it has to depend on US or European countries for dollar or for Euro. China is ready to do that and it already accumulated one trillion US dollars. It is willing to devalue its currency and export goods to US. It is doing so. And now it is having a huge pile of US Dollars. What is it doing with that money? China is offering to buy yahoo which made yahoo to give secrets to china. China is supporting war in Somalia. It spends its money on space program on how to shoot satellites down. China is the first country to develop that technology. In timeframe US is one year lagging behind china in this issue. So china is safe by having a stock pile of dollars and so it doesn’t want to develop alternate technologies and hence China is eliminated from the list. Also it can bring US to knees by either releasing all its dollars once or by stop exporting goods to US.

India: Now India is the country that is left. Yes India can develop technology, but it takes time. It recently had sent a satellite to moon. It is exporting services to US. India is the second largest country when ranked by population. It has a large demand of energy and hence oil and so Dollar or Euro. Finally it seems like the leadership of India had got some idea about this and they are doing something about this. The bad news is they are going on wrong direction. They are going on asking other countries for technology instead of developing them. Offcourse it takes time and money for developing technology, but it will pay off when India can self sustain for energy on itself. Unfortunately there are no steps taken in this direction from Indian leadership. It is solely due to lack of understanding about global politics and lack of foresight from Indian leadership what is preventing India from develop technology for alternate fuels.

Brazil: The other country which can develop such a technology is brazil and it is on its way. It already had developed technology for biodiesel and doing more. And Brazil is safe on economic terms.

So here we are today, no major power doing their job of developing alternate technologies.

Christianity - An alternate view

Christianity: (I am writing this essay just to show what Christianity really is and reading this one is more important for my next essay) This is the most populous religion which commands over 2 billion followers worldwide with a variety of sects which includes mainly Catholics, Protestants, Mormons (mainly in US only), Pentecostals, Jehovah Witness, Baptists, Evangelicals, Presbytarians, Orthodox, Roman Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Polish Church are named to a few and major ones. Coming to Christianity, it was started on name of Jesus Christ who is hailed as son of only God Jehovah (according to Christians). We are told that God sent his only son to save mankind from destruction, to show us light and Jesus will be killed for our sins. There are many miracles mentioned in Bible about how Jesus cured ill and revived dead people and he himself came to life three days after he was killed(by Romans and Jews). Lets talk about Jesus later.

We all know that earlier Christians were from Judaism. So christianity inherited scriptures, Gods and some festivals from their former religion Judaism. Christianity also has members from many other religions like Mithraism and many other contemporary religions. This can be found by presence of Karma Theory, Christmas, Priests staying bachelors for whole life (this is a must in the earlier times of Christianity).

Now coming to other side of coin, Christianity ruled Europe for more than a millinia. In many countries it even ruled for almost 1500 years. But if we look at the history, it was the dark ages for entire Europe. No arts were flourished, trade was entirely dependant on other nations like India, china, Persia and Arabia. During the initial years, Christianity fought against Roman empire. There are few stories which Christians want to hide throughout the history like one about St. Augustine. Many Christians agree he is the one whom god gave extra life even after he was poisoned. But they never say that he is one who said that there is compulsion in religion and whoever left Christianity, they should be killed. There are a few historical incidents which Christians don’t want you to talk about like Spanish Inquisition, Crusades(mainly the children’s Crusade), Slave trade(where slaves were employed for development and flourishing of church properties), Goa Inquisition in India and many others. So let’s not talk about them.

Jesus said to forgive everybody. But it seems that church is against his words. They destroyed Romans with help of Romans. Yes, I am not out of my mind and I am not on High. It was Constantine who made Christianity official religion of Rome and finally Christianity overthrew the Rome and took control. Other than Romans, it was Jews who are involved in persecution of Jesus. We all know what happened to jesus under Hitler’s regime. Even though he didn’t kill jews for persecution of Jesus, but still they were killed throughout Europe. Even Stalin killed jews. During crusades, many jews were killed for no reason. This is how the Christians treat their mentors. They destroyed Rome, they killed Jews whenever they find a chance. And this Christianity was hailed as a peaceful religion. There is a saying in Indian languages, anybody will do good for the person who had helped him, but it will only take a great person to help a person who harmed you. This is about persons. Here is a religion which advertises itself as a religion for peace which terminated rule of kingdom who killed their savior but helped them for surviving and expansion and tried to exterminate a maternal religion for getting their savior killed. They even didn’t care to look back and say hey they are the people who gave us God and scriptures and Festivals. Such is the greatness of Christianity.

Lets see a few more great things which Christianity had presented us. After reading this, many Hindus should understand in what way we and our heritage are great than any other religion present today on earth. Offcourse I am going to say about Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade. Cathar crusade is about killing of Christians whose gaffe was to worship Christ in a different way. This is dealt very seriously and they were all killed. Some information can be found about cathars here. Today’s Southern France was completely cleansed(killed) of cathars. Was Buddha, Mahavira, got killed by any Hindu ruler in India? As a matter of fact, many Hindu rulers even supported Buddhists and Jains.

Science and Technology was only developed in Europe after church’s grip on educational institutions was loosened. Even loosening of this grip happened at a greater cost. During that time many people in Europe were not allowed to enter church for centuries. Rage built inside society and it broke in birth of Protestantism which had a death toll of 1.5 million lives. This is the cost Europe had paid only to loosen grip of church and birth of a rival sect Protestantism. I would like to ask you my friend how many lives did India spent for getting equal rights and education to women and untouchables? How many lives were lost for eradicating Untouchability in India? Doesn’t this show that even though we were not highly educated as Europeans, it didn’t took spending of lives to get a change. Did it? If this wasn’t called flexibility of religion and greatness of people, I don’t understand what else to call so.

Now let’s talk about role of church in India. Christianity was first entered in India during 4th centuary AD. It happened in the form of Syrian Christians. Syrian Christians were persecuted by Persians not because of their religion as was told us, but because of their relations with romans. This can be found where Persians even supported Persian Christians. The Syrian Christians came through sea route and entered kerala. They were given shelter and allowed to practice their religion by the present day hindu kings. When the portugese came to india in 16th century, they were stunned to see the Christians worshipping Jesus in entirely hindu rituals. This may sound unbelievable but it can also be found even today that many Christians around Nagarjuna Sagar Dam celebrate festival for Mary and they even break coconuts infront of her statues. When Christians entered Goa, they converted forcefully many people into their religion and we can’t expect any better behavior from them. Apart from this, the catholic church sided with Portugese when they invaded India. This betrayal is never told in text books and they hardly took any place during independence struggle. To cover this betrayal now the church is bringing up the murder of St. Thomas by Brahmin priests in Tamil Nadu which is based on nothing but cock-and-bull stories. This story is only taught in india and west stopped believing these stories and in recent times no reputed scholar from west dared speaking these lies, but in India, these lies find their way into newspapers as if they are truth.
Now talking about Christmas, we were told that Jesus was born on December 25. This is not true and many reputed scholars disagree with this. Because until third century, Christians never celebrated any festival on Dec 25 but there already is a great festival on that day whose celebration predates birth of Jesus. It can also be found in here. Mary conceived Jesus in a sheep ranch. Why did she conceived there? Mary and Joseph are on their way to pay taxes during that time and as we all know that December is time of extreme cold in Europe and hence taxes are collected atleast from or after March. This shows that Mary conceived Jesus on sometime between March and September which in no way coincides with Dec 25. Christians also celebrates Easter in which eggs are coloured and are hidden in house. Children are asked to find them out and when asked who hidden them, parents say that a bunny(huge rabbit) hid them. It has no relation with Christianity. Easter is a celebration in remembrance of waking of jesus from death. Is there any relation for Jesus reviving and coloring eggs? This also shows that even Easter has nothing to do with Christianity and is a festival which predates Christianity and most likely it is brought into Christianity probably by Jews.

This is the glorious history of Christianity. In one word Christianity killed communities which gave them shelter, never allowed to flourish arts. There are even many great stories like that of Mormons, but I am saving them for another post. Today during Christmas, our politicians say that we should follow the path of Jesus.

Mumbai blasts - Our real enemy

Well finally the battle with terrorists is over and one of them was caught alive and others were killed in a deadly fight. There are quite a bit questions raising over our security forces' ability to deal with terrorists. Its really hard to believe that it took 60 hours of time for 400 armed gaurds to terminate the terrorists. What took so long? Why didn't our cops use tear gas or gas which can make terrorists fell asleep so that either disabling them or killing them? These are just a few questions the Indian government should answer for its people.
Well I don't wanna waste time on other issues but I am writing this essay is to expose a few other enemies who lie between us. The very unfortunate thing is that we even don't know that they are our enemies. Ofcourse I am talking about muslim apologetics. These idiots are doing more harm than the entire islamic terroristscombinedly put together . First I want you to read this and this essays from the well famed TIME magazine. The essay says "the attacks were revenge for the persecution of Muslims in India. We love this as our country, but when our mothers and sisters were being killed, where was everybody?" When did persecution of muslims did happen in india? Is he referring about 2000 muslims in 2002(where 650 of them are hindus which our great media had never did report and keep on lying that all of them are muslims)? Or is he talking about 1992 blasts where a mosque was standing on a hindu temple for more than 500 years? When are the mothers and sisters of muslims are being killed in this country? He also tells that he loves this country then why did he keep on shooting people? Dr. Ambedkar loved this country but did he ever shot people even his people were treated very badly? Are muslims being treated that worst today in this society than once untouchables were treated in our society? I would like to answer a few of these questions.

Today there are no people getting as many priviliges as muslims, still they can claim that they are being "suppressed" and "tortured". They have 5% reservations in many states like AP, they will get special price discounts if they travel to Mecca which will in noway bolster Indian economy, infiltrators from Bangladesh are well supported in states like Bihar thanks to Laloo Prasad Yadav and they are even supported after knowing that they are engaged in blasts in Hyderabad and Banglore, the WAKF board was never questioned, they can run their religous institutions without Government authority on any form, they can beat up writers like Taslima Nasreen. Despite of these advantages, they still claim that muslims' mothers and sisters are killed. I don't know what else has to be done by Indian government and Hindus to erase their bad name.

In the essay, the author told us that muslims have shorter life spans, worse health, lower literacy levels and lower-paying jobs. Does this have anything to do with Hindus? I ask any rational mind to answer this question. I also would like to tell that not only muslims, even hindus in many villages have lower life spans, not so good health conditions. Coming to the literacy, a poor hindu will either send his child to a government high shcool or will let him stay illeterate for his entire life. What will a poor muslim do in India? He doesn't send his children to a Government high school, instead he sends them to a Madarsa because they are sponsored by Islamic institutions. What is taught in Madarsa anyway? They were taught Quran, Urdu and Arabic. Does any of this helps in a man's life for his career? And who should be blamed for this? Are hindus responsible for this? These are the main reasons why muslims are unemployed. One more thing that should be noted is that a hindu family will have generally two children or probably three. Ever wonder how many children does a muslim have? The answer lies between four to ten. And it is no wonder that a muslim cannot send all of his children to private schools, he can send them to a Government schools but instead they trust their own religious insitituions and send them to a madarsa. Who should be responsible for this? There are few important things to be noted. In many states there are atleast one muslim leader and none of them would have any problem for getting some extra funds for betterment of education in Muslim community. I would like to point out that Ajim Premji is also a muslim but i don't remember him doing something for spreading of education among muslims. Well if muslims themselves doing nothing for betterment of their community, who should be blamed. As per usual the Government can be blamed, but here it should be noted that the same government is doing nothing for hindus either. Then why killing people in general when they are not guilty? May be I was wrong, the guilty of people lies for they are the ones who elected the governemnt. I would also like to remind that first education minister of independent India was Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. What did he do for betterment of muslims when he was the education minister of India? Why is Mr. Zakir Naik spends so much time in spreading the word of God/Quran than developing standards of his own people? Why are not madarsas teaching education which can help to build a career instead of Quran and Urdu? These are the poeple who muslims can trust and they are being betrayed by them. Does it makes any sense blaming hindus for any of these missteps? I also would like to ask the author how many hindus did stopped Dr. A.P.J. Kalam from becoming a president. Isn't it the BJP who proposed him as a president? What did the congress do for his term renewal? Haven't they played politics with him also?

The author tried to say that the differences between hindus and muslims were born at 1857 as if untill that time hindus and muslims loved each other and they treated others as brothers and they respected others culture very well. He is ignoring the struggle between Vijayanagara empire and muslims of north india and the efforts of Shivaji Maharaj to free India from hands of muslims and who will forget the persecutions of Sikhs from hands of Mughals. Forgetting all of these, the author tells us that all of the conflicts were started from 1857 and from then the differences had increased. This is nothing but denying of history. Its too sad that the author has no knowledge of history or he is trying to portray a different picture. He also said that introduction of english as official language became the biggest hindrance of development for muslim society. This sentence would only make sense if either muslims have an inability to learn english or they denied to learn english unlike hindus who went for this education. Who should be blamed for this? English? Hindus for following english education? He is telling that Hindus and british discriminated muslims from entering into jobs. Here is an answer for you what good happen when Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was education minister? I also would like to point out that in Hyderabad during the Nizam rule, there are 60,000 arabs working while hindus only accounted for 1300. Did this hampered the advancement of hindu society? Then how can discriminating against muslims(as saying by the author) hampered their develpment? Even after 1900, muslims never went for english education. They only struck with their religion and Quran and now they are struck today as a failed society. Who should be blamed here?

He also told that muslims were distrusted by majority. The recent bomb blasts in various cities doesn't make them look any good and its all their mistake. I would like to conclude this essay by pointing out that its because of their lack of concern for family planning, lack of interest in their childrens' education, their lack of harwork and commitment from their leaders is the present result of stagnant of muslim community and it has nothing to do with hindu community. What did hindu community do when Ambedkar was so successful? Did it try to stop his attempts? No, instead it realised the mistakes and corrected them. Unless untill muslims know all of these, they won't be developed and just killing people will only make their condition worse. Its too bad that the author is focusing that hindus are the ones who should be blamed and I believe people like these are the ones who is real enemy to present society than the terrorist himself. The main point of author was to make a muslim look less evil. He is even supporting the muslim and in another way he is supporting the terrorist himself. I don't understand why hindus are blamed when muslims themselves didn't go for english education and their elite are not doing anything for them?

Caste system - A historical Analysis

Casteism - this is one of the evil systems in hinduism as was projected by media(mainly western). This is the one of the main reasons why hinduism seems so complicated unable to be accept new converts. Caste is derived from the root word "casta", which in portugal means division. This caste system was one of the main reasons why india was unable to avenge the invaders who are both technically, numerically and spiritually inferior to present hindus. If caste system was really so much evil, then how come hinduism along with its caste system was able to survive for 7,500 years(even more than that)?

If really any system was such an evil, varna system would not have survived this long with all sorts of hardships like endangering of religion(buddhism, Jainism), external attacks from foriegn rule,like islam, christianity etc. Lets take a fair look at the factors that lead to present complicated caste system which was developed from a simple chaturvarna(four varna) system and the main factors that lead to degradation.

Vedas are the first and authoritative books that should be considered as basic for any customs in hinduism. According to vedas, human life is divided into four parts - brahmachari, samsari, vanaprastha, sanyasi and society was divided into four varnas(not castes). Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisyas, Sudras. Brahmans are the priests and teachers. Kshatriyas are the ruling class and soldiers and are supposed to maintain social order. Vaisyas should do trade and farming. Sudras should do the remaining jobs in the society. According to Chaturvarna system, varna(caste) is decided by only your deeds and not by birth. This division of work was mainly based for development of society and no caste is superior to other one. I should give an example here which would help to understand how this works. In olden days, people used to provide food and shelter for the warriors who used to save them and the warriors in return used to save the people from any external threats. Bluntly speaking, everybody was born with some talent and using this talent for betterment of society is the main motive behind varna system.

Upanishads are additives for vedas. Any information contained in vedas should have a lot of additional information in Upanishads. That too a very important information about caste system must have more information as it was going to decide how society runs. But for some reason Upanishads hardly contain any information about the chaturvarna system. This only means that either vedas are written after Upanishads or some part of vedas must be added with a selected few verses.

How ardently does hindus follow their religious books. If on a scale people following their own religious books are taken into consideration, hindus will score as the least and muslims will get a highest score. In hindus some follow some books and others doesn't follow the same book. You can follow gita, manusmriti and doesn't care for the rest of books and still you can be called as hindu and you can follow not even a single book and still you can be called as a hindu. This is the religious way of hindus. During the time of vedas, Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Sun god were worshiped. Apart from sun god, none of the other gods were worshiped as like in olden days. This represents change in gods who are worshiped.

Lets say a person commits a mistake and escapes from getting punished by using a small loophole in judicial system by using money. Who is the culprit here? Is the judicial system or the person and others who supported him? Unfortunately people who committed mistakes used the religious books to save themselves. When people hardly follow the books then how can we conclude that the same applies in case of caste?

Let's take a look at what other resources tell us from puranas and upanishads about varna system. Sukracharya, mentor for danavas(demons) and who abolished meat eating for brahmins tells these words about varna system.
na jaatyaa braahmnashchaatra kshatiryo vaisya eva na
na shudro na cha vai mlechicho bheditaa gunakarmabhih
(In this world, no one is a brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra by birth but on the basis of quality and deeds and actions.)
His words are followed about meat eating by brahmins till today, but why not the words about caste system? His words are followed till sometime, but something has forced the society of india to abandon the other words. What was this?

Let's take a look at what dhanurveda written by BRHAT SARNGADHARA PADDHATI, a 15th Century treatise in Sanskrit on the Science of the Horn Bow by Maharshi Sarngadhara. Translated from the Sanskrit edition by Peter Peterson, Bombay, 1888.
1720 brhaahmnaya dhanurvedam khadgam vai kshatriyaya cha
vaishyaya dhapayekthuntham gadhaam shoodrasya dhaapayet
He will give a 'dhanu' (meaning a bow) to a Brahmin disciple, a khadga (meaning a sword) to a Ksatriya, a 'Kunta' (meaning a lance) to a Vaisya and a 'Gada' (meaning a mace) to a Sudra.
This clearly states that till 15th centuary, the society was running on the four varna system that is prescribed(not mandatory) and not the present day deteriorated caste system. Even Manu Smriti prescribes Chaturvarna system.

In Gita, Lord Sri Krishna told that, he created Brahmins from head, kshatriyas from hands, vaisyas from thighs and sudras from feet. What krishna meant is that with the brains of brahmin, with the courage and valor of a kshatriya, with the business talents of vaisya and with the productive capability of sudras a a society can be developed. By his sentences, we can clearly understand with failure of one of them, the whole society can't advance and live peacefully. This chaturvarna system is meant only to be the betterment of society and unfortunately it had degraded into the present caste system.

Lets see how varna system does affected anybody. Aswini gods despite of being Brahmins, were not allowed to participate in Yajna. Another famous Brahmin Parasurama was Suta(chairoteer) by birth. By penance, he became Brahmin and by fighting he became Kshatriya. Vishwamitra born as a kshatriya, became a Brahmin by penance. Chandogya Upanishad says that Guru Raikva taught Vedas Jansruti even though later was a cart man (Sudra). This shows that birth is not the only criteria for becoming a brahmin or a kshatriya.

Let us see the historical struggles between different castes. In the puranas, there are wars between Brahmins and kshatriyas for power in some cases and in some cases to prove their superiority over others. But nowhere in the puranas there is any mention about ill-treatment of low caste people. There are some instances of such ill-treatment in Mahabharatha. Drona was hired by bheeshma to train all princes in archery. Drona had sworn that he will make Arjuna the greatest archer. So he denied training to Ekalavya on the grounds that he was a nishada. There is another point to be noted. Nishada kingdom was an ally to Jarasandha who were enemies of Kauravas and hence Drona should not train Kauravas' enemy. Drona also rejected education of Brahmastra to Karna on the grounds of later being a suta(charioteer). But the real cause is Drona doesn't like to make a rival for his favorite disciple Arjuna. In denying education to Karna, Drona was totally blinded by his love for Arjuna. Apart from Drona, there are no instances showing illtreatment for lower caste people and even Drona denied education only to suppress rivals of his favorite disciple. This can also be visible where Drona taught Narayanaastra to his son Aswathaama but not to Arjuna. By analysing Drona's character we can easily see that he was torn between his love for his son and his words to Arjuna of making him the greatest archer. Drona's contemporary Kripacharya trained all of his disciples alike and never showed discrimination. There is one more notable incident during the war. During the war, Duryodhana criticized Drona for his partiality towards Pandavas. Infuriated Drona designed a technique called ChakraVyuha which even baffled warriors of his own side. This incidents shows one point that should be noted. Being a brahmin, Drona even in worst of his times had designed a master technique which shows that they(Brahmins) should be used for their intelligence without which they are nothing. There is one more example to be explained. In 1891, 21 sikhs had fought valiantly with an army of 10,000 - 12,000 army of Pasthuns. Sikhs are born warriors like Jats and Rajputs. Vaisyas and Jains are famous for their Business skills and Brahmins are famous for their Intelligence. This is the main motive of Chaturvarna system.

Let's see what Ambedkar have said about caste system. He totally rejected aryan invasion theory and according to him, there are initially only three castes viz brahmins, kshatriyas and vaisyas. The fourth caste sudras are formed by kshatriyas who ill-treated brahmins. Due to this ill-treatment, brahmanas had rejected upanayana and this caused the fall of kshatriyas into a lower caste sudras. He explicitly declares that wrong is on the part of kshatriyas and not brahmins. But unfortunately Dr. Ambedkar failed to establish a historical fall of varna system.

After the Mahabharata war which happened in 7,500BC(based on some recent excavations in dwaraka, which was done in 2002) there are no real threats to hindu society till 2000BC. As there are no threats, hindu society was decayed. Rituals are followed without knowing their real meaning. This is the time when Lord Buddha was born. He totally rejected the vedas and chaturvarna system. He propagated a new system Ahimsa or non-violence. He also said that do only what you understand and don't do anything ritually. His law was highly accepted by the people. Buddhism had spreaded entire from central asia to Japan. The greatest example was Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Such great was the spreading of Buddhism that for the first time Hinduism was at the verge of extinction. But spreading of Buddhism was checked by advent of Adi Sankaracharya. With his Advaita philosophy, Sankaracharya had defeated not only Buddhists and Jains, he also defeated his hindu counterparts like shaivites, vaishnavites and shaktites. It was he who established the four matts in four major regions of India. After Sankaracharya, Hinduism again resumed all of its major parts. The present day pakistan, India, Bangladesh were reverted back to hinduism. Buddhism was confined to only a few places like Amaravati and Pataliputra(present patna). After Sankaracharya, only once India faced threats to its soveriegnity in the form of alexander who was defeated by Porus. In these long periods of time, neither hinduism nor varna system was affected and they remained intact.

There is one more point to be noted about buddhism. Buddha told in his Dhammapada that a Brahmin is a person “For whom there exists neither the hither nor the farther shore, nor both the hither and the farther shore, he who is undistressed and unbound, - him I call a Brahmana.” Here is a few points worth noting. Buddha didn't tell that a brahmin should never oppress a sudra(not to mention vyasya and kshatriya also). He only told how a brahmin should live. One more point to be noted is that why did Buddha used Brahmin instead of Sanyasi or a renouncer. This explains the point that in those days that brahmins are not a caste by that time as it is today and it is a common term used like a sanyasi except having a family. Another major point to be noted is that main principle of Buddhism is that Ahimsa and not equality on basis of caste. Why is this so? It is because in those days there are many wars and there are no discrimination based on caste.

If anyone really feel that hinduism is oppressive, I would like to hear him a few answers from him for the following questions.
1)Why is it that not even a single voice was raised against this social evil till the time of Ambedkar? If anybody feels that its because society hadn't supported this, I would like to point out a few examples how society had acted other way around. The first one is from Charaka samhita where charaka says that there are many social bans and blind beliefs on medicine and it is difficult for him to treat his patients. As the book is about medicine, he had written about problems he faced in treating others. Why is it that not even a single writer had atleast pointed out a few of incidents where there are discriminations? Even in Vatsyana's Kama Sutra, we find that an incident about a king who killed his wife while intercourse and Vatsayana saying that these kind of blind beliefs should be changed. But for some reason we were unable to find any incident relating to discrimination on Sudras in any of the texts.
2)If hinduism was really so bad, why is it that Hinduism had survived for this many long years? There are some points to be noted that Hinduism had faced threats from time unknown. The list begins from Charvakas, Jains, Buddhists, Islam, Christianity, Communists etc. Everybody said they would create a world where all people are same and no discriminations whatsoever. For the part atleast Jains and Buddhists are real in their speaking. Then why did people didn't get converted to these religions if there is so much of discrimination in hinduism? There is only one time when people accepted other religion viz Buddhism only because they like the teachings of buddha and immediately after one renaissance from hinduism had got majority of the people back. Why is it that people are very anxious to stay in only a very highly repressing discriminating racial hinduism and didn't accepted other religions? My be people liked to be repressing and people didn't like freedom.
3)India had abolished slave system way before than any other countries in the world had thought of restraining slavery. The greatest example is slave system is only found in Ramayana and not in Mahabharata. When slave system is abolished in society, then why did people started to discriminate based on caste? Slave system was only reintroduced in India after the invasions of Muslim as even the greek writer megashtenes hadn't find any slaves in india.
4)In hinduism, not only humans and natural forces, even animals like Dog, Ox, Snakes etc are also worshipped. When people were able to see god in even animals, then how can such a society will repress fellow humans?
5)During the reigns of Islam and Christianity, people are highly oppressed and they are promoted to convert but people in Bharatavarsh hardly cared for conversion. Why is it so?
6)Till the end of 19th century, India is considered as richest country. Why is it so?
The only possible reason for any of the above questions is that only through hinduism, people felt great freedom than any other religions and it was proved historically and there is no such thing as Discrimination based on Caste.

Let's see varna system from recorded history. The first historical available document was from a greek writing Megasthenes' Indica. In his book, Megasthenes had documented about life of India around 3rd century BC. In his book, he writes that there are seven castes in India - Philosophers(which formed small part), Husbandmen who are majority of population and have to cultivate their land, Herdsmen and Hunters who are allowed to keep cattle and hunt animals, labor people who are hired by the king to vend wares, build ships and amours. The fifth being fighting class whose job is only to fight and nothing else. The sixth class are overseers to whom is assigned the duty of watching all that is going on. The seventh class consists of counselors and assessors of king. Megasthenes goes on explaining that exchange of caste is prohibited except for anybody can become a philosopher as that is the toughest job. This shows that caste is decided by occupation and not by birth.

Apart from this, a well-famed incident should be noted. Chanakya(a brahmin) had helped Chandragupta(kshatriya) to establish Maurya dynasty. It was well-known fact that only the chanakya's brain that implanted chandragupta as the new emperor and founder of new empire. With his brain, chanakya could have easily got the throne, but he want a kshatriya to be the ruler instead of him. This also implies that brahmins are there to help kshatriyas and chaturvarna system was followed till then and no atrocities on low castes were existed.

There are not many changes had taken place till advent of 10th centuary AD which are strong enough to shake the society from its very base either religiously except for establishment of a few new empires and fall of older ones. Whoever the ruler is either Jian or Buddhist or Shaktite or Shaivite or vaishnavite or advait or dvait, the social life was not affected much and this societal structure seems to remaine intact till 10th centuary AD. By 6th centuary AD(by westerners calculations), Buddhism was totally wiped out of whole bharatavarsh(present pakistan,India,bangladesh except for a few places like Bihar,Afganishtan and Amaravati(These facts are recorded in chinese traveller huen tsang's writings)). There were only little changes in social life till the end of 10th centuary. But in 20th centuary, there are innumerable castes. How did this drastic change take place? The main change one can observe is that the attacks and raids on India are vastly increased at an exponential rate and the rulers had changed from hindus to muslims and later to christians. Is there any relation in between mulim rule and degradation of caste system?

In his essay, Jai Chand Vidyalankar in Itihaas Pravesh writes that in the beginning the castes had all the possible flexibility but it began to be rigid in the 10th century, to defend the Hindu life from the barbaric invaders who not only raped, murdered, plundered but also terrorized people towards conversion to Islam. The first attack of islam was delivered on 712 C.E. by Muhammad bin Qasim on Sindh. This was immediately followed by a series of attacks. Initially muslims were unsuccessful to land on India till 11th centuary AD. But a series of successive attempts made them victorious. The raids of muslims is so high. An example might illustrate the real situation. A special tax called "Turushkadanda" was imposed by Gavalga kingdom of Gujarat, which is used to fight only muslims. This is just a tip of iceberg. One notable incident took place in 1198 AD. Mother of minor king Mool Raj who also was lady cheif of army defeated a host of muslim army and took muslims as captives. The captured muslims are absorbed by the hindu society as soldiers which tells that till 12th centuary AD, the chaturvarna system was alive and is strictly followed.

By 11th centuary AD, there are muslim rulers on India and they imposed heavy Zizya taxes on people of other religions. To attract more people, they exempted brahmins and buddhists. The struggle between rulers and ruled ones had caused a serious tumult in social life and the once famous varna system had lost all its flexibility and began degrading into a dangerous form. Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (Penguin 1988/1963, p.232-236), Islamic rule in India as a "colonial experiment" was "extremely violent", and "the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm -- burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves." Will Durant's famous line: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." (Story of Civilization, vol.1, Our Oriental Heritage, New York 1972, p.459). This could clearly explain what a terror the Hindu society had faced till end of muslim rule. During this time only the oral powers of brahmins had saved the Hindu society. The hardships faced by Hindus had forced them to forget the real chaturvarna system. the present degraded system of chaturnavrna system was due to the result of muslim rule in India. This degradation had reached peak after the British rule had begun.

let's see some historical facts. The Britishers had appointed rich person of a village to collect taxes and called them "choudary". Now this is one of leading caste among Andhra Pradesh. People having "choudary" as a part of their name can be seen all over India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Some linguistic terms also made a small difference. The word Iyengar was a mal-pronounciation of Ayya garu.

It seems like the caste system had started declining from 10th century. Some more points raised by many is that Hindu society never accepted changes. This may seem false. Some examples may illustrate my point. The well famed Andhra-Kurukshetra or “The war of Palnadu” is resultant of change the society has to turn. This war is fought for change in Caste system and fought between two factions. The traditional factions led by Nagamma and revolutionary forces led by Brahma Naidu. Brahma Naidu and Malideva Naidu had tried to abolish caste system which Nalagama Naidu opposed. He was supported by Nagamma. This war had resulted in total destruction of a generation of warriors of that age and as a result the end of chalukyan rule was hastened. There is one more event to be noted. The birth of Veerashaivas in Karnataka. They are a branch of people who thought of creating a casteless society but ultimately were made as a caste and worst of all their caste was divided into many subcastes. A sect which started to create a casteless society was degraded into a caste and was again divided into many subcastes.

By churning the whole events, we can conclude a few points. Its the human nature to degrade any great system and occasional great persons like Buddha, Sankaracharya were needed to any society for not to downfall of a society. Caste system is not as bad as always projected. It was resulted into as bad only because of stagnant degradation and unfortunately when a renaissance is required, the central rule of india is fallen from the hands of Hindus. Every man wants his own identity to be saved and at same time he wants to integrate into society. Caste system came into existence at this point. It integrated everybody into society and at same time gave a person his own identity and this helped to excel the society for not years or decades or centuries but for millinea. Until the end of 19th century, India is considered as the wealthiest country in world. Without spirituality from Hinduism and strong society based on Caste system, I don't think it was a possible. Change is constant and once caste system is useful doesn't means that it will be useful again. Its time for our generation to decide what to do about caste system. I feel we all should get united and fight against this social evil unless we are bound to lose again.