Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?

Murad A Baig

For the entire article, click on http://www.chowk.com/articles/14150

(This post is referred to by What was the the most effective response to political Islam in Ancient India? at Islamic Danger in History)

Here are four selected Comments on the article from http://www.chowk.com/interacts/14150

#17 Posted by laddu on May 27, 2008 6:07:50 pm
DM ji,The fact that even till today Tibetan Buddhism has been given state patronage points to the Indian tradition of providing facilities to Buddhism. This happened because Buddhism has by and large a completely reclusive and non-interfering political philosophy (unlike political Islam) that does not insist upon over throwing and capturing political power.The fact that now a large class of arms-bearing kshatriya became buddhist sanyasi (at an early age when they should be grahastha) weakened the internal protection mechanism of hindu society. So, Buddhism was the FIRST victim of momeen hordes because unlike dwija-dharma which insists upon a warrior group of kshatriya to protect itself Buddhism does not provide for such a mechanism. So, whenever the momeen hordes went on rampage at some buddhist monastery they just killed all of them without resistance on the same day!!On the other hand , the dwija suffered maximum casualities ONLY after the stiff resistence from the kshatriyas was broken by the momeen hordes.I hold the opinion that it was the vanquishing of the weakened group of kshatriyas that actually was responsible for the destruction of hindu civilization at the hands of momeen hordes. I must also add, that the sikh gurus realized this weakend link in hindu civilization and came up with a solution to end the weakened warriar castes ended with the sikh gurus asking every dwija to become a kshatriya (one who bears arms) to fight the momeen hordes. In my view one of the most important K i.e. the Kirpan,that the kshatriyas were supposed to carry was now to be worn by every dwija on becoming a sikh.As I view it from the eyes of a modern hindu idolator who is not apologetic about his idolatory, Sikhism was the most effective response to political Islam because it created a group of neo-kshatriyas (those who bear arms) in order to protect the sanathan dharma!!
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites

#18 Posted by dost_mittar on May 27, 2008 6:16:55 pm
laddu#17:"I hold the opinion that it was the vanquishing of the weakened group of kshatriyas that actually was responsible for the destruction of hindu civilization at the hands of momeen hordes."You are not the only one who thinks so. I believe that Buddhism is the best faith for an individual but not for a society - unless modified to meet the needs of the society, as has been done in east and southeast asia.

#406 Posted by Mystic
on June 5, 2008 7:50:33 am
Vivekananda and Indian Islam Gautam Kundu, Georgia Southern University “Neo-Hinduism” (or the so-called “Hindu Modernism”) involves “reinterpretation”—of the tradition, of the interrelationship of the indigenous and the foreign, and of what often has been termed as the “degree of receptivity (of India) vis-a-vis the West”, etc. Swami Vivekananda (Narendranath Dutta, 1863-1902), Sri Ramakrishna’s most well-known disciple, both at home and abroad, became an influential shaper and propagandist of neo-Hinduism, an “exemplary exponent of Hindu self-representation” during the early phase of Indian nationalism. However, for all the seeming vigor and vision with which Vivekananda sought to infuse his own brand of Hindu self-assertion, he lived and practiced a problematic and ambivalent position that neo-Hinduism occupied in colonial India and the West. While he criticized the materialism and secularism of the West, Vivekananda also admired the energy and dynamism associated with the Western sense of (among other things) national identity, and, ironically, by implication, religious nationalism: Vivekananda’s belief that India’s special gift to the world was her (Hindu) spirituality.Tapan Raychauduri has claimed that Vivekananda’s “deep regard for Islam was in a way [the] most striking expression of his faith in validity of all religions”, and that Vivekananda’s highest prayer for the “good of the Motherland was that she might manifest the twofold idea of ‘An Islamic body and a Vedantin’s heart’”. But a closer examination of Vivekananda’s writings reveal that such a “validation” of Islam and of the Muslim Indian is more apparent than real, however. His vision of a non-discriminatory future is undermined by its fatal ambivalence, and its slide into the familiar (Orientalist) binary of Indian/Hindu/Bengali “effeminacy” and the “manly/muscular virtues” of Islam (and the Muslim Other), etc. Like Tagore, but unlike Bankimchandra and Savarkar, Vivekananda is more than willing to concede that Muslims have made India their homeland through centuries, but they continue to be the Other, if not quite the “first Outsider”. Further, like Rabindranath, when Vivekananda discusses the glories of the Indian past, it is almost always the ancient Aryan past. Over nine hundred years of Islamic presence in India and its myriad contribution to the country’s “composite culture” remains unacknowledged, if not ignored. When Vivekananda does praise Islam (and Muslims), it is mostly for what he considered to be the robust vigor of its “masculinity”; the ethical and metaphysical aspects of Islam suffer a near-total erasure. Like other neo-Hindu religious cultural and religious nationalists of his time, for Vivekananda, the Muslim Indian resides “outside the fold”, as it were, of that which makes for a “true” Indian: one who possesses a life of manas, not bahubal.




#401 Posted by nkg on June 4, 2008 9:41:28 pm
Re: # 393 #393 Mystic
Mystic...
Muslims fought British. What special about it? Muslims had fought with Indians also. After the western floodget was opened on early 11th/12th century, India had become playground for middle eastern and central asian invaders. And that resulted in infusion of mediaval,middle eastern barbarism in major part of Indian society. When British ( and other european countries)had arrived, India was no more a civilisation.

What history should we read? Created by mediaval arab/central asian looters/destroyers and ignore Vivekananda, whom large section of civilised world respect?
He had travelled large part of India and identifed the main reason for the sorry state of present India. When he travelled europe and USA, he identified what steps to be taken to get rid of this barbarism.
His follower list conatins Nocola Tesla, Rabindranath, J C Bose etc... And for the sake of mediaval, middle eastern barbarism, we, Indians have to ignore him!! What an audacity.

Regarding 1000 years of islamic existance in India- A dog is a dog, whether you keep it in your house for 1 day or 100 days. It does not change the fact. If Brits would have stayed in India for couple of more centuries, does that make them Indians.

Regarding M K Gandhi...He deserved to die like that. No Indian is proud of his killing. He was responsible for islamic carnage in Malabar coast (Moplah) and his stupidity allowed the arab slaved to go on rampage in Calcutta and most part of Bangladesh (Great Calcutta killing, Noakhali massacre etc...). You,arab salves, may be very happy with him (he has kept one side unarmed, such that barbarians can carry out whatever way they want).
What statistics, you are using to prove that moslem % of population in West Bengal is not increasing abnormally? GOI ( NSA) is already concerned about it. Naturally, with migration of bangladeshis ( non-moslem share has dropped from 25% to now 10% in present day BD), the moslems population % should have reduced. But it has increased manyfold.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040915/asp/opinion/story_3752632.asp

If you want to read more or all comments, go to http://www.chowk.com/interacts/14150/1/0/16#378520