why has it become fashionable to Blame India first?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Even on this site, the elitist are either directly blaming or tacitly supporting the separatist view about various Indian states.

When confronted they claim that they are only championing democracy.
When India played by the prevailing rules, they bring out all these bogus charges.

Article - Why it is cool to hate India

Mr. Arindam Banerji:
" Immediately, after the Nadimarg massacre of 24 Indians, including women and children, Farzana Versey wrote a scathing article, criticizing the Kashmiri Pandits, blaming them for leaving the valley – essentially the they-asked-for-it point-of-view. Times of India editorials and Kuldeep Nayar came out and blamed the Government of India. Mind you, not a word – not one word, criticizing either the Pakistani generals or the LeT. Akhila Raman blamed India directly and of course, a columnist in Greater Kashmir blamed the Pandits for it all. All these people, subtly yet completely undermined the case the GOI was trying to build in international media on the persistent and genocidal nature of Pakistani terrorism. In essence, these Indians equated the victims with the perpetrators, and made the case on behalf of Pakistan. After all, nobody in international media would cast any doubt on "Indian" writers, when they place the blame on GOI and the Pandits for such a heinous massacre.

The jury had declared their verdict – the ever-so erudite Hafeez Sayeed who postulated "Killing Hindus is the way to move forward" came out looking lily-white, while 4-year old Suraj, who died in his mother's arms was found guilty – he was an Indian, you see. Remember, the Chattisinghpora incident where 35 Sikhs were killed – some Indian journalists even those writing in international publications, declared that the GOI was to blame. It took an American, Barry Bearak of NYTimes to chase the whole thing down and visit the home of one of the perpetrators in Pakistan. No matter what happens and how it happens, it is India that is at fault, Indians are responsible. Journalists tell me that they must remain balanced. That word again?"

 

[sangom]

Shri prasad,

Yes, you are right. In contemporary India, 'to be secular' means 'to be anti-hindu'. But I will, in my ignorance, blame hindus only for giving rise to this state of affairs.

Hinduism has never been a unified religious community and if at all it did something successfully and diligently, was to create as much and as many rifts among its people till about the time we got Independence. So, of all the communities (religious) in India the hindus became the softest corner which could be attacked with impunity. Other communities will be united in opposing anything against them or adversely affecting their common interests.

If we have to change this situation we should have absolute unity among all hindus which I think even the hindu gods will not be able to bring in even at the end of this kaliyuga.

Some so-called godmen, babas etc., did try to garner all people/all hindus into their fold but those godmen were only after their material growth and so the unity which was brought about vanished just as they did themselves.

Let us, therefore, try for hindu unity in its true meaning. I do not think VHP or BJP or any of the hindutva outfits are genuinely interested in this.

 

[kunjuppu]

To further add to your note dear sangom,

While Prasad has stated ‘elitist’ even in this forum attack india, I think, it may be worthwhile, in the same breath, to stress the need for a egalitarian sanathana dharma – or is that an oxymoron statement?

Can Hinduism ever be, without the stratifications of disunity – and do we all need the dalits to be at the bottom to be stepped on and do our dirty work.

Today, a call for hindu unity, is not a call to unite hindus, but appears to be a code word, ‘let the Brahmins be the leaders’ and along with ‘declare hindu the state religion’.

The truth of the matter as I see it, india is a nation of million minorities. We may have some things in common with other groups, but no group, bar our own smartha iyer, are we in 100% completely identical or can be identified with – and even here, we differ by subsects, gothrams … so in a land of divide and live, we appear to abide by ‘divide and be ruled’.

.. and any talk of reconciliation, starting with introspections and apologies, are immediately shot down. How can you expect anything but criticism on a macro scale, when we refuse to acknowledge the personal values that contributed to the whole paradox of ‘unity in diversity’. That is the biggest joke on wordplay in the English language.

Ha!

ps ...in this very forum: we have seen several tears for kashmiri pandits, but whenever sri lankan tamil issue is discussed, the overwhelming posts are about the ltte and terrorism and not the rights of eelam tamils. when we have no feeling for tamil inam, but have a jathi inam addiction, I see no hope forever about any hindu unity or any type of unity.

 

[Nara]

... In contemporary India, 'to be secular' means 'to be anti-hindu'. .

Dear Shri Sangom sir, you may find this interesting that many Americans Christians, particularly the evangelical minded ones, have similar feelings about U.S. secularism, except it is about Christianity. They complain to no end that to be secular is to be anti-Christian. To them anyone who supports secularism is of the "blame U.S. first" mindset. These Christian fundamentalists and the Hindutva groups have lot in common.

Cheers!

 

[zebra16]

Today, a call for hindu unity, is not a call to unite hindus, but appears to be a code word, ‘let the Brahmins be the leaders’ and along with ‘declare hindu the state religion’.

Why should a call for hindu unity be a code word for "let the brahmns be the leaders"?

 

[kunjuppu]

Why should a call for hindu unity be a code word for "let the brahmns be the leaders"?

the organizations that call for hindu unity today are VHP, RSS - both brahmin led and overwhelmingly brahmin.

BJP is a political party which swings the way the votes come.

believe me, i too believe in hindu unity. but coming from me, even though i do not accept manu or his principles, would be seen suspicious by other castes. sometimes i think, we tambrams, on an average, have no clue, how we are looked upon and viewed by other tamil communities.

the same thing goes outside of tamil nadu -i think in karnataka the fight is between lingayats and vokkaligas..though i may be wrong here. so, we are sharing power on caste lines and this is uniqe in india.

even in china, it is only racial - the overwhelming han chinese against ethnic minorities. but han chinese, do not have caste as a dividing factor to separate them into groups. same in japan, iran or germany or france. the society at large has no fragmented thinking masques like we do.

if we have a country of just iyers - just imagine. then it would be easier task to pull everyone together, as most of our factors of division would not exist anymore. i hope i am getting my message across without sound ghoulish.. but i am trying to present the reality of india, and why hindu unity is impossible because of the several constraining factors.

 

[prasad1]

It is deftly made into caste politics. The article was about being ANTI-INDIA. India consists of various religion, states, and regions. India is a secular country, with democratic government. We have every right to criticize the parties, policies, and practices.

No where it gives us the right to give away an inch of the country. Nor do we have the right to invite a foreign power to invade India to suit our needs.

You can be anti-hindu, anti-brahmin, anti-whatever, but you can not be anti-India.

Personally I am anti-religious party.

 

[kunjuppu]

prasad,

it is not i bring the caste politics here. i write only what i see. why else do you think that hindu unity does not work?

even in west bengal, the hindu maha sabha had a couple of MPs immediately post partition when hindu identity could be appealed, but after that it was all leftist and anti hindu communists who ruled sway.

people do not like to read the analysis, because there is truth in it, and truth hurts. because each one of us, has a vested interest in preserving our caste identity. to give it away in the cause of greater hinduism, has no appeal for anyone here.

such is not the case where hindus are a small community or minority - like west indies, fiji or south africa, where caste soon disappears as we are all looked as one brown skinned entity, and with small numbers, we soon discard our caste and marry whomever is available.

in the usa, with first generation indians, caste appears absurd. here it is a matching of a different kind of compatibility initiated by physical attraction, and investigated further re education, potential and earning power transferred to life comforts.

so, i hope i have satisfied the query re why hindu unity is a code word for some fringe units, and to the country at large, it is a empty boast.

re giving of land, did you know that govt of india recently ceded away large tracts of assam to bangladesh

/Kashmir

read the para Year 1947 and 1948

again, much water has flowed since 1948. much indian blood has been shed. today no political party in india, including the communists, would dare hand over kashmir to pakistan, or conduct a plebiscite. so there is no solution.

because pakistan will insist based on partition of india protocol, muslim majority regions, with common border to pakistan went to pakistan should to to pakistan with some exceptions (malappuram in kerala had muslim majority and many went to pakistan from there, junagadh in gujarat was muslim ruled, opted for pakistan but had no common border with pakistan, and so the nawab in the middle of the night took all the treasure and escaped in a plane to pakistan).

india has the upper hand now, but still kashmir is a constant thorn, and i dont know, unlike the sikhs, if kashmir can be peaced through force/inducements. is it good karma or bad karma for india?

i dont know. time alone will tell.

to me, inspite of all the trouble in the north east, the best thing that is happening now, is the large numbers of folks from north east, who bypass paschim bongo and the rest of india, and come deep down south for careers - sharp looking youngsters, with mastery of english who are now a staple in any large fancy department store or mall in chennai. these sent back money and good word for india, like no other indian agency ever did.

 

[sangom]

It is deftly made into caste politics. The article was about being ANTI-INDIA. India consists of various religion, states, and regions. India is a secular country, with democratic government. We have every right to criticize the parties, policies, and practices.

No where it gives us the right to give away an inch of the country. Nor do we have the right to invite a foreign power to invade India to suit our needs.

You can be anti-hindu, anti-brahmin, anti-whatever, but you can not be anti-India.

Personally I am anti-religious party.

Shri Prasad,

I am seeing your post only now. Others like K, N have already given their views last night. Hence my response now.

Your OP started as under:

"why has it become fashionable to Blame India first?

Even on this site, the elitist are either directly blaming or tacitly supporting the separatist view about various Indian states.

When confronted they claim that they are only championing democracy.
When India played by the prevailing rules, they bring out all these bogus charges."

Thus far there was no mention of caste/s but only about supporting of separatism.But then what followed was this —

"Article - Why it is cool to hate India

Mr. Arindam Banerji:
" Immediately, after the Nadimarg massacre of 24 Indians, including women and children, Farzana Versey wrote a scathing article, criticizing the Kashmiri Pandits, blaming them for leaving the valley – essentially the they-asked-for-it point-of-view. Times of India editorials and Kuldeep Nayar came out and blamed the Government of India. Mind you, not a word – not one word, criticizing either the Pakistani generals or the LeT. Akhila Raman blamed India directly and of course, a columnist in Greater Kashmir blamed the Pandits for it all. All these people, subtly yet completely undermined the case the GOI was trying to build in international media on the persistent and genocidal nature of Pakistani terrorism. In essence, these Indians equated the victims with the perpetrators, and made the case on behalf of Pakistan. After all, nobody in international media would cast any doubt on "Indian" writers, when they place the blame on GOI and the Pandits for such a heinous massacre.

The jury had declared their verdict – the ever-so erudite Hafeez Sayeed who postulated "Killing Hindus is the way to move forward" came out looking lily-white, while 4-year old Suraj, who died in his mother's arms was found guilty – he was an Indian, you see. Remember, the Chattisinghpora incident where 35 Sikhs were killed – some Indian journalists even those writing in international publications, declared that the GOI was to blame. It took an American, Barry Bearak of NYTimes to chase the whole thing down and visit the home of one of the perpetrators in Pakistan. No matter what happens and how it happens, it is India that is at fault, Indians are responsible. Journalists tell me that they must remain balanced. That word again?"


I read Farzana Varsey's article which is cited above, here. To my limited understanding, this article tries to bring out the fact that the then BJP govt. at the centre and most others have a pov that it is only the Kashmiri Pandits who are regularly killed and the Muslims of Kashmir are, somehow, spared. It also tries to bring about the difference between the povs of Kashmiri Pandits who were encouraged by Governor JagMohan to go to Jammu and migrate further - and raises the question whether he was not trying to make the Kashmir valley a place of Muslims only so that even if something happens, the Hindus do not suffer.

I don't think there is anything wrong or objectionable or anti-India in that article. Whatever criticism has been made of GOI is not out of place either.

Coming to Kuldip Nayar's article I could not get what appeared in TOI; but what he wrote in the Hindu can be accessed here. It will be seen that he justly blames GOP, Pak President as also the Indian side.

What you have made as OP is an article from the hindutva pov of the Kashmir issue, imho. If the hindutva lobby had any worthwhile idea for solving the Kashmir problem then they deliberately did not implement it while they were in power. They did not even put forward their idea before the coalition partners and made it a prestige issue for continuation of the govt. All they were after were only power and the benefits that go along with it.

Writers like Arindam Banerji may be reflecting a particular pov. In any case it is too dated, 2003 or 2004. So, there was no particular merit in hoisting your displeasure to the kind of opinions expressed her, on this dated article, imo.

LBNL, if GOI continues to fumble its way in the Kashmir issue we have nothing else to blame it on, except the hindutva parties who will obtain a major benefit by tomtomming the loss of Kashmir.

 

[sarang]

And that too by bbs and bhs and by some who want brahmins to be decimated!

The english christians and the muslims have openly stated that unless brahmins are totally eliminated by conversion or annihilation, sanatana dharma will survive. That is why brahmins are important in the continuance of sanatana dharma. They, like any other community, can finely balance loukika activities without sacrificing core brahminical traditions.

Brahmins are non interfering and they mind their own business. They have a healthy respect for all varnas, kulas, jathis and even non hindus. They want no one to give up their values, traditions, practices and have proved that all can co-exist.

Why should a call for hindu unity be a code word for "let the brahmns be the leaders"?

 

[kunjuppu]

..

The english christians and the muslims have openly stated that unless brahmins are totally eliminated by conversion or annihilation, sanatana dharma will survive. That is why brahmins are important in the continuance of sanatana dharma. They, like any other community, can finely balance loukika activities without sacrificing core brahminical traditions. .

it may be that activist proletyzers among christians and muslims feel that brahmins are a hinderance to the spread of their religion, but i strongly doubt it.

if you visit the newly mushrooming evangelical churches around chennai, you will find hardly any brahmin. the target is the dalits, whom we have thrown out of the society milleniums ago. and other NB groups, to whom appeal against brahmin hegemonized hinduism, and the appeal of an egalitarian religon, may be attractive enough to convert. apart from possible monetary inducements.

if you have been following the various threads, the performance of the rituals is now an issue with the availability of vathyars. also we have been watering down our rituals to suit our convenience, over the generations. we ourselves, as a community have discarded many of the traditions practised even 3 generations ago, and with our womenfolk educated more than ever, are forced to compromise even more re 'loukika' duties. is this not the reality.

a sanatana dharma of brahmins is a small unit of 3% of the population maximum. do we want that? or widespread popular flourishing hinduism?

every NB in tamil nadu, will have atleast one case of bad experience with brahmins. whether it is justified or not, this feeling exists, and i do not know, how you can claim that we provide a leadership that will be willingly followed by others. it is anything but wishful thinking, i feel.

..


Brahmins are non interfering and they mind their own business. They have a healthy respect for all varnas, kulas, jathis and even non hindus. They want no one to give up their values, traditions, practices and have proved that all can co-exist.

i will agree with you, if this opinion comes from a majority of hindus. then we can get comforted, that there is a strong pan hindu feeling encompassing all castes including the dalits.

is this the reality? i think, NB view of tambrams is quite different.

till 1967, tambrams had a major say in any social or political event of tamil nadu. had things been hunky dory, the dravidian revolution and its massive turning the tables on brahmins would not happened.

we were looked upon as elitist, exclusivists and above all, thanks to a tradition of learning,hogging the admissions in all the major colleges of that times. today, we see a middle class in tamil nadu, arising out of all communities. whether we go to new delhi or outside of tamil nadu, the default tamil officer, need not necessarily be a tambram.

all this, any NB will tell you, thanks to periyar and the successive dravidian governments. the impression that you have of tambrams, i think, is not the same with the NB sections of the tamil society.

your last paragraph, NBs will agree 100% - except they will also include such epithets as arrogant, exclusive, selfish and such like. not exactly the same picture, that you have presented as how a brahmin is viewed. so, to sum up, it is not important how we view ourselves, as much as the public image of us.

this, i am telling, more as an observation, as i see it. our numbers are declining, we have a low birth rate as not to even to replace ourselves in this planet, we have bachelors in their 30s without any prospect of spouses, there is increased ic marriages further to the incense of the orthodoxy - all these are the facts of today. a

nd all these portents to a tambram community with even lesser impact on tamil or indian society, in the future. unless we radically change our attitudes, and think such, to join the mainstream of tamil thought.

finally, no community can live in isolation, and say, 'let each practise their own and leave others alone'. interaction and mixing is the order of the day, especially with increased education, mobility and career prospects. i see the future as more of mixing and one way for us to maintain a brahmin tradition, is to welcome other castes who marry within our community, and inculcate in them, the best of our traditions. but that would take a radical change of thought..and i dont know if there would be willingness or ability here.

the norm, i think, is like the lady who two days ago, wailed at the incident of her daughter eloping with a NB guy

 

[sangom]

From whatever I have read and understood, I feel the Muslims (Mughals) did not much bother about brahmin, NB etc., because they fully believed in the effectiveness of their swords and horses (and cannons in later times) to get whatever they wanted out of the hindus; for them it was easier to kill the men-folk, or convert the natives at sword-point. But the British were slightly different and wanted to learn and know more about the natives (most probably because it was very repulsive for them to rape/marry the uncouth and ugly looking native women with dark skin). So they wanted to learn about the people, their beliefs, customs, tenets and history, and found that knowledge of any kind could be got only from the brahmins who were the jealous custodians of everything sanatana meant.

Thus, gradually the British colonial power came into closer contacts, first with brahmins and then gradually with most of the rest of Indian populace. In the initial days the missionaries found the brahmins to be like the their Druids and so, possibly thought that if the brahmins are somehow removed from the scene , proselytization of the native population of India would become much easier. But, as their familiarity grew, they sensed the deep fissures within this much eulogised sanatana dharmic society.

The victory of Bishop Caldwell in successfully driving the wedge between dravidians and aryans (read brahmins) showed to them beyond any shadow of doubt that the best method of getting religious converts is to gently approach those fringes which had been practically thrown out of the hindu society and to this day, I think all evangelists are adopting this route only (because present day missionaries cannot perform miracles in the name of Jesus - as St. Thomas is said to have done - and convert the higher castes). Hence, today, the presence of uncompromising brahmins and zealous hindutva lobbies may actually be a blessing in disguise for the proselytizing missionaries!

In this context I was happy to observe that in ssmatri.com a very good percentage of the girls still insist on sub-caste, mostly those from vadamal and brahaccaranam; and I thought good augury for sanatanadharma going under soon.

I wonder if our ancient sages who founded sanatana dharma were to come here today and restablish it to its ancient glory, how they are likely to proceed!

 

[kunjuppu]

..

In this context I was happy to observe that in ssmatri.com a very good percentage of the girls still insist on sub-caste, mostly those from vadamal and brahaccaranam; and I thought good augury for sanatanadharma going under soon.

I wonder if our ancient sages who founded sanatana dharma were to come here today and restablish it to its ancient glory, how they are likely to proceed!

sangom,

the man behind ssmatri.com, openly appeals in the home page of the website, to ignore jadhaga porutham, and go for mana porutham, status, education and what not.

still 100% of the applicants have given their jadhagam for porutham.

with this level of dichotomy, i do not know what to make of it all.

but it is true. yesterday, i heard from another cousin, in coimbatore. he has a 28 year old, in IT, in b'lore, and 2 years now, they have been looking out for him. no luck. this guy even has a flat of his own in b'lore.

suggested he loosen up some of the rules, but that ofcourse, went to deaf ears

 

[sangom]

sangom,

the man behind ssmatri.com, openly appeals in the home page of the website, to ignore jadhaga porutham, and go for mana porutham, status, education and what not.

still 100% of the applicants have given their jadhagam for porutham.

with this level of dichotomy, i do not know what to make of it all.

but it is true. yesterday, i heard from another cousin, in coimbatore. he has a 28 year old, in IT, in b'lore, and 2 years now, they have been looking out for him. no luck. this guy even has a flat of his own in b'lore.

suggested he loosen up some of the rules, but that ofcourse, went to deaf ears

K,

Since you had mentioned about ssmatri in women domination thread (50,000+p.m.) yesterday my wife and I spent nearly two hours in ssmatri. I was surprised to find the minimum salary requirement and also found vadama/BC girls and boys insisting on sub-caste!

Then came a ring from our tabra family friend who is very desperately searching, for the last some years, girl for her 32+ boy who is not specially appealing even to my eyes. (If I had a daughter to be married, I would hesitate to consider him, though he is exemplarily well-behaved and a gem of a boy - for us the parents.) During my talk I suggested to her that she consider nair, menon, namboodiri, etc., girls and she nicely gave the receiver to her husband who said, in typical Kerala Tamil, "அதேய், நாளைக்கு அதெல்லாம் problem ஆயிட்டு வரும்; இந்த food habits, வேறே பலதும் உண்டு. நம்மள் கிட்டெப் போறோது போறோது தான் அதெல்லாம் மொள்ள வெளீலெ வரும். எதுக்கும் நமக்கு பார்க்கலாம் ப்ராம்மணப்பொண் கிடைக்குமோன்னு", in this line. Then I left my attempt.

 

[biswa]

I am surprised that this thread has again degenerated into caste issues. Or perhaps not surprised at all.

I wanted to refocus on the Kashmir question. The answer is really to recognize that for Pakistan it is all jihad, all the time.

Thankfully the US now understands this. Hopefully so will the UN.

 

[sangom]

Shri Biswa,

Kashmir is ‘halwa’ which India has voluntarily given to Pak. It is now a very difficult thing to extract Kashmir from Pak’s mouth. The reasons as to why it was originally given to Pak and why it is difficult to retrieve it now, cannot be discussed without bringing in the Hindu-Muslim angle. The moment we touch this, caste will invariably have to creep in. This is my take.

If you can give your views on the Kashmir question without bringing in caste, Hindu and Muslim, it will be an achievement we will all be proud of. Kindly oblige.

 

[prasad1]

I am surprised that this thread has again degenerated into caste issues. Or perhaps not surprised at all.

I wanted to refocus on the Kashmir question. The answer is really to recognize that for Pakistan it is all jihad, all the time.

Thankfully the US now understands this. Hopefully so will the UN.

Biswa,
I understand your post, and I am equally frustrated with every thread becoming a caste Issue. My post#7 also laments about this.
I guess that majority of writers carry a burden of caste inequalities, and may know of atrocities in their close circle.

I know caste is a political issue, but never having the first hand knowledge I do not have their feeling of guilt. So I feel it is waste of time, if we are going to dwell on historical facts alone.

 

[biswa]

The reasons as to why it was originally given to Pak and why it is difficult to retrieve it now, cannot be discussed without bringing in the Hindu-Muslim angle. The moment we touch this, caste will invariably have to creep in. This is my take.

Mr. Sangom I agree with you that Kashmir cannot be discussed without bringing up Hindu-Muslim. After all religion is the very reason for the creation of Pak (no concept of Pak existed before 1947). Similarly, Kashmir is also a Hindu-Muslim dispute.

But surely there were other Hindus in Kashmir other than Pandits. Why can't all Hindus unite irrespective of caste?

I still believe that Pak thrives on jihad. What is the meaning of sending in suicide bombers, parliamentary shooters if it is not jihad? What have ordinary innocent Indian civilians (of all castes and religions) in the streets of Mumbai done to deserve this?

 

[kunjuppu]

dear sangom,

follow up to my post #13: which i forgot yesterday...

i suggested to my cousin, re loosen some rules, 'how about offering to spend 50/50 of the marriage expenses'

to which came pat the reply..

'there is no need to do that. nowadays everyone has plenty of money. people are only too happy to spend money on their daughter's weddings'.

meaning, the old paradigm has not changed. still expected decent wedding, gold, diamonds, paraphernalia, ...

i went on...regardless

atleast let the girl know, that since he was living in cbe, he will not move to blr. right now he has the habit of spending every other week in blr. and i suggested he desist from that after marriage. the silence that followed was pregnant with hostility.

i shut up. tucked my tail between legs. slunk away. quietly. hung the phone. thanked the gods i am out of that society.

 

[sarang]

That is the route to filling stomach for some. Because there is nothing worthwhil or good in their chosen path, only abuse will earn their livelihood. What can one expect from evr sishyas?

It is deftly made into caste politics. The article was about being ANTI-INDIA. India consists of various religion, states, and regions. India is a secular country, with democratic government. We have every right to criticize the parties, policies, and practices.

No where it gives us the right to give away an inch of the country. Nor do we have the right to invite a foreign power to invade India to suit our needs.

You can be anti-hindu, anti-brahmin, anti-whatever, but you can not be anti-India.

Personally I am anti-religious party.

 

[ozone]

The Good lack the Strength
The Strong lack Goodness

 

[sangom]

Mr. Sangom I agree with you that Kashmir cannot be discussed without bringing up Hindu-Muslim. After all religion is the very reason for the creation of Pak (no concept of Pak existed before 1947). Similarly, Kashmir is also a Hindu-Muslim dispute.

But surely there were other Hindus in Kashmir other than Pandits. Why can't all Hindus unite irrespective of caste?

I still believe that Pak thrives on jihad. What is the meaning of sending in suicide bombers, parliamentary shooters if it is not jihad? What have ordinary innocent Indian civilians (of all castes and religions) in the streets of Mumbai done to deserve this?

Shri Biswa,

What I have learnt from very many sources is that Kashmir had the caste system just as anywhere else in India. But during the Moghul rule, it became the practice of the Mughal court in Delhi to refer all Kashmiri male Hindus as "pandit" instead of as "Khuaja" which was the custom till then. Because of this custom, possibly, all Kashmiri Hindus came to be known to the rest of India as "Kashmiri Pandits". This has also given the impression, to many, including members here, that when we talk about Kashmiri Pandits, we are upholding a purely "brahminical" cause.

Kashmir as you know was a Shaivite centre and admission to the Shaivite clan or 'kula' (the tantric concept of kula, not simply a family) was open to all people. Such people who were duly admitted to the 'kula' are known as "Kaul". All kauls need not be brahmins but almost all kauls of yesteryears at least, were Kashmiri.

One main categorisation of Kashmiri hindus was of 'buher' and 'purib'; the former were the merchant or trader class (caste) while the latter denoted 'those from the east' who were also looked down upon as mlecchas. Some had the surname turki also, it seems.

So, today when we talk of 'kashmiri hindus' we mention the whole gamut by the generic "Pandit" thanks to the Mughal Court.

I don't think the Pak govt. of Sardari is in favour of Jihad. But Pak is an Islamic state and its military is the most powerful controller of Pak affairs. The clergy has equal importance and Pak wants to show it is a success as a nation and for the ordinary Paki as also the ISI bosses, such success can be measured only in relation to its defeating India which is its non-identical twin and its bete noire from birth. So, whether it is cricket, skirmishes across the LOAC, or whatever, Pak is happy and the Pak govt.'s continuance safer if it goes on besting India at any cost.

And Kashmir has been given on a platter to Pak to make quarrel, wage attacks and win public approval in the Pak side. The situation is made further complex by the fact that life in POK is comparatively more peaceful and this creates an impression in the mind of any ordinary Kashmiri Muslim in favour of Pak and against India.

 

[sarang]

We must get the truth from the horse's mouth; we must ask the pundits whether they are brahmins. wiki entry thinks so.

The Kashmiri Pandits (Kashmiri: कॉशुर पण्डित, کٲشُر پنڈت, Hindi-Urdu: कश्मीरी पण्डित, کشمیری پنڈت) are a Hindu Brahmin community originating from Kashmir, a mountainous region in South Asia.
Kashmiri Pandit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the matrimony sites all kashmiri pandits call themselves as brahmins.

What is sangomji's contention?

Some kashmiri pandits are brahmins, rest are are not. Some kashmiri brahmins are pandits, rest are not. What is the % of pandits among hindus of kashmir (in 1945 and now)?

If some pandits are not of brahmin descent, but call themselves as brahmins, it is good because it proves inter varna movement.

Anyway they lost, because, the human rights commission refused to acknowledge mass murder of pandits as genocide, even though 300,000 people left their home and were displaced, and 36,289 pandit lives lost till 2003, pandit population share in kashmir dropped from 55% in 1941 to 0.1% in 2001. This issue is more important than whether pandits are brahmins or not.

 

[sangom]

We must get the truth from the horse's mouth; we must ask the pundits whether they are brahmins. wiki entry thinks so.

The Kashmiri Pandits (Kashmiri: कॉशुर पण्डित, کٲشُر پنڈت, Hindi-Urdu: कश्मीरी पण्डित, کشمیری پنڈت) are a Hindu Brahmin community originating from Kashmir, a mountainous region in South Asia.
Kashmiri Pandit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the matrimony sites all kashmiri pandits call themselves as brahmins.

What is sangomji's contention?

Some kashmiri pandits are brahmins, rest are are not. Some kashmiri brahmins are pandits, rest are not. What is the % of pandits among hindus of kashmir (in 1945 and now)?

If some pandits are not of brahmin descent, but call themselves as brahmins, it is good because it proves inter varna movement.

Anyway they lost, because, the human rights commission refused to acknowledge mass murder of pandits as genocide, even though 300,000 people left their home and were displaced, and 36,289 pandit lives lost till 2003, pandit population share in kashmir dropped from 55% in 1941 to 0.1% in 2001. This issue is more important than whether pandits are brahmins or not.

I am not "contending" anything, Shri sarang. May be what you have written and what the wikipedia page says is the truth. But if you kindly go through the 'discussion' page in wikipedia you find the following, among more detailed discussions:



not all Hindus in Kashmir are/were Pandits and not all Pandits are from Kashmir. It will probably be removed when the article gets a more thorough work-over, since at that time it should be possible to make the situation clear in the body of the thing. For now, it is pretty harmless and is verifiable almost on a "common sense" basis. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Most Kashmiri Pandits are of the view that all Hindus belonging to the Kashmir region (the part of the state excluding the Jammu and Ladakh regions, i.e. north of the ridge-line of the Pir Panjal Range and West/Southwest of the Great Himalayan Range) are Brahmins. You may not come across any Hindu of Dardic Kashmiri ethnicity who is a non-Brahmin. Please delete the statement unless you have published evidence to support the claim that some Hindus of Kashmiri ethnicity are not Brahmins. I personally have not come across any non-Brahmin Kashmiri Hindu family name or clan. (Yardang (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

Regarding your other point, as I said previously this was added because someone said exactly the opposite of you and it seemed to be reasonable to make the change pending a cite being found. Certainly, Pandits are not all from Kashmir. If you are saying that all Hindus in all regions of Kashmir are Brahmins then fair enough, but you seem to be qualifying it & I am curious as to how the Brahmins survived in days of old because just as Jewish people used to employ Gentiles to light their fires for them at the time of their sabbath, so too it strikes me that Brahmins needed other groups to perform certain polluting activities for them. Have I got this wrong? - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even those Kashmiri Hindus who, for example, were traditionally sweepers or peasants, were Pandits. For example, the Pandit (Brahmin) family name 'Vatal / Watal / Wattal' means sweeper and there was never any discrimination against persons with this surname. The Pandits were engaged in all professions from teaching and administration to feeding mules. The rigid hierarchical caste system of the Indian lowlands never existed in Kashmir probably because the general level of education among the Kashmiri Pandits was very high. At present, the proportion of literates in the world's total Kashmiri Pandit population, in my view, would not be lower than 97 percent. You may like to read this article: http://www.koausa.org/Caste.html (Yardang (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

So, you see sarang, even the wikipedia article is not to be taken as "the truth". I feel that after the Kashmir valley got affected by extremism and the hindus from there — including the Vatals/Watals/ Wattals and many others, there must have arisen a sort of camaraderie which only such common calamities and displacement from the native lands, can produce, and, all the displaced Kashmiri Hindus must have accepted the label of Kashmiri Pandits. That is why I wrote in my post "So, today when we talk of 'kashmiri hindus' we mention the whole gamut by the generic "Pandit" thanks to the Mughal Court."

I feel much more research and info. needs to be collected about this and just relying on matrimonial advts. may not be a reliable method. After all, the same camaraderie born out of calamities and permanent displacements might have made all those displaced persons to agree for marriage within themselves, could not it?

 

[kunjuppu]

That is the route to filling stomach for some. Because there is nothing worthwhil or good in their chosen path, only abuse will earn their livelihood.
What can one expect from evr sishyas?

Sarang,

You know that this is not correct.

What I have been saying is factual based, and truth. Albeit unfavoursome and bad tasting truth.

We all wish to believe that there is a hunky dory sweet smelling world out there, which is in awe of the Brahmins of tamil nadu, and who looks up to us for leadership, and we would like to think that we are the epitome of hard work, honesty and piety, and whose sweet smell of success was hydrogen sulphide to periyar and his followers who managed to turn the entire tamil community against us.

We can dig a hole and hide our face there, and proclaim the whole world is dark. Or keep our eyes and ears open to what is happening outside, analyze and introspect, and atleast come up with solutions.

Folks who have been against me, are against me personally. Nobody has found fault with what I have said, because what I say is the truth, as what is happening to our tambram society.

I simply call a spade, ‘a spade’, and much as I have hesitations in typing out many a hard hitting post, I feel, in some manner or the other, in my own way, I try to help out may be some folk out there, who is caught in the rut of prejudice and feels the whole world done him wrong, for being born a tambram.

Why don’t you and folks who like your posts against me, come up with suggestions? I have asked you so many times, ‘come up with ideas” to resolve issues. – issues like not finding brides for our guys, helping out poor tambrams or improving our image in tamil community or enriching our faith with doing away with time worn useless process and rituals and reinventing it to be in line with 21st century values.

Why no response from you and your sishyas, for such queries, along a positive mode? why is it always complaints? always suspicions against minorities - they are part of india and are not going to go away? against MNCs, who again have to be managed, and not rid off- managed to india's benefit, like the way china did...and so on..