Re: From Anand Teltumbde's 'Khairlanji - A strange and bitter crop'
Violence is part of Hinduism as long as it is based on dharma.. Hinduism never believed in absolute non-violence..
Violence is clearly advocated on anti-social elements, enemies of a nation, rebels, and violence is a genuine way for a person to save his life..
But hinduism never had the barbaric violence similar to the kind of Jihad (cutting throat in iraq) or the Inquisitions of christianity..
Please read the book "The Goa Inquisition" on how a person is brutally tortured even for the minor suspicion that he may not worship jesus..
It is the Buddha in ancient times and gandhi in modern times, who introduced absolute non-violence, and even preached self-destruction over fighting back..
In Many of the cases, violence is far better than cunningness and cowardice.. i would prefer a friend who could slap me directly on a face, than to betray me at the back..
Also I do not agree with the following lines..
/** Nowhere has such an effective and self-regulative system ever been devised. It is this feature of the system that has seemingly governed Indian history for over two millenia. **/
it has no substantiation to say that this system governed india for over two millenia.. Many of the researches has proved, that there was both upward and downward movement of caste before britishers.. for eg, shivaji was a shudra king, chandragupta was vysya king.. i heard that hoysalas in karnataka was brahmin kings..
Replying to this email will send an e-mail to 8500+ members of Jharkhand Forum.