I did not know that Rediff has turned into a Hindu propaganda tool. Are you serious? I am an Indian. And I was born in a Hindu family. But i DO NOT agree with you. You say that faith should be accepted unquestionably. Think again. Widow's were not allowed to remarry till a century ago because our religion prohibited it. Sati was allowed ( and some people still believe in it) because faith was not questioned. Child marriages are still prevalent across the country because faith has allowed it. Questioning such practices can only lead to betterment of the society. Do you think we should allow caste system because our ancestors believed in it? I hope your answer will be No. If it is not, then this entire message is useless. But if you said Yes, then just stop and think. Should we not ask any questions?
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by g sekhar on Sep 15, 2007 01:33 PM Permalink
dear datta., u need to know that some recent practices do not reflect hinduism. hindu dharma is too long., and if u have a little interest in history., or atleast in searching in google., u will find that widow-remarriage was allowed from the time of manu. All the rules for widow remarriage have been specified., and are not much different from today's 'modern' specifications. to go a step further., women had every right to leave their husbands, when their husbands dint fulfill certain criteria., for example., if the man is unable to beget., she had right to leave him. and regarding child marriage., it was chosen to address the body's natural desire. Sati is also a very recent tradition., where women chose it to protect themselves from invading forces. of course., these practices blowed out of proportion and it was required to control them., hence all these laws preventing those things from happening.
Lord Rama belonged to Treta yug., and it is natural that many evidences of his time have withered away., and just because something is not 'filmed' or accepted by 'western historians'., we can't deny the existence of Lord Rama. One important point to be noted., i'm not supporting blind faith., if something horrible is going on in the name of Lord Rama or under the guise of religion., we all must question it., but to question the existence of historical record of rama is something that is idiotic.
RE:RE:denying ram is denying india?
by avinandan datta on Sep 15, 2007 01:47 PM Permalink
Shekhar, I did not understand the last part. We do not have evidence, yet questioning his existence is idiotic? The history I read was based on evidence. Do you really believe that all mankind has originated from Manu? Is that possible? And is there any evi . . . oops sorry. I will not ask for evidence.
Let me go back to the point of sati. Please read your scriptures again (or Google again if you prefer that). There are references to sati in the Ramayan and Mahabharat. Did Madri not commit sati? The puranas have references to sati. And I will shamelessly copy paste from Wikipedia to give an example. "A wife who dies in the company of her husband shall remain in heaven as many years as there are hairs on his person. (Garuda Purana 1.107.29)"
Even Rediff search will do just fine man. Go read.
RE:RE:RE:denying ram is denying india?
by Amal Prasad on Sep 15, 2007 02:13 PM Permalink
Coming to caste system: It is still prevalent today both in the west and in India - the only thing is that you can NOT recognize them in its modern form. The off-spring of politicians are often politician, medicos are medicos, actors are actors. The workforce is categorized as workers, executives and management with subdivisions in each of the categories. With time, this would evolve is a rigid structure that would force outsiders out and as the system degrades, who would you held responsible, the industrial revolution, the internet or what else. You would find the odds against you if you do NOt have a family support. This can be explained by the fact that Nehru-Gandhi family survives and is ruling us over four generations but Lal Bahadur Shastri's family is in political bewilderment.
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by avinandan datta on Sep 15, 2007 02:28 PM Permalink
you assume too much Amal. A little too much. Who said I believe in Adam and Eve. When I say I am atheist, I mean I do not believe in any religion. Btw ... LaKSHman was whose grandfather? I have indeed not read Ramayan. But I request you tell me that part. Lakshmand was whose grandfather?
And yes caste system is prevalent. And not only your very intelligently interpreted modern form. There are still villages in India, where "lower caste" people are not allowed to draw water from the same well. Or go into temples. Or walk the streets without a broom tied behind them to clean the "dirt". Now please dont tell me that even this is because I do not respect women.
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by Amal Prasad on Sep 15, 2007 02:10 PM Permalink
Mr. Datta,
I must ask, do you believe that entire human race originated from Adam and Eve (Forget Manu and Shatroopa). Pray, where did you find the evidence of sati in Ramayan: - All the three mothers of Lord Ram remained a widow - Madodari remarried Bhivishan and Bali's wife remarried sugreev. Angad, sugreev's stepson, was the cron prince. - If you are taking of Sulochana (Meghnad's wife). She did NOT commit sati. She sought revenge for her husband's death as per her vow and then, recognizing that Laxman was his grandfather, commited suicide for being unable to fulfil her vow.
Coming to Mahabharat: Matri felt herelf responsible for her husband's death and therefore, chose to die rather than live with the igonomy (Several debt-ridden people alos do so). If sati was so prevalent, why did NOT Kunti committed suicide (She was the first wife and therefore, greater in status to Madri). Don't go by Wikipedia, read garuda puran yourself and interpret it on your own. It is akin to believing that all americans have guns and have sex every hours be seeing hollywood films.
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by GK on Sep 15, 2007 01:04 PM Permalink
I being a hindu agree with you. And to add - may be these evil practises- sati, child marriage, etc were not part of the Hindusim originally. Over the time people mite have made them up for thier own benefits and with time these became part of our cultre.
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by Moo Glee on Sep 15, 2007 01:00 PM Permalink
Donot mix social customs and religion. It's as good as talking of 4 marriages whenever you talk of islam.
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by dilip davda on Sep 15, 2007 01:05 PM Permalink
bengalis alway nagative attitue. first we should thrown out these bengalis who only think about themselves not about the country they born ediots
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by anoop anantharaman on Sep 15, 2007 01:20 PM Permalink
english is not the question here, u colonial british bootlicker...move on...
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by avinandan datta on Sep 15, 2007 01:25 PM Permalink
I have learnt not to discriminate based on religion or region or language or color or creed. And that has nothing to do with the fact that Bangla is my mother toungue. The way you felt that Bengalis should be thrown out because they think about themselves before they think about their country (even if only you say so) I feel all religious bigots, Hindus or Muslims, should be thrown out of this country for thinking about their "faith" before their country.
RE:RE:denying ram is denying india?
by avinandan datta on Sep 15, 2007 01:33 PM Permalink
Oh your are right. Duh! what was I thinking. My math teacher taught me the social customs. Not the priest in the temple.
RE:denying ram is denying india?
by anindya dey on Sep 15, 2007 01:32 PM Permalink
You need to learn proper grammar my friend, learn to write properly before posting.
