jay74

http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html?syf=contact Fierce and persistent Hindu resistance to the Islamic Jihad prevented the complete Islamization of India Unlike the complete Islamization of Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey, North Africa, the Islamization of India was not complete. At the end of one millennium of Muslim Tyranny from 715 up to 1761, more than 70 percent of the population of India remained Hindu. This was NOT due to any Muslim charity or benevolence, since they have none of these characteristics. The Muslim tyranny was as blood-thirsty and savage as it was in all parts of the globe that were unfortunate to be trampled by the Jihadis. The Hindus suffered initial setbacks due to the belief amongst them, as amongst all other no-Muslims, that the Muslim too wee normal human beings, who would after a victory, settle down to govern the defeated population. But once the nightmare of Muslim tyranny began, the Hindus grew wiser faster than the other unfortunate victims of the Jihad. The Hindus never surrendered to the Muslim tyrants. They waged a relentless and violent struggle against the Muslims. And when fortunate favored them, they returned with almost equal measure, the barbarism of the Muslim. We use the qualifier “almost” since the Hindus slaughtered the Muslims on the battlefield, but did not go to the extent of slaughtering Muslim civilians and giving them the choice of Hinduism or death, molesting Muslim women, destroying en masse all Mosques, and building Hindus temples on them (the Babri Masjid-Ramjanabhomi struggle being a one off case) and imposing a penal tax like the jaziya on all Muslims. It was this valiant Hindu resistance that put paid all the savagery of the Muslims to convert al the Hindus to Islam at the pain of death. But otherwise the sordid tale of Muslim savagery was no less brutal from that in other parts of the world overrun by the Islamic Jihad. Muslims invaded India only four years after they invaded Persia Very few know that while the Muslims invaded Persia in 634, they invaded Sindh in India in 638, just a gap of four years. But while Persia succumbed in seventeen years by 651, Muslims took seven hundred years to overrun India (today Sindh is a part of a Muslim country called Pakistan that was carved out of Hindu India in 1947). And even after that they could not rule India in peace. The Hindu resistance was not just fierce, but it kept increasing in ferocity till with the Marathas, the Hindus overtook the Muslims in their ferocity. It was this lesson which the Hindus learnt from the Muslims an applied against the Muslims that led to the Hindu (Maratha) victories against the beast-like Muslims. It was the Marathas who presaged President Bush when he said “We will hunt down our enemies” The Marathas literally hundred down the Muslims. The only other case of a Muslim defeat in face of such tactics was in Ethiopia and Southern Sudan (Nubia) where the African Christians of Nubia used guerilla tactics against the Muslims to hunt them down and finally to defeat them. Foul Tactics used by the Muslims against Indians Although the Arab Muslims attacked India in 638, they were repeatedly defeated by the Rajas of Makara (Makran) and Sindh. The Arab chroniclers then wrote derisive accounts of the reasons for their defeats at the hands of the Hindus by saying that the Hidus practice Voodoo and Black Magic and so bring Jinns and Shaitan to help them in war. So the Arabs cannot defeat them, the way they could easily defeat the Persians and the Byzantines. We need only to remember how the Greeks under Alexander overcame the Persian Achemanian empire in a few years, after which they attacked India and the Hindus after initially being defeated the Greeks on the river Jhelum (Vitasta – Hydaspes), harassed the Greek army so much, that the Greek troops mutinied and refused to advance further into India. How the Muslims blackmailed a guard to open the door of the fort of Debal The Muslims too had a tough job with the Hindus. After an unsuccessful campaign of more than eighty years, the Muslims captured the Fort of Deval (Debal near modern Karachi) by deceit, by kidnapping the three children of the chief guardsman of the fort of Debal, beheading one and threatening to behead the other two. With this blackmail, they forced him to leave the door open, after they had feigned retreat. Due to this betrayal, the Muslims could finally sink their ugly claws into India under the beast-like leader Mohammed-ibn-Qasim (Mohammed bin Kasim). The Hindus never forgot this treachery. And the two princesses of the King Dahirsen (Raja Dabir) who were captured by Qasim and sent to the Khilafa (Caliph) as a gift with a message that they were royal virgins, meant to be ravished by his holiness (sic) the lecherous Caliph himself. But these princesses outsmarted the Caliph. They tore apart their hymen with their own hands and told the caliph that their modesty had already been violated by Qasim. The Caliph did not believe them, but when he saw for himself the ruptured hymens, he was convinced that Qasim had violated the modesty of the princesses and then sent them over to him. That though so enraged him that he summoned Qasim to present himself at Baghdad. With Qasim in chains, the Caliph accused him of betrayal. Although Qasim pleaded his innocence, the Caliph, asked for Qasim to be locked in a barrel with nails stuck on the inside and had him rolled down a hill. Qasim died a cruel death. And the first generation of Hindus whom this beast-like Muslim had tormented and slaughtered, received poetic justice in the death of this accursed Muslim general who vandalized Sindh. How the Rajput Hindus trounced the Muslims for five hundred years After the Muslim occupied Sindh, they did not rest quiet, they attacked Punjab, but were repulsed, then they attacked Rajputana, but were repulsed by Kings like raja Bhoj, and when they attacked Gujarat, they were defeated by the Chalukyas (Solankis) of Anahilwada. Thus the Muslims could not make any headway into India from their occupation of Sindh in 715, up to 980. It was only in the year 980, that the Muslims could attack India once again. But they had to use another gateway. Instead of attacking Rajasthan, Punjab and Gujarat from Sindh, they attacked the Shahiya kingdom in Upaganastan (Afghanistan – literally the land of allied tribes). The attackers were not Arab Muslim, but were the Persian and Turkish converts to Islam. The first Muslim chieftain to attack the Hindu domains was name Sabuktagin. He ruled from Ghazni and had forced his way up to the domains of the Hindu Raja of Kubha (later renamed as Kabul by the city’s Muslims occupiers). How the Muslims used the nobility of the Hindus to craftily defeat them The Muslims had studied Hindu warfare practices and misused the weakness of the Hindus to their hilt. Sabuktagin’s spies had told him that the Hindus start warfare at Sunrise and end it at sunset. The crafty Muslim chieftain decided to use this weakness of the Hindus against them. He challenged Jayapal Shahiya to pen warfare and decided the place and date of the war. True to his word the Hindu king reached the appointed place one day before the day of the war. This was in the year 980. The Muslim too had assembled at the appointed place and the two adversaries exchanged ambassadors and decided that the hostilities would commence at sunrise the next day. After the Hindus retired for the night, the Muslim were busy preparing for a night assault. While the Hindu army was in deep slumber, except for a few scouts, taking cover of the dark and stormy night, the Muslims stealthily crept towards the camp of the Hindus, after crossing the few hillocks that separated the two camps. The Muslims had muffled the sounds of their advance by covering the hooves of their horses with felt and cloth. Dressed in dark clothes the Muslim almost reached the Hindu camps at two in the morning. When they were spotted the Hindu scouts raised a hue and cry to awaken their sleeping troops. But it was too late. Before any significant number of the Hindus could arise and don their armor and be ready to fight the Muslim, a large number of them were done to death while they were half awake of struggling to prepare themselves for war. The entire Hindu army was caught unawares, but they still put up a stiff fight against their beastly adversaries. The battle continued till past dawn, but the Hindu army had been overpowered, tricked as it had been to give the advantage of surprise to the Muslims. By late morning the remnants of the Hindu army retreated back to their capital Kubha, with the Muslims in pursuit. The Muslims soon occupied Kabul and continued to push the Hindus eastwards. The disgraced Hindu king Raja Jayapal Shahiya decided to shift his capital to Udabandapura (modern day Und in North West Frontier Province – Paktoonisthan) But he could not bear the humiliation of defeat and decided to immolate himself rather than live with the shame of having been defeated by the Muslims with treachery. Thus ended the first Hindu-Muslim encounter after the Arabs had occupied Sindh in the 8th century. How the Muslims poisoned the elephants of the Hindus at the Battle of Lahore to snatch victory once again with subterfuge The Muslims seized on their victory over the Hindu army and overran the capital Kubha (which was renamed Kabul by the Muslims) who destroyed the Hindu temples there and force converted the remaining Hindu population to Islam). After the defeat of Jayapal Shahiya, his son Anandpal Shahiya, moved his capital from Kubha present day Kabul) to Luvkushpura (Lahore). He gathered all allies he could from Northern India and opposed the invading Muslims now led by Sabuktagin’s son Mahmud of Ghazni. The armies met on the banks of the Ravi near Lahore. In the initial skirmishes, the Muslims were worsted by the Hindus, who were determined to liberate their motherland from the schizophrenic savages which is what the Muslims were. In the initial defeats of the Muslims, the Hindus had used armored elephants. The Muslim realized that the Elephants would be their nemesis. As the Muslims came from Afghanistan, they had no access to elephants, so they decided to use subterfuge. They sent an envoy to Anandpala, saying that they are suing for peace, their conditions were that they should be allowed safe passage out of the country. As a gesture of goodwill they wanted to come over to the Hindu camp and have a common meal with the Hindus, to seal the peace treaty. The innocuous and unsuspecting Anandpala agreed going against the advice of his allies. The Muslims came for the luncheon arranged at the banks of the Ravi river where the Hindu army had encamped. While intermingling with the soldiers, the Muslims moved about in the stables of the Hindu camps and expressed surprise at how the Hindus fed their mighty elephants. With the Hindus playing the role of the gracious hosts, indulged their “guests” with every query they asked. After all the Muslims were their guests and the Hindus had a quaint belief that “A guest is like God” (Athithi Devoh Bhava), but little did these unsuspecting Hindus realize that these Muslims guests were Satan incarnate. While the unsuspecting Hindus showed them around the stables, the Muslims secretly fed the elephants poppy seeds (opium) mixed with fruits. The poppy seeds being raw did not have immediate effect and everything seemed normal. The dastardly deed being done, the Muslim contingent left the Hindu camp and returned to their own camps. The Hindus self-satisfied that the war was over and the peace had now been sealed with a common luncheon began preparations to dismantle their camp. To their utter amazement, in the next few hours, the Muslim cavalry surrounded the Hindu camp in a pincer move and began a fierce attacks with shrieks of Allahuakbar. The confused Hindus belatedly, realized that they had been double crossed by the Muslims. But manfully they fastened the howdas (seats for the riders of the elephants like saddles for horsemen) to their elephants and charged at the besieging Muslims in a disorderly manner. The Hindus were in far a shock when their elephants refused to obey their mahouts (elephant riders) orders and started running amok and away from the battled. The opium had begun to have its effect. With Anandpala also on one of the elephants which had started running helter-skelter, the confusion grew in the remaining Hindu troops. The Muslim cunningly spread the word that Anandpala was retreating, since he knew that a twofold Muslim army had joined the existing Muslims forces. The rumor gained credence, as the Hindus saw that Anadpala’s elephant had gone a considerable distance from the battle. There isolated from his main army, Anandpala was pursued by the Muslims who had kept him under watch. They surrounded him, cut down the leather strips that held his howdah on the elephant, and when the howdah fell on the ground, they decapitated the unfortunate Anandpala, beheaded him, stuck his head don a spike and paraded it before the Hindu army which was already in confusion. This grisly sight further demoralized the remaining Hindu troops who had initially lost heart when they saw their leader in “retreat”. Now with his head on a spike, a sight which they had never seen in battles before totally unnerved them, and the Hindu retreat turned into a rout, with many of the Hindus massacred on the battlefield. The rest was easy, for the Muslims to tear down the remaining Hindu troops and turn what was on the way to becoming a Hindu victory into a Muslim one, with the use of subterfuge and betrayal of the innate faith which the Hindus had even in an unscrupulous enemy. This should have been a lesson of the Muslim mind for the Hindus. But it was not to be as, we shall see such foul tricks repeated over and over again by the Muslims in the coming centuries in their duel of death with the Hindus How the Muslims tricked Trilochanpala, kidnapped and murdered him by luring him using Muslims dressed as Hindu hermits (Sanyasis) After snatching victory through subterfuge at Lahore, the Muslims began to penetrate deeper into the country. Anandpala attained veergati (martyrdom through the deceit of the Muslims, as had his father Jayapala. Now the teenaged grandson of Jayapala Shaiya, Tirlochanpala Shahiya took the reins of the death struggle against the Muslims in his hands. He was then just a teenager at seventeen years of age when the ascended the throne of the Shahiyas. The first move he did was to shift the capital from Lahore to Kangra in today’s Himachal Pradesh. Kangra was in a relatively fortified position, from where he tried to reorganize the defense of his vastly reduced domains. The Shahiya empire which stretched from Heart to Haridwar, was now pushed to one fifth its size and its western border which was once at Heart during the reign of Jayapala Shahiya was now pushed about a thousand miles east at Kalka in the Shivalik Hills which were the foothills of the Himalayas. The Shahiya domains had now shrunk and did not occupy a position to block the further advance of the Muslims into India. But he followed the valiant example of his father and grandfather and allied himself with the kings of Kashyapmeru (Kashmir) and Tibet, to eject the Muslims from Punjab and Upaganasthan (Afghanistan). The enraged Muslim governor of Punjab, wanted to nip this effort in the bud. He again made use of the patented Muslim mechanism of subterfuge. He sent a group of his soldiers dressed up as Hindu mendicants to meet Tirlochanpala. These mendicants went to Kangra and sent in a message that they come from Kubha (Kabul) and bring a message to their king whose ancestors originally ruled Kabul. With this trick, they gained entry into Tirlochanpala’s humble household (As the former imperial Shahiyas had now been reduced to penury, as against the opulence they once commanded). Once inside his house, the mendicants surrounded the unsuspecting young prince and sliced his neck and made off with his severed head, leaving a note beside his headless body that Islam will finally overcome anyone who decided to block the path of Allah’s soldiers. The remainder of the once formidable Shahiya army, became leaderless and demoralized. They migrated deep into the Himalayas and settled down as Shepards and goatherds. They came to be known as Gaddis. These Gaddis follow this profession to this day and they still inhabit the Himalayas coming down to the Shivalik foothills and the plains of Punjab in the winter to graze their cattle. Thus with Tirlochapala’s death, the last scion of the Hindu dynasty that ruled Afghanistan and Punjab passed away. The next Hindu king of Punjab was to be Maharaja Ranjit Singh who ascended the throne after a gap of eight hundred years in the 18th century. The interregnum was to be the dark interlude of Muslim tyranny, during which the majority of the Hindus of Afghanistan, Paktoonistan and West Punjab were to become Muslims at the pain of death. The plunder of Somnath by Mahmud Ghaznavi The defeat of the Shahiyas opened the Indian heartland to these heartless invaders and Mahmud of Ghazni, repeated attacked India and plundering and destroying Hindu shrines at Somnath, Palitana, Thanesar (Staneshwara), Mathura, Kannauj, Khajuraho regularly every year, collecting a large booty every time as also many Hindu captives who were sold into slavery in the bazaars of Baghdad and other Muslim cities. His raid on the famous Hindu shrine of Somnath located at Prabhash Patan in Gujarat is seared in Hindu memory till today. The many Hindu captives that he took from were transported on foot across the Western ranges of the Himalayas. Many Hindu captives could not face up to the merciless treatment of their cruel captors, and died in large numbers along the way. These deaths of the Hindus are remembered in the name which the Muslim gave to the Western Himalayas as Hindu Kush, which means the Killer of Hindus (Kush means to kill in Persian) How the Hindus inflicted the first major and decisive defeat on Muslims at the battle of Baharaich in 1033 The fact that in spite of the subterfuge that the Muslim used, the Hindus did register one spectacular victory over the Muslims in 1033 at Baharaich in today’s Uttar Pradesh. The invader was Mahumd of Ghazni’s son Masud, who following his father’s footsteps invaded India with a large army with the intention of occupying the entire country and not simply raising it as his notorious father had done, He penetrated up to the Ganges valley and established his camp at Baharaich, and sent word to the surrounding Hindu kings to surrender and embrace Islam As was their practice, before the beginning of hostilities, the Hindu kings also sent a messenger to Masud that this land being theirs, his troops should peacefully vacate it (as was done once again by the Government of India at the inception of the 1999 Kargil war). But Masud sent a reply that all land belonged to Khuda (the Persianized version of Allah) and he could settle wherever he pleased. And that it was his holy duty to convert to Islam all those who did not recognize his Khuda and accept Islam. Consequently, Masud's huge army was besieged by the even greater Hindu army and no side gave the other any quarter. The Hindus, for once as an exception had learnt their lesson about Muslim treachery, after being victimized for four hundred years from 638 onwards. At the battle of Baharaich. gradually the Hindus began to decimate the Muslim army and as the hostilities progressed, Masud saw the unsuccessful end of his expedition. This bitter and bloody war was fought in the month of June 1033. In this furious war, no side took any prisoners and it ended only with the slaughter of the entire invading army along with many martyrs from the defending Hindu army. What was exceptional during this war was that the folly of pardoning a defeated enemy, that was displayed by Prithviraj Chauhan 160 years later in 1191, was not to be seen. The Hindus seemed to have followed the tradition of their ancient king Ramchandra of Ayodhya when he defeated and killed Ravana. The battle of Baharaich ended on 14th June 1033. At the gory end, the entire invading army along with their commander lay dead. Not one enemy soldier was allowed to return. There still exists today near Baharaich the grave of the commander of the invader - Prince Ghazi Mian Masud. There he is hailed today by the local Muslims as a Ghazi and a Peer (a Muslim who is raised sainthood by being a killer of non-Muslims). And every year till this day an Urs (Muslim religious assemblage) is held in his memory. What is forgotten is the valiance of the Hindu soldiers who lost their lives in this major victory against the first Jihadi invasion of India. After this Hindu decisive and ruthless victory, peace prevailed in the country for a century and a half; till the next (and now once again successful) wave of Muslim invasions started under the leadership of Mohammed Ghori. This interlude of one hundred and fifty years from 1033 up to 1187, had made the Hindu forget the treacherous nature of the Muslims. The Ghaznivid kingdom of West Punjab, had made peace with its Hindu neighbors and the Hindus came under a delusion that the Muslims were like any other invader who would settle down in India and be absorbed into Hindu society. The policy of the Ghaznivid to issue coins in Sanskrit and use the Sanskrit version of Muslim names as Mahamada for Mohammed, fuelled this wrong impression about the true nature of the Muslims.

Ravi, prabhu, maadhav, Thanks for your responses. But Iam still not really satisfied with the reasons. Look at what happened to the Zorastrians and Jews. Arabic invaders hit a brick wall in India. Buddhists of east asia got saved.

I have always wondered how did India pretty much survive close to 1000 years of Islamic rule still be close to 84% Hindu/Sikh. Even Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh which became Islamic where actually Buddhist majority and not Hindu. Many societies which had been conquered have all been converted. Only India with the exception of Spain which was actually reconverted have survived. People inspite of heavy odds where able to stick to thier roots.

ajit12, Thanks for the informative post. It is just that I donot have the knowledge to either critic or accept your post, so I was basically lurking in the background.

These are the books I have read- Baghvad Gita 1. Baghvad Gita as it is. 2. Swami Sivananda's literal translation of Gita. 3. Swami Prabhavananda's Version of Gita 4. Barbara Miller's Translation. Upanishads 1. Swami Prabhavananda's translation. Yoga Sutras Of Patanjali- Iam currently eploring various versions. Mahabaratha- 1. Rajagopalachari's version in Tamil. (Long back). Christianity- Grew up in a christian school so know about 30% about chritianity. Islam - After 9/11 Iam slowly learning about some basic offensive portions mentioned in the Quran, ?Hadiths and suras.

Muslims are human beings like us. Pakistan/Aghanistan where the current crop of terrorists come from was a Buddhist majority when it was attacked by Islamic thugs. Islam is not religion for personal development but it is a war doctrine written in the 7th century. It is totally unsuitable for the information age.

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/16rajeev.htm?q=sp&file=.htm The value of a Hindu life December 16, 2005 Consider the following events that took place involving people from Kerala in dangerous situations in the recent past: A driver with the Border Roads Organization is kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan, which threatens to kill him within 48 hours. The state and central governments do practically nothing. E Ahamed (the MP from Kerala), in charge of the foreign ministry since Natwar Singh was sacked, does practically nothing. The driver's decapitated body is found by the roadside. http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/23mani.htm A prisoner is held by the Americans in an army jail in Iraq. The government of Kerala appeals for his release and the central government intervenes. The prisoner is released and reunited with his family. A migrant worker in Saudi Arabia is sentenced to lose an eye because in a scuffle he had blinded a Saudi in one eye. The Islamic law in Saudi Arabia states literally that an eye for an eye is the punishment for the crime. However, the chief minister of Kerala pleads for clemency. E Ahamed pleads for clemency. There are questions in .. This has become an international cause celebre. A few years ago, when a person in Iraq was kidnapped by terrorists, the government quickly established contacts with the Iraqi government, sent a member of the Minorities Commission to Iraq, and secured his release. Here are excerpts from a report in The Pioneer newspaper ('Government could have saved him, says family'), in relation to Cases 1 and 4: Many people are also angry that the Central and State Governments failed to save Maniappan's life. Anandan and Krishnankutty, Maniappan's uncles and ex-servicemen, blame the State and Central Governments for having failed to save their nephew's life. They wonder why the State Government did not send a minister to New Delhi to strive to secure Maniappan's release. The family's neighbours Karthikeyan, Gopalan and Sadanandan and a host of others ask with indignation why the Central Government did not try to establish communication with the Taliban via the Afghan Government. A few Congress workers, who were reluctant to reveal their names, blamed Minister for State for External Affairs E Ahamed. Some others blamed it on top bureaucrats in New Delhi who failed to rise to the occasion. Some recalled how Samkutty, hailing from neighbouring Mavelikkara, was rescued after a terrorist group abducted him in Iraq a few years ago. At that time, New Delhi had acted quickly by establishing contact with the Iraqi government and also sent Minorities Commission member John Joseph to Iraq secure Samkutty's release. The Union Government's persistent efforts paid off, and Samkutty (was) brought home safely. In the case of Maniappan, the Union Government did not act fast and effectively, many feel. Here is an excerpt from a report in the Pioneer ('Naushad issue echoes in .'), in relation to Case 3: Rajya Sabha members, especially from Kerala, on Wednesday demanded immediate intervention by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to save an Indian national who is facing the threat of his eye being gouged out as a punishment for injuring a Saudi national in a scuffle. So what is the difference between Cases 1, 2, 3, and 4, other than the fact that the person in Case 1 died a gruesome death, but the others are safe? Just this: Case 1 was a Hindu man, Maniappan Raman Kutty. Case 2 is a Christian man, Sijo Jose. Case 3 is a Muslim man, Naushad. Case 4 is a Christian man, Samkutty. There could not be a clearer indication of the value of a Hindu man's life. To spell out the obvious -– a Hindu's life is without value as far as politicians and the Government are concerned. But a Christian man's life, and a Muslim man's eye, are of great value. Ah, the wonders of 'secularism; as practiced in India! This is eerily reminiscent of the Saudi Arabian system of blood money, see the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_money (or The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002): In Saudi Arabia when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the perpetrator has to pay blood money, or compensation, as follows: # 100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man # 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman # 50,000 riyals if a Christian man # 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman # 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man # 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman This hierarchy is based on the Islamic legal definitions of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). Because of the lure of petro-dollars, everyone accepts this with a shrug, 'That's the way the Saudis are'", although it violates our notions about human rights and egalitarianism. But it is true that sovereign countries have their laws and they resent outsiders trying to tell them what to do. For instance, Singapore has extremely strict laws about drug smuggling, and those caught trafficking are summarily executed. Just a week or two ago, a Vietnamese-Australian was thus executed, despite pleas for clemency. Of course, Case 3, regarding Naushad's pending mutilation, is a humanitarian concern. But then, Naushad is a Muslim, Saudi Arabia is the most devoutly Muslim country, and their law is totally based on the Quran and Sharia. In a purely technical and legal sense, is it appropriate for anyone to try and tell the Saudis what to do? Wouldn't that be interference in their internal affairs, and worse, in their religious affairs? It is interesting to note that India's Muslim leaders, who have on occasion declared that their Sharia courts supersede the normal judicial process -– most recently in the case of a Muslim woman being raped by her father-in-law and then being told to divorce her husband and marry the father-in-law -– are silent about the Naushad case. Where is Shabana Azmi? Where is Teesta Setalvad? Why aren't they loudly supporting the Saudi Sharia courts in this instance? Is their support of Islam selective -– only when it is convenient for them? There are two lessons to be taken away from these cases, and in comparison, the cases of Rubaiyya Sayeed (1989, Jammu and Kashmir), Tassaduq Dev (1991, Jammu and Kashmir), Nahida Soz (1991, Jammu and Kashmir), and of the hostages in the Indian Airlines flight that was hijacked (1999, Kandahar, Afghanistan). If you are an upper middle class person or related to a politician, the Indian State will cave in and do whatever it takes to secure your release, including allowing mass-murdering terrorists to go scot-free. An alarming note: Rubaiyya Sayeed is the daughter of the previous chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, and Tassaduq Dev is the brother of the current J&K Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad. What does this say about their willingness to resist terrorists? If you are a Muslim or Christian, you get substantially better treatment from the bureaucracy, politicians and the media than if you are a lower middle-class Hindu with no connections as Maniappan Raman Kutty was. I suspect that Maniappan Kutty also belonged to a lower caste, since the Marxists did not make any noise about him. Compare this to a CPI-M Politburo member personally chivvying on the relatives of Flight 814 hostages to force the NDA government to cave in to terrorist demands. But then, one might say that 'minorities' deserve better protection than the 'majority' community. However, this laudable goal breaks down in the case of Pakistan. A report from Irfan Hussain ('Conversion Losses') in The Dawn http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm relates the sad story of a Hindu couple in Karachi, whose three daughters, Reena (21), Usha (19) and Rima (17), vanished without a trace on October 18th. The next the parents heard about the three girls was via a courier package which had three identical affidavits from the girls saying they had voluntarily converted to Islam and therefore couldn't live with their Hindu parents. It is quite possible that they have been kidnapped, forcibly married, and converted under duress, but as helpless minority people in Muslim-fundamentalist Pakistan, the parents have no hope for justice. But the mullahs have generously offered them, too, the opportunity to convert to Islam. The kidnapping and forced marriage/conversion of Hindu women is intended in part to humiliate the community by showing them that they cannot protect their valued daughters. In a culture where 'honour' is important -– as seen in the many 'honour killings' of Muslim women who dare to love non-Muslim men, in the UK, for instance -- this is the gravest possible dishonor. And it is an overt threat that Hindus had better convert. This sort of violence generally befalls only powerless 'minorities' in most places. So this is yet more evidence that in India, it is the Hindus that are the oppressed 'minority', as I have argued before in 'Who is a minority person?' For, there was an identical tale -– same modus operandi -– of the 'disappearance' and 'conversion' of a Hindu girl in October in Hyderabad, India. This did not get much airplay in the Indian English media, naturally. 21-year-old K Pallavi disappeared, and 'reappeared' as 'Sana Fatima', clad head to toe in a burqa, and suddenly spoke fluent Urdu which she did not know before. Her mother was not allowed to see her without the burqa, or to talk to her alone, and she suspects 'Sana Fatima' is an impostor. The girl was escorted to court, curiously, by an MLA and MP of a Muslim organization. Here is a quote from the Pioneer editorial: It is entirely possible that Pallavi, if at all she and 'Sana Fathima' are the same person, has changed her faith in an emotional response to the killing of a young Muslim man, with whom she is said to have been rather friendly, last year. But that does not mitigate the possible social impact of her action that must be judged in the context of realities which cannot be wished away. Her gender is immaterial to the points that are being raised by those opposed to surreptitious conversion by deceit, if not by coercion or inducement. If Pallavi indeed wanted to embrace Islam as an informed adult, she need not have done so in such a cloak-and-dagger manner; if her action had no political or social bearing, she would not have been provided with political cover of the sort that was witnessed in court on Monday. So what do you think, gentle reader, is the value of a Hindu's life in India?

Mani Varadarajan Jul 2 1993, 11:28 am show options Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil m...@loiter.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan) - Find messages by this author 2 Jul 93 10:25:52 Local: Fri, Jul 2 1993 10:25 am The Gita: A Partial Refutation of P. Sinha's work (2/2) Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original | Report Abuse -------- From m...@king.Berkeley.EDU Tue Jul 7 11:26:55 1992 m...@king.Berkeley.EDU (Mani Varadarajan) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern re: Forgeries on Hindu Scriptures (part 2) -- long 6 Jul 92 21:48:47 GMT Organization: ---- Status: RO In my last article with a similar title, I attempted to refute some preliminary arguments made by the book ``The Gita as it Was'', written by a Mr. Sinha (posted by mvis...@sunee.uwaterloo.ca (m vishnu)). I will now tackle his criticism of the Gita itself. The following is from chapter 4 of his book: > Reworking of the original Gita to form the Bhagavadgita was not merely > the modification of a book. It was a surreptious plot to dismantle the > whole intellectual edifice of Indian culture which had been built up > over a thousand years. > It has already been mentioned tht when the original Gita was > altered, the interpolators also made changes in many other works > of that time to establish textual support in their favor. It was > for this reason that the interpolations were made in the Rig Veda, > the Epics, Samkhya Karika and Yoga Sutra. It is obvious that > there could have been numerous alterations in many other texts, > still to be detected. The (conscious?) error that Sinha makes in his argumentation above, is that he makes the same mistake that he accuses the interpolaters of making: twisting texts to suit his own philosophical point of view, while at the same time ignoring a tremendous body of textual criticism and evidence that point to the contrary. It is indeed surprising that Sinha, who is not an expert in manuscript analysis, and certainly is not a Sanskrit scholar on par with others who have done similar work, is the only one who has come to the conclusion that every text that disagrees with his philosophy of Sankhya has interpolations. This, despite the fact that (cf. ``Vaisnavism, Saivism, and Minor Religous Systems'', by R. G. Bhandarkar) the trend of thought of the Gita and the Mahabharata is attested to by physical evidence dating from the 3rd century B. C., that even though there were interpolations in Smriti texts such as the epics and puranas, there was such a reverence for the Sruti texts (the Upanisads and the Vedas), that no one dared interpolate there. He ignores the fact that these texts were passed down by word of mouth, and *not* written down, and that to have a wholesale interpolation as he suggests would require coordination across all of what is now India, which would be simply inconceivable in those days. It is easy to think that information can travel as quickly then as it does now; but, frankly, it didn't. The Brahma-Sutras, the chief systematic text of Vedanta, clearly predates Sankara by many hundreds of years, as attested to by modern-day scholars (as well as tradition), and the Sutras clearly dispute Sankhya as a philosophy---I point this out to demonstrate that the thoughts behind the Gita and subsequent Vedanta are not ``inventions'' of some corrupt brahmins. They have quite a history behind them. > The has also been pointed out that bands of proselytizers for the new > Brahmanic faith were organized at four different centers (mathas) > during the time of Shankaracharya. These teachers received increasing > political protection and patronage. I myself don't agree with the philosophical conclusions of Sankara's school, but the reason his school received political protection was because of the sheer brilliance of his philosophical polemic. In contrast to the 7th century schools preeminent in his time (and in contrast to what Sinha thinks), Sankara did not promulgate superstitious thought (like Kumarila Bhatta's school of Vedic thought did), nor did they believe in useless sacrifices (like Mandana Misra's school), both of which dominated the religio-political scene of the time. In addition, the revival of theistic belief in the southern part of India as opposed to Jainism and Buddhism was much more due to non-brahmin savants like the Alvars and Nayanars rather than the brahmin philosophers. So, this tendency toward ``irrationalism'' [i don't think it is, myself] is somewhat independent of the brahmins. > At the same time, the national > opponents of the new faith were forced into silence. In such an > atmosphere, the people had to accept the doctrines of the new faith > even when they did not agree with them. Note, there are *no* sources cited, and no evidence used to back this assertion. The fact is, that the caste system predates Sankara's philosophical renewal by centuries. I do not and will not apologize for the caste system as practiced by the people of this time, but there is a large body of evidence that indicates that the causes of it are far more complicated than a Sanskrit text. Manu's dharma-sastra dates from around the 1st century A. D., well before this supposed brahmin conspiracy. Once again, the situation may have been quite different in south India. Professor George Hart (UC Berkeley) has written a very scholarly paper as to the indigenous origins of caste in the Tamil country [the title of the paper escapes me now]. [update: The paper appears in a festschrift to D. Hocking, and is entitled, "Early Evidence for Caste in South India".] > The teaching of the new Bramanic religion replaced the political and > secular values with religious ones. THey interpretted the world, the > kingdonm and the state as maya (illusionary). The highest good in life > was to surrender to the will of God, render devotion to God, strive to > go to heaven, and be free from bondage of birth and death. God is the > protector, preserver, and destroyer of the world. This has also, for over a millenium, been the religion of those who don't happen to be brahmins. The maya theory is only held by a portion of brahmins; many other philosophers vehemently argue against it. This is another place where Sinha uses a peephole view to look at the religious history of this country. The beliefs espoused above does not automatically render man irrational; Gandhi for one, and Martin Luther King, Jr., believed the above with a great deal of faith. One can also cite Malcolm X as a believer in this under the umbrella of Islam. > Further the caste system was made more rigid and discriminatory through > the Bhagavadgita. For example, Krishna (who is the creator of the Universe) > says: "The fourfold caste system has been created by Me in accordance with > their differentiation of Guna and Karma" (BG IV 13). Their duties are > distributed in accordance with the qualities they are born with (BG XVIII 41 > -48). Women, sudras, and vaisyas are inferior by birth (BG IX 32). We can argue about what is meant by varna (mistranslated as caste) in the Gita in another thread, but suffice it to say that in can easily be interpreted in a non-discriminatory manner. Gandhi interpreted it this way, as did Ramanujacharya, to a certain extent. In modern times, Prabhupada of the Hare Krishna movement also did the same. As for Bhagavad-gita 9.32, it doesn't conclude that ``women, sudras, and vaisyas are inferior by birth,'' though people have interpreted it to say that. But, as Christians are wont to say, ``even Satan quotes >from the Bible.'' We shouldn't ignore statements such as Bg 5.18, where Krishna says that one looks upon all creatures equally; statements that say that as long as one performs his duty with all sincerity, they are assured of supreme beatitude. Given all this and more, the Gita is truly a revolutionary text. > Though still labelled as > caste, they came to occupy the status of Brama, which was invariably > interpretted as 'god' (BG IV24,31,34). The Bg never equates a brahmin with Brahman, the Supreme Reality. I don't see the point of this statement. Brahman == God from Upanisadic times. > It is not surprising that prior to 800 AD no foreign power could not > subjugate the Indian people. The foreign invaders did do some harm here > and there on several occasions, but they could not establish themselves for > long. Nor could they expand to other parts of India, even when its central > rule was broken and it began to be ruled by numerous kings. This condition, > however, changed after the eighth century AD when the Bramins began playing > active role in social-political-religious fields. And I suppose that brahmins weren't ministers to kings by tradition before this?! Kautilya (a brahmin) himself is evidence to this. The fact is, brahmins have *always* been ministers; just read Bhasa's Sanskrit plays, which date from the very early years A. D. > This political submissiveness would not have > lasted so long if the people had not been taught doctrines of submissiveness, > political and worldly indiffernce, and maya, through the medium of > Bhagavadgita. Once again, I decry the caste system propagated by many brahmins, and I do agree that the subjugation of the majority of the people in India is great tragedy in our history. But to attribute this by some false transivity to the Gita is ludicrous. The text of the Gita, in almost every way you can interpret it, is a call to action, and in an extremely literalist view, is a call to fight with bow in hand. How can this be submission? At best, we can say that the Gita has been misinterpreted; but I suspect that Sinha is not content with the philosophical conclusions of Vedanta, so he has set out to destroy (albeit ineffectively) the basis behind it. > It has already been mentioned (ChI) that the Age of Indian Philosophy > began with the work of Kapila (700BC). This date is completely unsubstantiated. It is just like claiming that the Mahabharata was written in 3200 B.C., as some traditional scholars wrongly do. Frankly, the Sankhya system of Kapila is an outgrowth of the same philosophical-religious fertile ground that existed around 600 B.C., and which produced Mahavira, Yajnavalkya of Upanisadic fame, Buddha, the Ajivikas, etc. So, his thoughts regarding dukha, sukha, etc., weren't usurped by other philosophers, but were a common base upon which they all built. > By changing the original Gita into Bhagavadgita, all these philosophical > and practical teachings were completely distorted. I am surprised that anyone who reads the Gita can come to this conclusion. Considering that Gandhi called the Gita ``The Gospel of Selfless Action'' thereby denouncing selfishness, and traditional commentators such as Ramanuja saw it as a gospel of love and action, how can Sinha come to this conclusion? Well, he tries by denouncing the following: Bg 4.14, 2.47, 2.49, 9.17, all of which argue for working, but not looking to the fruits of these actions selfishly. Bg 5.10, which advises us to treat all our actions as worship of God. We therefore aren't bound by the karma (but that doesn't free us from acting properly---vide Adhyayas 2, 5, 12, 17, etc.) > In various ways, the Bhagavadgita decried all actions other than for > bodily care, self-purification, sacrifice, and prayer. The actions > involved in fulfilling wordly goals were denounced and the life of > sanyasa (renunciation) and devotion to God were acclaimed. Is Sinha ignoring Adhyaya 18, where the topic of true renunciation is brought up? And is he ignoring Adhyayas 3 and 4, were Krishna distinctly tells Arjuna that it is far better to act unselfishly for the good of the world, than to renounce all. He Himself is constantly in action, for ``lokasamgraha'', the benefit of the world. > If we observe the behavior and thought of the Indian populace in our > own day, we will find that from farmers to industrialists, students to > teachers, politicians to social workers, and from housewivesto men on the > street, with few exceptions, the teachings of Bhagavadgita are followed. I consider very few people to follow the Gita in their everday lives in India. In fact, very few people know the meaning or the message of the Gita these days. Thanks to some great work done by the Ramakrishna Order and other organizations, the message of Vedanta is getting out in some form. If we look to Mahatma Gandhi as being a true follower of the Bhagavad-gita (as he himself claimed he tried to be), how can we say 1) that the Gita is flawed, and 2) everyone follows the message of the Gita? > It seems as if India as a nation fails to recognize any heritage > prior to the period of Bramanic revivalism. The teachings of Kapila > Mahavira, Buddha, Patanjali, and Vyasa do not seem to have any link with > the India of today. Keith has observed, "the scientific attitude > of mind which seeks to find natural causes for events of nature is > not normal in India" [History of Sanskrit Literature pp 146] There is a great deal to be said for the rationality of the West, but there is also a lot to be said against the materialism that is rampant here as well as in India. However, we have a history of philosophically opposing such materialism, which many Western Indologists simply have not understood. I'm not sure Sinha would agree with a lot of what else Max Mueller and Keith have said; he selectively uses what he likes. For a real index of textual criticism on the Gita, none of which seriously takes the conclusions of Sinha seriously, please see ``Studies in the Epics and Puranas'' by A. D. Pusalker. In addition, I have discovered what can be said to be a truly marvellous modern English commentary, which truly applies the teachings of the Gita to everyday life. Other than a few sections that most of us consider unnecessary today, Dr. M. Rangacharya's ``The Hindu Philosophy of Conduct: Being Lectures on the Bhagavad Gita'', is a three volume collection of transcriptions of a series of lectures delivered at the turn of the century in English that is masterful in its erudition and exposition. It is very hard to get, however, and may be available in a large university's library, or your grandfather's collection of books. I will conclude my critique of Sinha's work by saying: * He has no demonstrated textual evidence as to why his version of the Gita is any more authoritative than the current 700 verse version accepted by all * His conclusions are severely colored by his own philosophical interests * His assertions many times are without any evidence * He takes a peephole view of the Gita, and attempts to base all his arguments on those views * He ignores an entire body of evidence which disputes his conclusions (he may argue that these are all interpolations, but one can say that about anything) * Can we really believe that *all* brahmins, some of whom at least believed in the values of truth and honesty (as Marco Polo noted) engaged in a wholesale conspiracy to overthrow an entire philosophical tradition, much of which they were a part? I thank Meenan for bringing up these interesting issues. I only wish he would use a better authority next time. Peace, Mani

12. K.V.N.Gopal Apr 18 1993, 10:05 pm show options Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian vnk5...@tamsun.tamu.edu (K.V.N.Gopal) - Find messages by this author 18 Apr 1993 22:56:38 -0500 Local: Sun, Apr 18 1993 9:56 pm Re: Bhagavad Gita as it was (Chapter3) Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In article <1993Apr18.173834....@hls.com> r...@nms.hls.com writes: > [References: <C5LF58...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> <1qnsv4INN...@tamsun.tamu.edu> > <C5or9D....@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> >In article <C5or9D....@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> mvis...@bcr5.uwaterloo.ca writes: >I have generally ignored this discussion because this seems to be carried on by >people who are biased one way or the other. While some are prompted >mainly out of their hatred of 'brahmins', the other simply would not accept >criticism of their chrished scriptures. >I was attracted because of reference to Vivekananda in this thread. >I am certainly interested in looking at where Vivekananda expressed this opinion. >Please furnish references. If you must post, please email me a copy of your reply >(r...@hls.com) also, since I do not regularly read this group. > >Phulgenda Sinha (...) gives convincing evidence of who infact interpolated > >the Gita. >Please let me know the details of this book (ISBN, publisher, etc). Is there >any place in the Bay area (this question is addressed to knowledgeable >nettors in the SF Bay area) where I may obtain this book ? >S Ramakrishnan, Hughes LAN Systems Inc., Mountain View, Ca I had also ignored this discussion for a long time because I found most of theviews on this topic to belong to either extreme and nothing fruitful coming out of it. But I was prompted to post the rebuttal because I found the OP posting this article for the nth(n > 4?) time without trying to answer the questions raised by the other group(atleast satisfactorily). While I do not deny that many of the ancient works were interpolated and even the Bhagavad Gita may have been interpolated the reasons as to why there was interpolation of the texts/when the interpolation was done/who did the interpolation as given by the author do not stand to reason. I do not have as much time in my hands to participate in the thread as I would like.But a reading of the book should convince people that the author was no unbiased scholar seeking true knowledge. For example the author repeatedly stresses some conclusions of his that many philosophers of ancient India were Kshatriyas( no strong reasons offered except some examples of Janaka and another person). Buddha and Mahavira may be Kshatriyas but the author provides no convincing evidence that Kapila (the supposed founder of the Samkhya philosophy) was a Kshatriya but assumes it all the same. And how did Vyasa(if ever there was such a real person) become a Kshatriya( either by birth or Kshatriya). There are many more examples like this in the book which reveal the author's biased nature.Also he selectively quotes from several books those portions which support his views though they have been said in an entirely different context. Why did Mr. Sinha repeatedly have to say that they are Kshatriyas?. Also he keeps mentioning about Swami Vivekananda's search for an original text in such a way as to suggest that Vivekananda was implying that Sankara had done all the interpolation and twisted the meaning of the original Gita. If the reader is familiar with Vivekananda's Advaitist leanings he will clearly dismiss such unwarranted conclusions. The author in the initial stages claims that he wanted to go around entire East Asia to search for the original uninterpolated Gita but later gave up the search as he found internal evidence in the Gita itself( what reasoning). How did he arrive at the conclusion about the massive interpolation of the Gita as he claims? a) He has certain understanding of the Samkhya philosophy as propounded by Kapila and others. b) His understanding does not match what he understood by what the Gita says on it c)So Gita must have been interpolated as it distorts the original Samkhya philosophy d) The earliest extant commentary we have on the Gita is that by Sankara.So Sankara is the culprit behind all the interpolation e) Whichever verse according to his understanding of them comes into conflict with his view of the 'original' Samkhya philosophy is an interpolation into the Gita. And he dismisses about 90% of the existing version as interpolation. And his final conclusion? Advaita philosophy led India into the dark ages for a thousand years because it advocated that this material world is unreal and being the one who propagated the Advaita philosophy Sankara was the one to blame for India going into 'dark ages'. I am not able to give the ISBN number for the book as I do not have it by my side. After Mr Meenan Vishnu posted this extract repeatedly I made it a point to go to the library and get this book and ascertain for myself the validity of these wild claims and I have come to the conclusions that it is not a scholarly work by an unbiased person. Gopal Gopal

This topic was discussed in the news groups few years back. I will post some pro and con arguements of this book from the archives.

Ajit, Your policy is good as principle but not great in practise. In our company meetings our company president points out that a marketing campaign has to have focus. If you lose focus and dilute message it will not have its impact.

I have to diagree that BG should be applied only during old age. That is like saying that you can live your life as a murderer, thief or a greedy person and then embrace BG in the end to become pious hindu. It does not work that way. We are in the information age with tensions and pressures of daily life. BG helps us lead a very serene, contended and peaceful life. It helps us understand what is important and what is not. It has good guidance to a hermit/monk as well as to a man of action. BG should be recommended reading for kids from grades 9-12.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is genetic evidence to support a more European bloodline in upper caste people than lower caste people. Which is not necessarily saying that there was an invasion or cultural domination, though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One more liar. Did you read his research? When the research points to the fact that entire non-african population of humanbeings came out of India there are people again talking interms of Upper castes and lower castes. Human history is 150,000 years old. Humans in India date as old as 90,000 years. Religion, castes, language are pretty much recent 4000 years. What happened for 86000 years will not die because of 4000 years of history you bigots.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> s far as I know (I try to keep track), there has not been any major archeological find in India till date, which can challenge the present time line of Indian history. Rather, whatever evidence is being uncovered seems to be inline with the present version of history. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about some evidence? I have provided incredible authentic evidence that AIT is non-sense. If you really want an invasion then it is in the opposite direction. It is the Dravidan Migration Theory. Any truthful sane man will go to the Stehen Oppenheimer's site or buy his book to find the truth out. People with agenda's will come up with excuses. Human beings can lie but genes dont lie.

Underworld : The Mysterious Origins of Civilization (Paperback) by Graham Hancock "Five kilometres off the south-east coast of India, submerged at a depth of 23 metres beneath the murky, shark-infested Waters of the Bay of Bengal,..." (more) SIPs: inundation science, antediluvian landmass, inundation maps, yuga system, five antediluvian cities (more) CAPs: Rig Veda, Indian Ocean, Glenn Milne, Anton Mifsud, Kumari Kandam (more) This is a very good book on ancient India and archealogical findings.

Let me get this straight, I have nothing against Brahimins and some of my closest freinds are Brahmins. I was just making a statement on practical matters. Most of the violence on SC/STs are done by OBCs. But OBCs are such a majority that they will always have political strength. If you look at demographics OBCs make up close to 50%, SC/STs make up 25%, FCs make up 5-10%, muslims/others make up the rest. Brahmins of this generation who have not discriminated against anyone suffer the most because they dont necessary numbers to influence elections. Any time there is some caste based discrmination then it is very easy to point finger at Brahmins.

" For what? and no body would suffer forever" Do you know what is happening in India? It is getting impossible for FCs to get seats in Medical/Engineering colleges. South Indian states have close to 70% reservations.

Ajit, After your message and I started reading Gita in the order you gave me and it really makes sense. Chapters 2,3,5,6 are basically 2- Yoga of Knowledge 3- Yoga of action 5- Yoga of Renunciation of Action 6- Yoga of Self Discipline I have a full understanding as Krishna intended. There is only 2 fold path, Yoga of Renunciation (Samkhya) and Yoga of Action (Karma). If you just read these 4 chapters there are no contradictions and no repetitions. Thanks for your help.

The physiological changes one goes through is different from karmic path because of your soul. How is a person different when he has white skin with blue eyes compared to a person with Black skin and brown eyes. As far the stephen's research goes there is none. As that person moves north his skin is exposed to lighter sun hence fairer skin. This research will eliminate all the bigotary in this world. This will teach is to look at other Indians in a better manner.

Ajit, I have been following what you have been saying about BG and there could be some truth in it. Approach I take it is different, if you can zone out some sections which you dont agree with and can purely concentrate on the philosophical ideas, BG is a masterpiece. Reincarnation makes sense, various yogas to salvation make sense, sattwic/tamasic/rajasic qualities, non-attachment/renunciation makes sense. Casteism was a great injustice and unfortunately present day brahmins are going to suffer forever but we need to look beyond.

I have agree with Guest here. I was drinking casually then once I got married I started drinking glass of wine during dinner. One glass lead to many and basically in 2 years I was drinking a bottle of redwine a day. Then I started getting spiritual, so I stopped drinking, eating meat. Right now I do sandhyavandanam and read a chapter of Gita everday. Iam not even a brahmin and I grew up in a very atheist family in India. Now coming to chicago I know more about Hinduism than when I was at home. Iam at peace with myself.

The oldest avaiable copy of BhagvadGita is 10th century A.D. ,which has got just 4 chapers. 2,3,4 ,6. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where can I find more info on this? Is there a site which has done some research on the gita and its orgin?

There are plenty of christian who masquerade as hindus and bad mouth us. It is always good to understand your enemy.