Comments on: Shivaji: Beyond the Legend (and some surprises)

By: Shivaji: Beyond the Legend (and some surprises) | Sepia Mutiny | TodayCourse

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:42:04 +0000

[...] this link: Shivaji: Beyond the Legend (and some surprises) | S... Tags: conservative, exercise, government, history, india, knowledge, motivation, [...]

By: NYC Chatwala

NYC Chatwala — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:18:35 +0000

This Laine fella should do more extensive research on the topic of Shivaji. Just because he was a Maratha king doesn’t mean that he was all for Maratha supremacy in India, like some of you have commented. Some of his trusted generals were Muslims so how could he not be secular? Some of you are quick to harp on the “Hindu right”. Don’t pose as an intellectual, get your facts straight! Many muslims are supporters of the Shivaji orgs.

By: RahulD

RahulD — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:55:37 +0000

Bombayite....stuck here at a Libertarian (sorry I mean libertarian) conference in Boston...all I can say is, the Hindutva movement is not only inefficient it is based on the wrong things. I wish I would find the desire and the affinity to go back to India and do my small part in convincing Arun Jaitley to be a spearhead for a rational revival...maybe one day.

Sorry if I was annoying earlier

By: Paramhansa

Paramhansa — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:54:49 +0000

Awsome post, RahulD

By: bombayite

bombayite — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:31:21 +0000

you do realize that I was being sarcastic with the labels I used? onanist?

i was responding to moornam's labels, not yours. but maybe "onanist" describes the sexually frustrated goons who beat up lovers in parks and wreak havoc on valentine's day celebrations best.

And the sad part is, the way it is used now - it is only the cavemen who DO get it. Most of the Hindutva proponents that I talked to on trains or platforms in UP at 2 in the morning, use it in a way that will never find an appeal amongst anyone who is rational.

i think this is the crux: the elitists/marxists/leftists/cocktail drinkers/insert-another-pejorative can only go to war against the hindutva there is, not the hindutva you'd want or like. and the movement as it is today is certainly not worthy of support or defense.

as for a contemporary conservative movement that takes pride in the assertion of their identity as a hindu in india, i'd be interested in understanding what your vision of that is, and how it could achieve that vision without being exclusionary and nativist (i couldn't agree with you more about people like savarkar). not that i think it is not possible, just that it would be politically difficult for a movement based on identity to be welcoming to people who it sees as not part of that identity. in practice, it is a short road from regional pride to blaming the "immigrant bangladeshis who litter calcutta's highways" for your own bad economic status.

By: DJ Drrrty Poonjabi

DJ Drrrty Poonjabi — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:15:39 +0000

Point 4: Well, look-a-here, Herschel. We got us one of them self-hating Jews.

Though most of this discussion is way over my head, you get props for the obscure Family Guy reference.

By: rar

rar — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:07:31 +0000

when we speak about “islamicate traditions, culture, and insignias of power” in the indian context, excluding theological issues, we might as well be speaking of Persian culture. almost contemporary with french being the language of diplomacy and high culture in early modern europe, persian played a comparable role for west and southern asia. the repeated use of the adjective “islamic” instead of “turko-persian” by early orientalists to describe the aristocracy of a region, or to characterize an invading horde, has led many people to misleading conclusions. one such is the notion that islam was the sole reason for central asian aggression and cruelty to indians. the shakas,kushanas and hunas just became the ghaznis and ghoris. i dont see why many a hindu monarch would not have favored persian culture and fashion over native options. how alien could it have been given the civilizational interactions of India and Iran stretch far into prehistory? particularly if there is no strong compulsion to convert, why not throw on some embroidered robes? i think some of those “islamicized” hindu princes felt positively natty in their new threads. the perception that persian culture was prestigious and cosmopolitan was shared by many other societies as well. as such it enabled participation in a much wider world. what bored aristocrat wouldnt want that? i wouldnt see it as evidence that india was subjugated and manipulated into feeling inferior. the process of cultural engagment between the deccan and iranian plateaus had begun many centuries before shivajis time.

By: RahulD

RahulD — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:33:57 +0000

Now you know how it is when a religion/culture’s icons are denigerated by making it them out to be open to “scholarly study”. There is nothing wrong with me juxtaposing parallel philosophies from other cultures. I wanted to make a reference to an earlier point about the Gujrat-Maharashtra struggle, with the recreation in Midnight’t Children. Speaking of Rushdie, I wonder what happened to him when he expressed an opinion on another historical figure – is he in Denmark? And to call me a part of the Hindu right, would not be polite, it would just be misplaced. You can label me something I’m not just so that you can write off a valid point by attribute it to “them crazies”, whatever works for you Bro. Keep studying more though.

By: bunty

bunty — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:53:22 +0000

@54 RahulD:

Your phrases :"We were all doing it for the Ummah." , "..would you prefer that we have a Sharia?" reveal you for what you are. Quit telling us we should call your types "Conservative" and that "the condescension by many of those who even try to justify the Conservative Hindu outlook is bordering on despicable." It is your bringing the ummah and sharia into a debate that has no place for them that is despicable. To call you part of the Hindu right would be polite.

By: banerjee

banerjee — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:47:12 +0000

"There is absolutely no good reason to cling to a social system that is so patently false and enervating, and that has resulted in such a weak and low status for India in the world."

Racism and christian fundamentalism does not seem to have resulted in a weak and low status for the US in the world. What's the reason for the difference?