Aryan Invasion of India Shown for an Arrogant Colonial Myth

> Plain fact is, that prior to their becoming non-violent Buddhists 1000
> > years ago, the Tibetans (a very tough people, even tougher than the
> > Mongols) beat the hell out of the Chinese or anyone. So what is
> > better - beating up your neighbours or getting beaten up by them?

> Again, as the Great Soul Gandhi walked his middle road, he found a most
> astonishing way to beat up his British neighbors by way of getting beaten up
> by them--so . . .



O dear, Gandhi is by no means very popular among most Indians today.
However this point is very important and I may write about it some
other time.

Cheers, Arindam.

AB: First of all, Gandhi like Buddha is very much favoured by non-
Indians, for some obvious reasons. He was a closet Christian, and as
such, their great hope for the conversion of the peoples of India to
Christianity. The Congress party has had, and still has, a very
strong Christian flavouring as a consequence. There was no greater
disaster for the Indian people, than Gandhi. His extremly bad
political leadership was largely responsbile for the dismemberment of
the country in such a horrible fashion in 1947 - even a mediocre
politician would have done much better for the people. If Gandhi is
extolled, that is simply because foreign interests that dominate all
aspects of life in India, by funding or influence, want it so.
Second, it is simply wrong to say that he was responsible for Indian
independence. In fact, it is laughable. India got independence as a
result of the militant leader Subhas Chandra Bose and those who
supported him, as such impact made India not possible to govern or at
least gain from. Gandhi's followers like Nehru got the benefits, the
plump fruits of political office that is, once the British left.
Thirdly, Gandhi's appeal lies in his strong and simple writing,
extolling non-violence and the simple village life - those against
technology and violence naturally look up to Gandhi. After WW2, and
all its horrors, the Gandhian message was clearly very effective. But
apart from the people of Bengal (three million were starved to death
by Churchill who diverted the foodgrains elsewhere) WW2 did not have
any significant effect upon the Indians. Anyway the point of
neighbours bashing each other up, is never addressed by Gandhi. The
British were not neighbours.

was it not Gautama Buddha who once said, "Different



> strokes for different folks?"


Next time I'll write something about the political situation in the
prehistoric Hindu states of India, relating to warfare.

AB: The piratical occidental mindset is well described by these lines
(from memory) from a poem by Peacock:
"The mountain sheep are sweeter
But the valley sheep are fatter
So we thought it meeter
To carry off the latter." And it goes on to say how they cut off the
neighbouring king's head, killed all his men, and robbed the land of
its wealth and cattle to make a great feast and song. Sounds
familiar, what? Like, what happened to Saddam - not that he was a
neighbour, though.
Lines such as the above, are not to be found in any Indian text.
Not that there was no warfare - quite the contrary. In fact, there
was a whole class of people, the kshatriyas, who were born and brought
up to be warriors.
However, there was two kind of battle - one the dharmayuddha, and the
other plain yuddha, very similar to modern warfare which has no
principles or constraints save political considerations. In the
latter there were no rules and no principles. The enemy (usually an
outsider like Alexander) had to be defeated with any means.
But in the dharmayuddha the context was different. The idea was that
the Gods decided the winner. Honour was more important than life or
even victory, So, strict rules had to be followed. The last recorded
dharmayuddha was the great battle on the plains of Kurukshetra over
5000 years ago. However, by that time morals had degraded, and there
were many breaches to proper conduct. Even Lord Krishna was about to
break His own word, that He would not fight!
The main point is that in theory when Indian states fought, the common
people were spared the sort of sheer pain and loss they go through
today. This was only possible, as people were spiritual and morality
based upon same had practical meaning. Carpet bombing, napalm, nukes
etc would appear to be horrendously evil to them.

But you can't argue with facts.

<hari.kumar.DeleteThis@indero.com> wrote in message news:g565l5$tbk$1@aioe.org...
>> Just read this
>>
>> http://www.white-history.com/
>
> I looked at it briefly, I'm not impressed. It is but using current racial
> bigotry to read back into history what they want to see. All countries
> have such minorities. S. asia is no exception to such religious and
> political radicals wanting to remake history into a self glory image.
>
> To all such examples the answer is science by which to show that what
> happened is independent of such ideas. The biggest flaw of the book is
> it's invalid assumptions about the reality of "race" as they define it as
> distinguished from ethnic group. There is no "white race" even as they
> want to force their definition. As such there are no "races".


Well then let's call them groups. There are 5 Major groups on earth. The
people labled Caucasians are one and are the dominant group throughout
history and have migrated the most.
10k years ago the entire population of the earth was 1 million with almost
everyone living in Europe and the Middle East. All of these people would be
classified as Caucasian.
>