Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
BJP & RSS have long been pushing for an anti-conversion bill which the pseudo-secular parties have for obvious reasons not supported. I think these very blatant cases of fraudulent conversions are just a way to build consensus around the anti-conversion bill. Wait and watch…
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Well said. We saw this pattern in the other thread on Kashmir also.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Actually correcting history is a very slippery road and no one know where it can lead 
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
How come they dont try converting the Sikhs and Buddhists? Why only Muslims and Christians?
If its because those religions were founded in India, then they should add Jews to the list, as there are also Indian Jews. And why forget the considerable number of Zoroastrians ! Tata motors better stick a Hindu deity somewhere in the Nano.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
because they got merged them in Hinduism. They converted Buddha to Avatar of Vishnu.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Well what about Zoroastrians and Jews then ? So Abraham and Zorastar were Vishnu as well !
Seems like they only have chip on their shoulder for Muslims and Christians.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
May be its due to the fact that these two religions ruled India and also converted local people. There is no concept of conversion in both Zoroastrians and Jews. In simple word, tit for tat.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Pseudo seculars - this label is used by Subramanian Swamy and his Right Wing Ditto heads.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Well thats not entirely true as people can convert to both these religions, but point taken.
The Jews and Parsis clearly married local Hindus. So Jews and Zoroastrians arent entirely without Hindu ancestry. But I suppose that doesnt factor into the RSS equation.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Interesting. while we are at it, I would appreciate if you shed some light on conversion possibilities in Judaism and Zoroastrians, as general perception says that its discouraged in these religions.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Discouraged but not unheard off. Why else would Jews in India look like Hindus. Likewise for Parsis.
Parsis in India have been averse to intermarriage so have retained some of their heritage, but one of the reasons why Zoroastrians are so far and few between is because of intermarriage outside of their faith and culture. So i suspect they must have significant Hindu ancestry despite this.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
The conversions happened differently.
people did not convert to parsi or jew in India by force; there may have been genuine belief changes, social progression motivations.
Muslims in predominantly majority were converted by force (punishment, taxation or discrimination).
Christians converted predominantly through missionary work (especially with dalits and tribal communities which Indian governments ignored for a long time, and economic incentives.)
BTW it is too cavalier and ill informed to say Bhuddha was simply made an avtar of Vishnu - the vedantic base for Bhuddhism is so very much part of several Hindu philosphies and schools of logic that it is an automatic. If that commonality requirement did not exist, somebody would have made Jesus, Allah, Ra and everyone else an avtaar too.
I think the Hindu political organizations believe that those whose ancestors were converted by force must be a) informed of that history, b) shown what they are missing because of that in terms ancestral civilities (sometimes mixing mythology and history) and c) given an opportunity and incentives to convert back.
Most common Hindus have had no interest in any of this nonsense - they were all too busy trying to survive, get into middle class and buy that 2 wheeler or 4 wheeler on installment.
Then when the congress party in power went into hyper-corruption mode and started using ‘secularism’ as the main reason why they should be voted for. In the same breadth they also talked up Muslim vote banks being ‘theirs’ through measures bordering on open coddling! But the performance went from bad to worse, corruption when from hyper to ultra-hyper.
People developed a distaste for all things congress including their brand of secularism.
Modi with his developmental and administrative credentials along with the ‘no coddling’ attitude tapped into that.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
so they are taking same route to convert back which they hated for centuries. Good show of ‘phool bane angare’. Typical bollywood.
There are areas in Indo-Pak, where conversion to Islam was voluntary. South India is through trade, Southern Pakistan (Sindh) is through Sufism. After Arab invasion in 711 AD, masses largely followed their religions for 3-4 centuries and Hindus remained majority of urban areas of Sindh till partition in 1947. This all proves that predominant majority converted through force is a rubbish propaganda.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
Just a tangential point if I may. There appears to be some justification provided for the re conversion based on history by some. And the same have also resorted to giving advice to Pakistan and Pakistanis on what they should do in light of the Peshawar incident.
Make of that what you will. (As appropriate, response will be provided in fine point)
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
There is oceanic difference in methods - force is an abominable method; manipulation also crosses the line but not as heinous as force. Incentives based methods are fairer compared to those two. Voluntary is the blameless methods. The Hindu gang is not forcing but manipulating and incenting.
Historically there are records of significant forced conversions in Kerala in the South as well as the Malabar region. Unfortunately there is widespread belief that in Islam their God requires Muslims to fight non-muslims until they accept him and that adds adds corroboration.
Conversion by sufism otoh is better thought of and accepted as that methods appealed to the minds of the audience rather than at the point of a sword or taxman. In fact there are several sufi shrines that are well visited and worshipped by Hindus and Muslims alike.
Remember the points about forced conversion is not just theory or reading material - don’t know if you are aware but there are numerous temples all over which were demolished and being granite, bases still exist that remind them.
May be the thing to do is to either get rid of these buildings or rebuld them instead of leaving them as ruinous reminders.
Talking of temple demolition, the Christians also engaged in that in the Portugese colonies (Goa…) but they did sucha thorough job that there are hardly any physical reminders. The story goes something like they rounded up everyone 15 or above and made them stand and recite Christian propogations until there was acceptance. Goa inquisition.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
200 Christians came back home in Gujarat.
RSS to press ahead on conversions in challenge to Modi - World - DAWN.COM
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
That Hindus converted to Islam by force or coersion is a very bold statement to make. You have to offer some evidence to back that up.
When you concider how much Hindus discriminate against people within Hinduism, it doesnt surprise me that people would want to convert into a more egalitarian religion. I dont see why that should be so unfathomable, that people would WANT to convert to Islam.
Im not trumpeting Islam, but it just seems logical that person who is told that they are considered “untouchable” by virtue of their birth, or someone told they must be a priest, or you and you ilk are only worthy of fighting, or you should only be dealing with money, these things would be a turn off for some segments of society.
If there was no appeal in Islam, then there wouldnt be nearly as many Muslims.
Whats cavalier is your assumption that Muslim forced people to convert. Seems like you might have a bit of chip on your shoulder yourself.
And its laughable that Hindu extremists think they know more off the family history of Muslims, then Muslims themselves. How obnoxious is that!
In fact a lot of your claims, seem to be pronouncements without any factual backing. So for example, certainly Hindu temples were destroyed, but how wide scale was this destruction? What was the motivation behind it? Was that destruction motivated purely by religious zealotry or something else?
I think there is far more complexity to the issue which you (and the Hindutva types) ignore, because its suites the victim narrative thats been cultivated over the years.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
You either do not know basic history of the region or grown up in denial. Evidence for forced conversions is so prevalent and common that your asking me for it simply shows clutching at straws. Every fifth town in India has a temple that stands razed during that sordid period of conversion. History books or even just wikipedia will inform you specific of some of the major atrocities associated with that. So that is not assumption at all.
I don’t mind if you trumpet Islam at all - don’t worry about it. But do learn a bit about its history, including how that past has contributed to its current state of violence.
Whether you understand it or not, accept it or not, facts are facts.
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
These are from a book by Richard M. Eaton, an historical expert on the Midieval Muslim/Hindu relation in India.
“The notion of the Muslim Sultan as temple-breaker, Eaton says, derives essentially from history texts written by British colonial administrators, who, in turn, drew upon Persian chronicles by Muslim historians attached to the courts of various Indian Muslim rulers. Eaton argues that British colonial historians were at pains to project the image of Muslim rulers as wholly oppressive and anti-Hindu, in order to present British rule as enlightened and civilized and thereby enlist Hindu support. For this they carefully selected from the earlier Persian chronicles those reports that glorified various Muslim Sultans as destroyers of temples and presented these as proof that Hindus and Muslims could not possibly live peacefully with each other without the presence of the British to rule over them to prevent them from massacring each other. Although some of these reports quoted in British texts were true, many others were simply the figment of the imagination of court chroniclers anxious to present their royal patrons as great champions of Islamic orthodoxy even if in actual fact these rulers were lax Muslims.”
From an interview:
You also examined at length the destruction of temples in this period. What did you find?
The temple discourse is huge in India and this is something that needs to be historicised. We need to look at the contemporary evidence. What do the inscriptions and contemporary chronicles say? What was so striking to me when I went into that project after the destruction of the Babri Masjid was that nobody had actually looked at the contemporary evidence. People were just saying all sorts of things about thousands of temples being destroyed by medieval Muslim kings. I looked at inscriptions, chronicles and foreign observers’ accounts from the 12th century up to the 18th century across South Asia to see what was destroyed and why. The big temples that were politically irrelevant were never harmed. Those that were politically relevant — patronised by an enemy king or a formerly loyal king who becomes a rebel — only those temples are wiped out. Because in the territory that is annexed to the State, all the property is considered to be under the protection of the State. The total number of temples that were destroyed across those six centuries was 80, not many thousands as is sometimes conjectured by various people. No one has contested that and I wrote that article 10 years ago.
Even the history of Aurangzeb, you say, is badly in need of rewriting.
Absolutely. Let’s start with his reputation for temple destruction. The temples that he destroyed were not those associated with enemy kings, but with Rajput individuals who were formerly loyal and then become rebellious. Aurangzeb also built more temples in Bengal than any other Mughal rule
‘It’s a myth that Muslim rulers destroyed thousands of temples’ | Tehelka.com](http://www.tehelka.com/its-a-myth-that-muslim-rulers-destroyed-thousands-of-temples/)
TRUTH BEHIND TALES OF TEMPLE DESTRUCTION
Re: RSS on their Conversion Assignment!
im sorry, i think its you who doesnt know basic history, i offer you the oppinion of a noted historian, and you regurgitate propaganda and pass it off as doctrinal truth.
please present your evidence. Wikipedia is not a valid source, the presence of ruins is not evidence, history books by the RSS are not valid sources either…
You make the broad assumpltion that ALL Muslim rulers must have been identical in disposition and motivation. You ignore complexity, for the solace of simplicity. Your mindset is typical of someone who is to lazy to do some actual research. I know hisotry doesnt always conform to how we want to perceive things, but that’s how it is, love it or leave it.