On 7/17/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 17 Jul 2007 10:22 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
At the very least you can expect such a
person to distort the facts, and leave out observations that do not
fit their agenda. In other words you cannot take anything they say at
face
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 12:05:40PM +0530, Charles Haynes wrote:
That word, honest I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'd rather wish they'd stop using Outlook in Southern India,
and started to use some open source MUA/groupware thing instead.
--
Eugen* Leitl a
On Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 12:05 pm, Charles Haynes wrote:
That word, honest I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nevertheless I still disagree with the convoluted reasoning you use to justify
calling someone an idiot.
shiv
On 7/18/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 12:05 pm, Charles Haynes wrote:
That word, honest I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nevertheless I still disagree with the convoluted reasoning you use to justify
calling someone an idiot.
Idiot wasn't
Below is a lurker's rebuttal my statement which I post as is.
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 11:35 am, shiv sastry wrote:
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 10:53 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
ot to keep harping on this, but do you consider the LTTE to be Hindus
fighting against Buddhists? I know I see graffiti
At 2007-07-15 19:23:50 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since you have been a decent person who does not post like a troll I
will try and give you a decent reply.
That's very nice of you. But as an indecent troll, I can barge into your
nice people's club (reducing the doorman to tears en route
Ingrid wrote:
going back to the original outlook article, why do you think women in
tamil
nadu are reporting such disproportionately high levels of spousal
violence?
I think one of the reasons for this trend is the special all-women
police stations set up by Tamil Nadu police, which
On 7/14/07, Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Why is he a bloody idiot? Because he has a different set of beliefs?
No, it's because his beliefs are idiotic. Wanting to trash the work of
^^
Isn't that just your
On Tuesday 17 Jul 2007 10:22 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
At the very least you can expect such a
person to distort the facts, and leave out observations that do not
fit their agenda. In other words you cannot take anything they say at
face value.
But they are being honest - if nothing else.
A
At 2007-07-14 23:11:22 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me get this straight... Your conjecture is [...]
Bzzt.
Just because I made a somewhat-related conjecture in the same thread
does not make what I said about pilgrims a conjecture.
Quoted from Somanatha, The Many Voices of a History,
[Disclaimer: I being no original researcher on such matters, rely on
easily available 'authentic looking' material to guide my thinking]
On 7/13/07, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which outsiders? Isn't that begging the question? It assumes an
already agreed upon outside and inside
On Sunday 15 Jul 2007 2:09 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Quoted from Somanatha, The Many Voices of a History, Thapar 2004,
Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
shiv
On 7/13/07, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the various kingdoms traded with and invaded each other as well,
so was there actually any inside there?
That there was never a coherent India even remotely resembling the
modern nation state of is more or less accepted as fact. The
shiv sastry wrote: [ on 02:47 PM 7/15/2007 ]
Quoted from Somanatha, The Many Voices of a History, Thapar 2004,
Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
What a curious statement. Care to expannd?
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com))
On 7/15/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
Why pray? Much criticism has come her way for opposing the communal
revisions of Indian history but I've never heard of her described as a
'blithering idiot'.
On Sunday 15 Jul 2007 4:15 pm, Gautam John wrote:
Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
Why pray? Much criticism has come her way for opposing the communal
revisions of Indian history but I've never heard of her described as a
'blithering idiot'.
You might have
On 7/15/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 15 Jul 2007 2:09 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Quoted from Somanatha, The Many Voices of a History, Thapar 2004,
Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
That is right! We want more learned sources like Drs.
shiv sastry wrote: [ on 07:08 PM 7/15/2007 ]
Thapar is a blithering idiot. Please don't inflict her upon us.
What a curious statement. Care to expannd?
Gladly.
We all have our opinions on who is or is not an idiot.
For example
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 9:28 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
going back to the original outlook article, why do you think women in tamil
nadu are reporting such disproportionately high levels of spousal violence?
*How Women-Friendly?*
*In TN, 69.2% have a say in family matters * *A.P* *T.N* *Kerala* *
Karnataka* *INDIA* *U.P* *Gujarat* No. of females
At 2007-07-14 10:59:57 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please elaborate on this part of your sentence: probably a much more
modern concept than you're giving it credit for.
I'll rephrase. The concept exists today and has existed for some time.
It seemed to me that you think it is ancient, and
On Saturday 14 Jul 2007 12:10 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
That the feeling of national identity did not exist in any exploitable
form at that time, and that it emerged only later.
This is one of the clearest statements you have made. I disagree with you.
Sorry. I'm fifty kilometres away
At 2007-07-14 16:36:32 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is one of the clearest statements you have made.
Oh, is that why your replies gloss over most of what I've written?
I disagree with you.
That's one of the most well-reasoned statements you've made.
Anyway, I take it that means you
On Saturday 14 Jul 2007 6:49 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Thanks for saving me some time digging up references.
You're welcome. I will try to be considerate and remember your difficulty in
digging up references for what you say.
shiv
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
I said it was a toss up, and that religion was one of the factors that
might influence the protection pilgrims received.
Let me get this straight... Your conjecture is that there were
guards/soldiers/police/protectors provided to travelers on the road. And
if the road
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 10:53 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
Not to keep harping on this, but do you consider the LTTE to be Hindus
fighting against Buddhists? I know I see graffiti calling on the CM to
support eelam an [sic] Hindu nation. They certainly predate the RSS.
On second thoughts.
it would
On 7/13/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that people who grow up within the restrictive confines of
monotheistic thought processes require a leap in imagination to see why a
faith does not need active protection by humans.
Eh? Where did this come from? It seems like a bit of
Charles Haynes wrote:
Are there not Hindus who believe Hinduism is under attack and needs
active protection by humans? It certainly appears so from here. I
would certainly call the destruction of the Babri Masjid active.
Yes, there are fanatics who believe that Hinduism needs protection. One
At 2007-07-13 09:37:29 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All were just people who had (as far as I know) free access
to travel to areas that they felt they needed to travel to on
pilgrimage no matter which ruler was in charge of a given area.
What does free access mean?
Pilgrims were, at that
At 2007-07-13 12:01:51 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering how tolerant the religion is, not to be confused with the
people who purportedly practise it, there is no attack.
Ah yes, the good religion, bad practitioners argument again.
-- ams
Aaah, the much awaited addition of arguments to the thread. ;-)
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2007-07-13 09:37:29 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All were just people who had (as far as I know) free access
to travel to areas that they felt they needed to travel to on
pilgrimage no matter which
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2007-07-13 12:01:51 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering how tolerant the religion is, not to be confused with the
people who purportedly practise it, there is no attack.
Ah yes, the good religion, bad practitioners argument again.
Yes, you hit the nail
At 2007-07-13 15:27:46 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't have to accept a possibly concocted story as historical fact
just because a character in a story is named after a town.
I thought you were saying that the town was named after the character in
the story: Modern day Kandahar in
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 5:51 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
But the point is that you cannot call a people hostile based on this.
OK, I'll try to remember that the next time I want to call a people
hostile. But what relevance does it have to what I actually wrote in
*this* discussion?
The
On 7/12/07, Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the risk of boasting and sounding racist, I have to say this.
Religion has never been a big hoo-haa in India/Bharat. Hinduism is the
only religion that allows you to believe in non-hindu gods or even non
at all, this is hearsay. Someone
Thaths wrote:
On 7/13/07, Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you read Romila Thapar's book about Somnath? It's very good.
ISBN number would be appreciated.
http://www.amazon.com/Somanatha-Voices-History-Romila-Thapar/dp/1844670201/
Thank you, thaths... Udhay and I were
On 7/13/07, Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you read Romila Thapar's book about Somnath? It's very good.
ISBN number would be appreciated.
http://www.amazon.com/Somanatha-Voices-History-Romila-Thapar/dp/1844670201/
Thaths
--
Homer: He has all the money in the world, but there's
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
OK, I'll try to remember that the next time I want to call a people
hostile. But what relevance does it have to what I actually wrote in
*this* discussion?
*** Whether a given ruler treated them well seems to have been a toss
up, and often did depend on the religion of
At 2007-07-13 16:12:54 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the point is that you cannot call a people hostile based on this.
OK, I'll try to remember that the next time I want to call a people
hostile. But what relevance does it have to what I actually wrote in
*this* discussion?
The very
At 2007-07-13 18:51:14 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many people in a country called the USA used to visit a town called
Las Vegas for a pilgrimage. And although the nation was deemed to be
free they were at risk of road accidents along the way so it was not
really as free and safe as it
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Er, yes. I didn't say it was. But so what if it wasn't? The fact remains
that pilgrimages could not be depended upon to be free, either in the
monetary sense or in terms of security and easy passage.
But the point is that you cannot call a people hostile based on this.
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 3:32 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
You don't have to accept a possibly concocted story as historical fact
just because a character in a story is named after a town.
I thought you were saying that the town was named after the character in
the story: Modern day Kandahar
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 3:13 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
There was a kingdom known as Gandhara and Gandhari was their princess
who married a blind king called Dhritarastra.
And you accept this as historical fact? Really?
You don't have to accept a possibly concocted story as historical fact
I don't think that this was something specific to this part of the
world.
Er, yes. I didn't say it was. But so what if it wasn't? The fact remains
that pilgrimages could not be depended upon to be free, either in the
monetary sense or in terms of security and easy passage.
I don't think the
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 11:45 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
Are there not Hindus who believe Hinduism is under attack and needs
active protection by humans? It certainly appears so from here. I
would certainly call the destruction of the Babri Masjid active.
That doesn't change the fact that the
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 12:26 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Romila Thapar's book about Somnath? It's very good.
No.
What's good about it?
shiv
On 7/12/07, Charles Haynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/07, Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to keep harping on this, but do you consider the LTTE to be Hindus
fighting against Buddhists? I know I see graffiti calling on the CM to
support eelam an [sic] Hindu nation. They
My observation is that believing faith needs active protection by
humans is orthogonal to the mono or non-mono ness of the faith.
Certainly State Shinto is not monotheistic and active protection by
humans is an integral part of it.
And many of the faithful in Europe no longer believes that
At 2007-07-13 19:00:34 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*** Whether a given ruler treated them well seems to have been
a toss up, and often did depend on the religion of both parties
(e.g. Shaivite kings might not give two hoots about Vaishnavite
pilgrims, etc.). ***
It has relevance to the
On 7/13/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://ignca.nic.in/nl002503.htm
Oh, very good. The perfect after-dinner entertainment.
Dr. Shambhu Shastry showed that the chatuyuga and manavantara
schemes of Hindu chronology are directly from natural astronomical
cycles
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
I said pilgrims were preyed upon by bandits where they were not
protected by the local ruler. You said I don't think that this
was something specific to this part of the world.
You also said that this was because the pilgrims did not believe the
same God the ruler
At 2007-07-13 22:13:23 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You also said that this was because the pilgrims did not believe the
same God the ruler did, which is what we are discussing here.
I said it was a toss up, and that religion was one of the factors that
might influence the protection
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 7:08 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
That is a ridiculous contrived analogy.
You said that people being able to travel on pilgrimage meant that there
was some concept of a nation, even if split up into various kingdoms. I
pointed out that barriers to travel of a certain
At 2007-07-14 06:54:47 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Outsiders typically had no wish (at least none that have been
recorded to my knowledge) to visit Badrinath or Kashi.
I think it was in no way unusual for Buddhist pilgrims to visit places
held sacred by Hindus. You could quibble and say
On Saturday 14 Jul 2007 9:10 am, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At best the concept of India among Indians was a loose and tenuous
concept, but the point is the concept was not absent.
No, but it's probably a much more modern concept than you're giving it
credit for. (But making it, and other
Is there any mention to the fact that fans rioted when a popular actor
died?
We had to express our sense of loss somehow! We will not have the benefit
of his presence for the rest of our lives!
- Constant bickering between these states among themselves (mostly
between TN and the other
On Thursday 12 Jul 2007 4:03 pm, Badri Natarajan wrote:
We weren't even one country till 1947.
And what were the many countries known as to the outsider who wanted to trade
or invade?
shiv
On 7/12/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 12 Jul 2007 4:03 pm, Badri Natarajan wrote:
We weren't even one country till 1947.
And what were the many countries known as to the outsider who wanted to trade
or invade?
Which outsiders? Isn't that begging the question? It
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 8:55 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
Which outsiders? Isn't that begging the question? It assumes an
already agreed upon outside and inside does it not?
Yes.
In fact there are accounts of people wanting to trade with India (Europe,
Africa) and of people who visited India
On 7/13/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 8:55 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
Which outsiders? Isn't that begging the question? It assumes an
already agreed upon outside and inside does it not?
Yes.
In fact there are accounts of people wanting to trade with India
On 7/13/07, shiv sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the people of old India were just people who did not see themselves as
India or Hindu which were both externally derived names.
In particular derived from the Persian pronunciation of al-Sind, no?
But national, religious, ethnic or cultural
On Friday 13 Jul 2007 9:12 am, Charles Haynes wrote:
was there actually any inside there?
My take on this.
Yes and no.
NO in the sense that there was no widespread self awareness of India as a
nation state with fixed borders, visas, national flower, national sport,
national religion and
Charles Haynes wrote:
But national, religious, ethnic or cultural borders are necessarily
fluid in time and space. It's all too easy to pick the time and place
that suits one's agenda. Unfortunately it's also easy for people who
disagree with you to pick equally convincing times and places
Charles Haynes wrote: [ on 10:53 AM 7/13/2007 ]
Not to keep harping on this, but do you consider the LTTE to be Hindus
fighting against Buddhists?
I know you didn't ask me the question, but I certainly don't. I think
that the whole Lankan conflict is an ethnic one (with linguistic
Binand Sethumadhavan wrote:
Consider this case. A popular actor/chief minister dies. His wife and
his concubine contest his legacy and fight the election. The people
vote the concubine as his heir. By what yardstick do you call this
cultural conservatism?
Is there any mention to the fact
Outlook magazine has a special this week on the socio-economic
progress the southern states of India (KA/AP/TN/KL; couldn't find much
of PY or GA there) have made vis-a-vis the rest of the country.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070716fname=JSouthern+Comfort+%28F%29sid=1
65 matches
Mail list logo
