Ask a Hindu/Ask an Indian

[HannibalBarka]

Ideally, we should have used those surrendered soldiers as a bargaining chip for Kashmir - we could have threatened to not release the men if that part of Kashmir which is occupied by Pakistani forces was not returned to us immediately. If they still didn't listen, we could have threatened to kill one random man every eight hours - starting, of course, with the men at the top. May have lost us a great amount of international respect, but at least it would have got us back Kashmir.

Well that is method that reminds me Tojo, Hitler and Saddam Hussein among other "great" leaders Who do you feel closer to ideologically? and is Hinduism against the Geneva Convention or is that just your personal opinion?

 

[aneeshm]

It wouldn't have been necessary to actually kill them, you know, just let the world "know" that that we had killed them. Once Kashmir was ours, we would have let them all go back in disgrace.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Another question:

Does every Indian have the same opinion of POWs that you do? Is it a cultural thing?

 

[silver 2039]

Does every Indian have the same opinion of POWs that you do? Is it a cultural thing?

I don't think it has anything to do with culture. It has more to do with dislike of Pakistan and its government. Though I agree with Aneehm (NOOOOOOOOO!!!) the POW's should have been used as baraganing chips for territory. If left up to me we shouldn't have made peace at all. We should have kept those POW's in camps, and the blitzed through Pakistan.

We should have done it in 1971 when the US couldn't do anything because we had the support of the USSR, when we had enough forces spare to stop any Chinese advance in its tracks, and when Pakistan didn't have nuclear weapons but we did. We could have finished it then and there but that stupid woman ruined our chance.

 

[Phlegmak]

I don't think it has anything to do with culture. It has more to do with dislike of Pakistan and its government. Though I agree with Aneehm (NOOOOOOOOO!!!) the POW's should have been used as baraganing chips for territory. If left up to me we shouldn't have made peace at all. We should have kept those POW's in camps, and the blitzed through Pakistan.

Modern Pakistanis are descendants of former Indians. Indians and Pakistanis feel no nationalistic comraderie?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Modern Pakistanis are descendants of former Indians. Indians and Pakistanis feel no nationalistic comraderie?

Just hatred, apparently. But appraently, it is okay for Indians to hate Pakistanis . . .

 

[aneeshm]

Modern Pakistanis are descendants of former Indians. Indians and Pakistanis feel no nationalistic comraderie?

We do not equate nation with race, we equate it with culture and citizenship.

Pakistan has been Islamicised. Their Indian heritage is being erased. I know that. They have nothing in common with us.

And I don't "hate" Pakistanis, I'd just prefer it if they all disappeared somewhere, the same way you would prefer it if pests like mosquitoes disappeared. They're a constant irritant.

I presume you know of the Kargil war?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And I don't "hate" Pakistanis, I'd just prefer it if they all disappeared somewhere, the same way you would prefer it if pests like mosquitoes disappeared. They're a constant irritant.

I just wanted to quote this . . .

 

[silver 2039]

I would prefer if Pakistanis were reassimilated into India, why waste all that manpower?

 

[aneeshm]

I would prefer if Pakistanis were reassimilated into India, why waste all that manpower?

Define "India".

 

[silver 2039]

Define "India".

Er...the country known as India. There's only one of them you know.

 

[Elrohir]

And I don't "hate" Pakistanis, I'd just prefer it if they all disappeared somewhere, the same way you would prefer it if pests like mosquitoes disappeared. They're a constant irritant.

Let's try a little rewording that keeps the basic format the same, but gives a different perspective:

"I don't 'hate' blacks, I'd just prefer it if they all went back to Africa, the same way you would prefer stray dogs go bother somebody else. They're a constant irritant, always getting uppity and such."

Wouldn't you call a white man who expressed that view a racist? I'm sure you would. How is that view fundamentally different from yours, just with blacks switched in for Pakistanis?

Note: The paragraph in quotation marks does not express my views, and anyone who accuses me of being a racist for saying that is stupid and didn't read the rest of the post.

 

[TheDervish]

I am, but just incase the Catholic Church does something that irks me. I'd have something to fall back on.

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. Bhagavad Gita 18.66

 

[amaterasu]

How does the caste system affect daily life in India now? Why haven't people opted out of it, as it seems its still going in places.

 

[silver 2039]

How does the caste system affect daily life in India now? Why haven't people opted out of it, as it seems its still going in places.

More in the rural areas than the cities. But it is still present. Opt out? How can you opt out of something you were born into? Your caste is present in your surname.

 

[amaterasu]

More in the rural areas than the cities. But it is still present. Opt out? How can you opt out of something you were born into? Your caste is present in your surname.

Couldn't they just change their name to somethign random, and then not pay attention the trappongs of the system?

Also, would you, in general, call Hinduism a religion of progress? Other hindus I have talked to have said it's quite reactionary and fatalistic, would you agree?

Finally, is indian society as duty bound as it is often made out to be?

 

[aneeshm]

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. Bhagavad Gita 18.66

Brilliant. It's one of the most used and abused lines in the Gita. It's also one of my favourites.

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज।
अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुच।।६६।।

A more literal translation would be:

Setting aside all meritorious deeds, just surrender completely to My will (with firm faith and loving contemplation). I shall liberate you from all sins (or the bonds of Karma). Do not grieve. (18.66)


The notorious difficulty in the translation of this verse is the translation of the word Dharma. Some people interpret it to mean "religion", but I don't see it that way, because the concept of an organised "religion" is alien to the author of the Gita. The above translation is also not fully correct, because it is obvious that he is not telling Arjuna to stop doing good, either. It can be interpreted to mean that Arjuna should continue doing his duties, but not consider them binding, not consider them the ultimate Dharma, and that he should consider only bhakti his dharma. This is the interpretation I take.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am curious about the language of India:

What is Sanskrit?
Is there a Romanization of Sanskirt (IE Sanskrit using the Latin Alphabet)?
Is the Sanskirt writing system alphabetic (ex Latin: A) or Syllabic (ex. Hiragana & Katakana: あ/ア (a), ま/マ (ma))?

 

[aneeshm]

I am curious about the language of India:

What is Sanskrit?

India has no one "language". Most of the north of the country speaks Indo-Aryan languages. Hindi is the dominant one, with others being very similar to it. All of them have a common root in Sanskrit. The people of the south speak Dravidian languages. Sanskrit is not a spoken language any more, except by the revivalists. It's a bit like Latin. It's still the Hindu liturgical language, though.

Sanskrit was, once upon a time, the link and royal and technical language of India. Whatever information you wanted to last for ever, you put in Sanskrit. The grammar of the language was formalised by the grammarian and logician Panini. That grammar has stood the test of time, and is so perfect that no change to the language specification has been made till now, and probably won't be made in the foreseeable future. The effect of this formalisation is that Sanskrit works written more than two thousand years ago are still as readable today as they were back then, with no changes.

Is there a Romanization of Sanskirt (IE Sanskrit using the Latin Alphabet)?

The Latin alphabet is not capable of expressing the Sanskrit language, because it cannot express the Devanagari script in which the language is written.

Is the Sanskirt writing system alphabetic (ex Latin: A) or Syllabic (ex. Hiragana & Katakana: あ/ア (a), ま/マ (ma))?

The Sanskrit language uses the Devanagari script, which is an alphabetic abugida phonetic script, of the Brahmic family.

 

[GenMarshall]

The Latin alphabet is not capable of expressing the Sanskrit language, because it cannot express the Devanagari script in which the language is written.

Then how can I read or at least pronounce what it says? . The Romanization of any non latin language, I admit, does help me in trying to read the word(s) if I am unfamiliar with the text itself in the beguinning.