All the religions are dictated ways of life and hence regressive Hinduism that is nothing but patriarchal Varnashram, is most regressive as it follows most inhumanly dictated way of life by Manusmriti that does not even allow the theoretical possibility of equality unlike other religions, which has treated a large section of its population as untouchables and denies right to education to women and Shudras. Manusmriti prescribes women to be "subject to their father in childhood, to the lord after marriage and toi the sons after the death of tyhe Lord, a woman must never be free". If A shudra and a woman even by mistake happen to hear the Mantra of the Veda, molten lead should be poured in their ear. Manu Smriti has been eulogized by Golwalkart and deen Dayal Upadhyay both in Bunch of Thought and Integral Humanism respectively. If you think Hinduism is anything absolutely different, the dare to condemn the inhuman prescriptions of Manusmriti and it upholders -- Golwalkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyay. If you haven't read them, I may forward you tyhe quotes from the above mentioned texts of RSS ideologues.
I agree with you Mr. Rakesh Pandey that not many Hindus have read Manusmriti (Only a minuscule minority of Hindus are Sanghis in the same way as only a minuscule minority of Muslims are Jamatis) in the same way as not many Sanghis have read 'Bunch of Though't (Golwalkar) and 'Integral Humanism' despite claiming these texts to contain their guiding principles (I also had not read them when I was a Sanghi myself, wouyld only hear from Pracharaks most of whom were fond of Bal Swamsevaks). But I dare you to give any other definition of Hinduism than patriarchal Varnmashram that has been treating its laboring population as untouchables? I am not talking about antiquity, I have witnessed it in practice in my student days from the perpetrator side of the fence. As I mentioned above I read these texts and Manusmriti, as both (Bunch of Thought and Integral Humanism) claim Manu to be the "first, the greatest and the wisest law giver of mankind" in connection with a work on ideologies of RSS and Jamat-e-Islami. In the same connection I read Quran and Hadith (equally obscurantist as Manusmriti) also as Jamatis clainm them to be source of all the acknowledged. [Ish Misdhra, "Women's Question in Communal ideologies: A Study into the Ideologies of RSS and Jamat-e-Islami, TEACHING POLITICS,No.1, 1987; ENCOUNTER, Feb-Mrch 1999(reproduced)]. Either you refute my claim that Golwalkar and Upadhyay did not consider Manu to be the "first, greatest and wisest law giver" or condemn them for saying so.
I agree with you Mr. Rakesh Pandey that not many Hindus have read Manusmriti (Only a minuscule minority of Hindus are Sanghis in the same way as only a minuscule minority of Muslims are Jamatis) in the same way as not many Sanghis have read 'Bunch of Though't (Golwalkar) and 'Integral Humanism' despite claiming these texts to contain their guiding principles (I also had not read them when I was a Sanghi myself, wouyld only hear from Pracharaks most of whom were fond of Bal Swamsevaks). But I dare you to give any other definition of Hinduism than patriarchal Varnmashram that has been treating its laboring population as untouchables? I am not talking about antiquity, I have witnessed it in practice in my student days from the perpetrator side of the fence. As I mentioned above I read these texts and Manusmriti, as both (Bunch of Thought and Integral Humanism) claim Manu to be the "first, the greatest and the wisest law giver of mankind" in connection with a work on ideologies of RSS and Jamat-e-Islami. In the same connection I read Quran and Hadith (equally obscurantist as Manusmriti) also as Jamatis clainm them to be source of all the acknowledged. [Ish Misdhra, "Women's Question in Communal ideologies: A Study into the Ideologies of RSS and Jamat-e-Islami, TEACHING POLITICS,No.1, 1987; ENCOUNTER, Feb-Mrch 1999(reproduced)]. Either you refute my claim that Golwalkar and Upadhyay did not consider Manu to be the "first, greatest and wisest law giver" or condemn them for saying so.
No comments:
Post a Comment