Position of Hindu Women in the Epic Age From the two great epics, it has been found that even in the epic age women enjoyed a respectable position. Like for instance, the Mahabharata asks a man to treat his wife with great kindness even if he is extremely angry. A man is not supposed to use cruel words to her, as because a person himself is born as his son; so it is expected from him that he should treat his wife with the same regard as he shows towards his mother. Further, in another context of this great epic, it is stated that one`s wife is one`s friend at the time of death; which means that though a person may have many friends but his wife is the real friend in his difficult times. In another passage, women are said to be honourable. It was believed that by dishonouring or neglecting a woman one honours or disregards Goddess Laxmi. Before coming to Smriti Shastra, it may be mentioned that the word `patni` implies equal participation of men and women in sacrifices. In the Manu Smriti, it has been mentioned that women are given a very respectable position in the household. In the same context, Manu states that, where they are not honoured, all rites become futile. It is also stated that a family, in which ladies suffer soon perishes. Similar sentiments are expressed in several other verses of the Manu-Smriti. This epic also emphasises that the wife is the better half of her husband; she is his greatest friend and is the source of his dharma, artha and kama. In legal matters too, women have assured privileges. Interestingly, in some respects, women appear to have enjoyed great privilege, sometimes higher than that of men. Even as a result of committing some big offences, women might be abandoned but they did not lose the right to maintenance. According to the Vashistha Smriti, the son of a degraded person becomes degraded; but the daughter of such a person is not subjected to apostasy. According to some authorities, women had to undergo only half the prayaschitta prescribed for men committing the same offence. Further, it has also been found that in ancient societies women of all castes, excepting those born in the reverse order of castes, were exempted from all taxes. According to certain authorities, newly married girls and unmarried girls and pregnant women were to be fed before others in the household. Apastamba Dharma Shastra ordains that the rules, not stated in it, are to be ascertained from women. Apastamba Grhya Sutra provides that usages, connected with marriage, are to be learnt from women.
Lha-chen-Rgyalbu-Rinchan was first non Hindu king of Kashmir who belonged to Islamic faith(convert). He was not a born Muslim but Buddhist by faith. Rinchan’s father was killed in some internal disputes in Ladakh leading him to run away in exile and settle as a refugee in Kashmir. He took refuge in castle of Ram Chand commander of Raja Sahadeva. Here he met Shamshir a Persian Muslim immigrant- another fellow like him. Rinchan first won confidence of Ram Chand and later killed him to ascent himself to throne and proclaimed himself as king of Kashmir on 6th October 1320.He gained peace by marrying Ram Chand’s daughter Kota Rani and appointing his son Rawan Chand on his father’s post of commander in chief and Shamsir as vazir(Minister) of his kingdom. Even after securing peace he did not feel secure. He wanted to remove stigma that he captured throne by fraud. Therefore he made an attempt to identify himself with the country and the people to understand and follow their culture, religion and traditions, as one of them. To begin with he expressed desire to accept Saiva cult which was most popular form of religion followed in Kashmir. He approached Devaswami Pundit who was head guru of Court Pundits of Kashmir in order to become his disciple and entreated him as his devotees. Devaswami Pundit appeared to be a very strong head man but without imagination. He turned down request of Rinchan as he was Buddhist by origin. (Ref Jonaraja page 20-21). Hindu Kashmir lost this opportunity forever but Shamshir made full use of it. Finding Rinchan in a state of confusion, he consoled him, pleaded him and requested him to leave the decision to chance. It was agreed that he would accept the religion of that person whom he would first see the next morning. By sheer chance of manipulation by Shamshir it happened, that Rinchan eyes fell on a Muslim fakir Sayed Sharafuddin Bulbul shah the very next morning. He accepted Islam from Bulbul shah and adopted name of Shah Sadruddin as first Muslim ruler of Kashmir. After accepting Islam Rinchan founded Rinchanpura a quarter in Kashmir and build first mosque in Kashmir known as “Bud Masheed” on the site of a Buddhist temple. Not very far from here he built another mosque at Ali Kadal and started a Langarkhana (public charity kitchen) after his mentor Bulbul Shah as Bulbul Langer. He even named his only son born with Hindu wife Kota Rani as Haidar and trusted him to the care of Shamshir. Under Rinchan rule state religion of Kashmir became Islam and full patronage was given for conversion to Islam to both Hindus as well as Buddhists leading to rapid decline in their numbers. Rinchan was later attacked by relatives of king Sahadeva and he died of wounds on 25 November 1353.
![Genocide Part 2: Mahmud of Ghazni
The founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty was a former Turkish slave, recognized by the Iranian Muslims as governor of Ghazni (a town near Kandahar). His son Mahmud (ruled in 998-1030) expanded the empire further into India. A devout Muslim, Mahmud converted the Ghaznavids into Islam, thus bringing Islam into the sub-continent’s local population. In the 11th century, he made Ghazni the capital of the vast empire of the Ghaznavids, Afghanistan’s first Muslim dynasty. The atrocities by Mahmud of Ghazni makes the Taliban look benign by comparison. Will Durant explains:[Reference]
“The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within… For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.”
“In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that his throne was young and poor, and saw that India, across the border, was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious. Pretending a holy zeal for destroying Hindu idolatry across the frontier with a force inspired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar, slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and carried away the accumulated treasures of centuries. Returning to Ghazni he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by displaying “jewels and un-bored pearls and rubies shinning like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates.””
“Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before. At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied it coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naptha and burnt to the ground. Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, the richest king that history has ever known.”
“Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few schillings for a slave. Before every important engagement Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of God upon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died, full of years and honors, Moslem historians ranked him greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.”
Reference:“The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage“, by Will Durant. MJF Books, NY. 1935. pp. 459-463](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_skdwtd_ARBUvENrPC9antOOycm3ZE5qvL6pwAWfD8aet_t6k1hPtB9A278E7Z498ROMsDfIe4XcnGtlrCZgQbeaS8UnZ9nvqjmcpDmaR-Kw4NixHFL43127XuUG4CqMr2w5kZfNbYR0Z8WQ1qrIrT3Dqdj2538egRMg22-KeuLXnpb=s0-d)
Mahmud of Ghazni The founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty was a former Turkish slave, recognized by the Iranian Muslims as governor of Ghazni (a town near Kandahar). His son Mahmud (ruled in 998-1030) expanded the empire further into India. A devout Muslim, Mahmud converted the Ghaznavids into Islam, thus bringing Islam into the sub-continent’s local population. In the 11th century, he made Ghazni the capital of the vast empire of the Ghaznavids, Afghanistan’s first Muslim dynasty. The atrocities by Mahmud of Ghazni makes the Taliban look benign by comparison. Will Durant explains:[Reference] “The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within… For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.” “In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of the little state of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that his throne was young and poor, and saw that India, across the border, was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious. Pretending a holy zeal for destroying Hindu idolatry across the frontier with a force inspired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar, slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and carried away the accumulated treasures of centuries. Returning to Ghazni he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by displaying “jewels and un-bored pearls and rubies shinning like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates.”” “Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amused his men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before. At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied it coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewelry; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labor of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naptha and burnt to the ground. Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, the richest king that history has ever known.” “Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few schillings for a slave. Before every important engagement Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of God upon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died, full of years and honors, Moslem historians ranked him greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age.” Reference:“The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage“, by Will Durant. MJF Books, NY. 1935. pp. 459-463
A German scholar’s powerful rebuttal of the Church’s baseless anti-Hindu allegations, and exposure of its real agenda. There is probably no other country where members of other religions were as safe as in India. Hindus always gave shelter to those who were persecuted in their homelands. Jews gratefully acknowledged that India is the one country where they were never persecuted. Syrian Christians under their leader Thomas of Cana (Thomas the Apostle did not come to India) were given refuge in the 4th century. Parsis came in the 10th century to escape the Muslim invaders in Persia. And in 1959, some 100,000 Tibetan Buddhist refugees found shelter in India — only 12 years after the British had left the country, divided and poverty-stricken. In contrast, the rich USA with an area three times the size and only a quarter of India’s population allowed only in 1991 one thousand Tibetan families to enter.Indians never hesitated to accept those who were in trouble and who wanted to preserve their faith because they did not distinguish between human beings on religious lines. Their attitude was that all belong to one big human family and all have the same divine essence in them. For them “religion” was not an identity but a natural, ideal way of life. So what happened that nowadays there is a lot of talk that Christians are under attack in India? Have Hindus suddenly become intolerant? No. Hindus have not changed. All the so called attacks on churches which were hyped up recently on many TV channels turned out to have been minor crimes unconnected with “Hindu extremists”. In other countries they would hardly find space in the local paper. Why were they flogged for days on TV channels? Why were Christian spokesmen given plenty of airtime to falsely blame the “Hindu right” and claim that Christians are under attack? There seems to be an agenda by the Churches and it would need to be investigated why so many TV channels obliged. A smashed glass pane outside one church, a fire due to short circuit in another church, a theft of 8000 Rupees in a convent school, stones thrown by a mixed group of Hindus and Muslim surely don’t warrant hours of hyped coverage. Yes, there was also the break-in into a convent school in West Bengal, where not only 1,2 million Rupees were stolen but a 72 year old nun was allegedly gang raped.This was shameful no doubt and this news reached in no time all corners of the world. It fitted well into the image that had already been crafted over the last 2 years — of India as a rapists’ nation. The Vatican radio spoke of India’s shame which went viral on the Internet. It turned out that Bangladeshi Muslims, probably encouraged by the Pakistani secret service, were behind it.Typically, the media fell silent. The BBC ran a scroll that an arrest has been made in the nun gang rape in India. They didn’t mention that he was a Bangladeshi Muslim. Neither the Vatican, nor the cardinal or the bishop apologized for their wrong, greatly publicized pre-judgment of the case that it was connected with the Hindu re-conversion drive of RSS and VHP. The campaign of media and Christian representatives against “Hindu extremists” is not likely to end soon. New incidents will come up and the Christian spokesmen will again peddle the “truth” that under Narendra Modi as Prime Minister the Hindus are emboldened to “attack” Christians in hate crimes and that Christians feel helpless and insecure. The TV anchors will continue to prod them: “Do you feel unsafe in India?” and all Christian spokesmen will again reply “Yes” and claim that hate crimes have increased since Modi came to power. There are other voices, too, who do not take part in this back stabbing of their Hindu brothers and, probably closer to the truth, blame the Christian clergy for trying to sow discord between communities. Yet those Christians, like Robert Rosario or Hilda Raja, are not likely to get an invitation to represent the Christian side, because they wouldn’t further the agenda to portray Hindus in poor light. Mainstream media has tremendous power to shape opinions. Churches have tremendous financial and political clout. Both obviously cooperate to portray Hindus as intolerant and hateful of other religions — contrary to facts. There is a third power that wants India to get a bad image the world over, at least as bad as its own image is. It is Pakistan. The Sunday Guardian of 21st March exposed that the Pakistani secret service increased its budget six-fold to achieve the goal that India is put into the same bracket with Pakistan on human rights issues and downgraded by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). This goal has already been achieved in regard to projecting India as a rapist country. In the west, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are now seen as being on the same level. In fact, India stands out negatively: it is openly thrashed for its ‘anti-women attitude’, while it is politically incorrect to thrash Muslim countries. The German professor who quoted India’s rape culture as reason to reject an Indian shows the huge damage that this false portrayal of India has done. Unfortunately, India did nothing to put the issue into perspective when the maligning campaign started, and it seems that India again does nothing to prevent an equally damaging, also false perception that Hindus are prone to hate crimes against Christians. Sometimes I wonder whether Indians are even aware how detrimental to India’s image abroad the media campaign has already been. At least the government, if not the public at large, would know that India is neither in the top league of rape countries, nor are Hindus known for hate crimes and discrimination against members of other religions. They would know that India has presently a population of 1270 million, and that it is unfair to compare absolute numbers of crimes with other countries. If the crimes that happen in the USA, Canada, in all European countries including Russia plus Australia were added up, then they could be compared with the number of crimes that happen in India. Can the media be made to give a balanced reporting on the issues it takes up? Does anyone remember the hype that media created about AIDS some 20 years ago? “India second only to South Africa” they screamed. Nobody mentioned that India had 1000 and South Africa 50 million inhabitants. If the media were fair, they would discern that the charge of 160 hate crimes against Christians in the last 10 months, especially when those include theft and a stone thrown by a drunkard, is no reason to shout “Christians don’t feel safe in India”? Why do they play into the hands of the West which will be pleased to get a stick to beat India with? In England, there were over 1,000 hate crimes only against Jews in the last year. This would equal over 20,000 hate crimes in India if it is put in proportion to the population. In USA, several Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims were killed only because they were Sikhs, Hindus or Muslims. Should the USCIRF not put the US and Europe on its watch list, before it even thinks of condemning India? There are several indicators that clearly show that Christians are not persecuted in India and are even pampered: The percentage of Christians keeps increasing. Their places of worship multiply manifold and are free from government interference, unlike Hindu temples. Many Christians are in high positions. Missionaries have the guts to openly declare that they want to plant hundred thousand churches in India and “evangelize the whole country in this generation” (from a Christian youth magazine called “Blessings”). Christians and other minorities are privileged and get special benefits like scholarships, etc. Christians can teach the catechism in their schools to Christian students, while ethnic teachers in those schools must not mention Sri Krishna, or Hindu philosophy to Hindu students. Compare this with the situation in Pakistan and it becomes evident that the “operation equal blame” depends entirely on spreading falsehood and manipulating the world opinion. How to counter this mischievous agenda? Certainly not by going on the defensive and giving special attention to Christians. “Justice for all, appeasement for none” is the way to go. The nun gang rape has been carried to the eight corners of the world as a ‘communal crime’ because the victim was a Christian. How would the kin of a Hindu girl feel who has been raped and maybe even killed by Muslims or Christians, yet neither the media nor even the police take any interest in the case, because it is not communal enough when Hindus are at the receiving end? Crimes need to be treated as crimes and religion should be out of consideration. Hindus have no reason to be defensive. Spokesmen are dishonest when they claim that Christian are unsafe in India. It will be difficult to find any other country where Christians in minority are as safe and pampered, as among Hindus. If someone needs to be on the defensive, it is the Christian clergy and they may know it. Maybe that is the reason why they act as bullies in tune with the dictum ‘attack is the best defense’. They will stop playing the bully only when they perceive their opponent as strong. Strength here doesn’t mean to bully back. It simply means to be clear, stick to truth and stick to dharma. It also means not to be afraid to point out the adharmic, divisive aspects in Christianity. We live in the 21st century when science has discovered that there are different levels to reality. The apparent variety in this universe is based on uniform oneness. Our deepest essence is made of the same stuff, as it were. The Indian rishis knew this, ages ago. Where then is there place for a huge fire where billions or maybe trillions of heathens will burn for eternity after the Day of Judgment? What is more of a hate crime: when a stone is thrown at a church by a drunkard or when respected clergy declare without any proof that Hindus are damned to eternal hellfire if they don’t become a member of the Church, and when they brainwash Christian children to believe this? Will TV anchors be outraged at such discriminatory, baseless allegation which can lead to real hate crimes? Will Hindus (and other heathen like Buddhists, atheists, etc.) demand an answer from the Churches? Christians who originally came as refugees, and later went berserk during the Goan Inquisition, are now on a well-planned mission with huge funds from the West to change the broad-minded attitude of Hindus from “We revere ALSO Jesus” to a narrow-minded “We revere ONLY Jesus”? Contempt and intolerance for other religions is inbuilt in Christianity. Its goal is clear: all must follow Christ. Hinduism must disappear. If they say something else in Interfaith Dialogues, it is deception. The spread of Christianity is not in India’s interest. It is not in humanity’s interest either. Hinduism unlike Christianity and Islam, has no agenda and never had an agenda to wipe out other religions. In India, there always were innumerable paths to the one truth. It is India’s job not only to honour their valuable heritage and educate their own people and the world about it, but also prevent their people from being deceived, threatened or allured by unfair means to a divisive ideology. The Churches don’t succeed anymore to enforce belief in unreasonable dogmas among Christians in the west, yet their financial and political power is mind boggling. They have plenty of funds to defame Hindus and Hinduism the world over. India is no equal in this fight, as most of her own media seems to have switched sides. Maybe the Prime Minister himself needs to point out on his visit to Europe that Christian Churches are on a massive conversion spree in India because they have this strange and baseless notion that otherwise Hindus go to hell. They should relax. Hindus won’t go to hell. Most Europeans will agree with him. However, I don’t know how much damage the media campaign “Christians are under attack” has already done. I just checked with a cousin in Germany. Yes, he heard already that there were attacks on Christians in India… -Maria Wirthhttp://www.indiatomorrow.co/nation/3021-christians-are-not-under-attack-in-india-hindus-are
