Although Hindu honor killing is a gruesome and sordid affair, it differs in many important respects from honor killing in neighboring Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Indian Hindus murder men for honor more often than do Pakistani Muslims, and they murder for reasons mainly related to concerns about caste purity.
Perhaps the most striking characteristic of Hindu honor killings is the fact that Indians abandon the horrific practice when they migrate to the West whereas many Pakistani Muslims carry it with them. Part of the explanation may lie in their different patterns of acculturation upon immigrating to the West. Young Hindus in the West are no less prone to violate traditional social codes than young Muslims, and their parents may be no less furious when they do, but Hindu families in the West do not feel the same degree of public humiliation and shame as they might experience back in India. They are eager to preserve their cultural identity but not at the expense of alienating their adoptive communities. The absence of dreaded khap panchayats no doubt mitigates the consequences of dishonor.
It was obvious, although not socially accepted. Brahmins-dalits, dravidians-aryans, hindus-muslims christians-jews, when it comes to India they are already mixed! Every is has certain percentage of someone else. Not a good news for many, but hey I dint make this up :-)
Here, a post gives you a breakdown of socially defined races by percentage of actual %age races. Its statistical data, so there will be +/- error, but in general they make a lot of sense to me. If you disagree, send your toothbrush.
South Indian Brahmins claim northern Indo-Aryan origins. The genetics certainly bear this out, albeit with some probable admixture with the local substrate. There are many specific questions which can be asked and answered. The Cochin and Bene Israel Jews of the west coast of India clearly do have highly elevated Middle Eastern components of ancestry, though they are highly admixed with the native populations. My own question: do the Nasrani Christians truly descend from Jews? I would have dismissed this outright a few months ago, but I am not sure sure now. The western coast of India seems to have long-standing connections to southern Arabia, so we need to flesh out these patterns in more detail.
We all have read the bloody stories during birth of Pakistan. This is from “The birth of Bangladesh”. A story Colonel Nadir Ali of Pakistan (west Pakistani officer posted in east Pakistan) recalls it during 1971 war. A perfect example of “modern” war ethics. There is more in Wikipedia. if you would like to read further on this. Pakistan still holds this attitude towards her(his is it?) minority, and unfortunately they take “not in genocidal level” as a compliment!.
During the fateful months preceding the dismemberment of Pakistan, I served as a young Captain,
meantime promoted to the rank of the Major, in Dhaka as well as Chittagong. In my position as second-in-command and later as commander, I served with 3 Commando Battalion.
My first action was in mid April 1971. “It is Mujib-ur-Rahman’s home district. It is a hard area. Kill as many bastards as you can and make sure there is no Hindu left alive,” I was ordered.
“Sir, I do not kill unarmed civilians who do not fire at me,” I replied.
“Kill the Hindus. It is an order for everyone. Don’t show me your commando finesse!”.
I flew in for my first action. I was dropped behind Farid Pur. I made a fire base and we fired all around. Luckily there was nobody to shoot at. Then suddenly I saw some civilians running towards us. They appeared unarmed. I ordered “Stop firing!” and shouted at villagers, questioning them what did they want. “Sir we have brought you some water to drink!”, was the brisk reply.
I ordered my subordinates to put the weapons away and ordered a tea-break. We remained there for hours. Somebody brought and hoisted a Pakistani flag. “Yesterday I saw all Awami League flags over your village” I told the villagers. That was indeed the fact. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Later the main army column caught up to make contact. They arrived firing with machine guns all around and I saw smoke columns rising in villages behind them. “What’s the score?” the Colonel asked.
“There was no resistance so we didn’t kill anyone,” he was informed.
He fired from his machine gun and some of the villagers who had brought us water, fell dead. “That is the way my boy,” the Colonel told this poor Major.
This is what happens when kids read holy books instead of history and geography. She says “My friend Sara is Indian and I learned about her culture and realized she needs to become christian, I wanna save her but right now its not looking so good :(.”
Learned about her culture ??? common you dont not even know the difference between India and Africa for crying out loud. It worries me that this kid who doesn’t even know what religion is, how notorious and stupid it is, is trying to convert some one for fun (or may be a school project)!
You know what kiddo, you tried with an Indian friend. Try it with a middle east kid next time and let us know how it worked out for you…
The story Ramayana* is his entire life journey starting from his innocent youth, his mastery over skills in winning Sita, his role as dutiful and obedient son to adhere to his father’s words while aware of the flagitious intensions of his step mother. He gives up all the worldly richness and sets away to spend 14 years in jungle. Sita being his wife accompanies him followed by Laxman, Ram’s younger brother.
They spend quite an adventurous and romantic** life in the forest. Sita finds her world in her husband Ram and experiences an unspelled love for him. Everything works fine when one day, Sita gets abducted by Ravana while Ram is away to fulfill one of her impossible wishes. Ram does everything possible to get back his love. He gathers a huge army, builds a bridge across an ocean, does all that he could. Finally, he succeeds to kill Ravana and gets her back. With this they complete 14 years of stay in jungle and they return to their kingdom after which they should have lived happily ever after.
But the story takes turmoil instead, Ram’s story ends here and Sita’s story begins. This happens when a subject of Ram’s kingdom whispers “how could Ram trust Sita, who been with Ravana for so long”. Ram wants a test now, Agni-Pareeksha – A test to check purity of a woman, by entering into fire. Exactly this part of the story becomes hard to digest. This is where so many questions arise and is left unanswered.
Did it serve right for a person like Ram ‘the so called God’ to come down to such a cruel act?
Is he setting example for all men or rather his followers to commit such an act?
Or is he doing right by following well set example from his predecessors?
There is some classification I made about food habits, keeping vegetarians in mind, with some information available over net. Here they are.
Fruitarians. – These people eat fruits, seeds and raw roots (sweet potatoes etc). The Hindu (including Buddhist and Janis monks) we heard, meditating in Himalayas and jungles are supposed to be eating only these. This category need not to be included, because I feel such people don’t exist now or did not exist.
Raw/living foodists Eat major part of the food uncooked, or just warmed. (Again this category wouldn’t have existed, if doctors dint ask them to do.
Brahmins – One of the loosing definitions in India. There is a special reason I categorized them separately, instead of naming them in vegetarians. They in addition to not eating meat, they also don’t eat onions (for the reason of, the organic fertilizers used in these farms are human wastes), papaya, chilly (since these are of Indian origin), sugar (since animal product is used to polish jagarry), boiled rice (since it is boiled twice) thus so many concepts. Some of them may be valid but most of them are outdated. For example. If sugar is not accepted, the leather products also shouldn’t get used. The food habits are driven by religious rules, not ethics. Dairy products are always OK.
Vegans. This is one of the concepts recently getting very popular in west. They don’t consume anything, which has something to do with animal. Along with not consuming meat, egg and dairy products, they don’t buy leather, wool, silk, honey etc. Ethics keeps these people on. If religiously some people fall into this category they are Jain and Buddhist monks.
Lacto vegetarians – those who don’t consume any meat but OK with dairy products. Vegetarians, what is referred in India (by caste and religions) are these. The argument is, milk is not a part of animal body and also they don’t get hurt, and the card runs here is – are all mammals are non-vegetarians? They do drink milk of its mother.
Lacto ovo vegetarians – Those who eat egg along with dairy products, but no meat. The argument is “egg is not animal, it dint born”, and the card played is – egg produced is not natural, these eggs don’t go and become chicken
Pesco – vegetarians (eat fish, no other meat), Pollo – vegetarians (eat no beef, but do eat poultry.) and all the possible combinations and permutations of above four might add up to… may be ten different food habits. However I don’t consider these as categories, since they are not backed by any strong arguments or ethics. Its just taste and allergies made them have those combinations. They are simply NOT vegetarians
Religious – NON – Vegetarians: these people give religious reasons to “not ” to eat some particular kind of meat. (Beef for Hindus, pig in Islam). However as an atheist, this concept does not make any since to me.
Non – vegetarians – anyone who dint restrict themselves to eat anything. Nice concept, but please spare Tom and Jerry.
Cannibals – You know them, yes Tax collectors.
Now if you ask me personally, I was mostly Lacto vegetarians and couple of years as Lacto ovo vegetarians. And I am trying to be a Vegan.