BW actress Payal Rohatgi trolled after demanding a Hindu Nation - Page 6

I'll not say about whole India because sati is not discussed much in our history books. It's said Akbar tried to ban it but couldn't implement it,and Aurangzeb again made it completely legal.i do not know how true it is but that's what history books say so attack publishers if u disagree not me

But in bengal, I can say,sati,was called satidaho. Wonen were forced to burn on husband's pyre. Mind you that time bramhin's n others toodid polygamy to the point that they'd keep a copy with list of wife names. N I'm not prejudiced or anything I am a bengali bramhin myself,my ancestors in 18 the century must've done this stuff themselves. Anyways, after this 80 year old guy dies , all his wives from 70 to 7 were forced to burn in pyre. Rammohan Roy worked damn hard against the society to save the women. People boycotted him,his own father kicked him out of his house. His main supporters were Rani Rasmoni, the woman who built dakhineshwar temple n her husband raja ramcuandra,who was an educated man . Rammohan used his association with British n made Lord Bentick pass a law banning sati. Many took it as a deliberate attack on their culture,very few supported him that time. Rammohan did a lot for sheltering orphan kids too. He tried to ban child marriage too but couldn't. Also he build many schools.

We Bengalis don't worship our icons, Vidyasagar has been criticised for doing child marriage of his own son or not educating his wife I think,I kinda forgot,keshabchandra has been criticised for marrying his own daughter sunitidevi off to kochbihar royal family when she was a kid while he was in bramho samaj propagating for child marriage abolition. Bramho samaj broke into two parts for this as many felt he was a hypocrite. Tagore family is criticised for being misogynistic at Times. There's been lots of films n books depicting rabindranath's relationship with his sister in law. But spewing nonsense about them surely hurts. Specially if it comes from an unresearched source.

Yeah Sati Partha was evil and Ram Mohan Roy was a reformer but some of the things that Raja Ram Mohan Roy said were deplorable.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ARanganathan72/status/1133272865246068739

And before Ram Mohan Roy, also a few Hindu kingdoms banned Sati. So it’s not something which is integral to Hinduism, but i also agree that we shouldn’t be blaming invaders for everything.. Let’s just agree it was practised by some Hindus

And no Bhakt wants to bring back Sati, like seriously!! Especially this person called TheRowdiest matlab almost all his comments are about bhakts/ BJP/ Hindu terrorists 😆 Don’t know which Bhakt asked to bring Sati back..

Originally posted by: Charaiveti

I'll not say about whole India because sati is not discussed much in our history books. It's said Akbar tried to ban it but couldn't implement it,and Aurangzeb again made it completely legal.i do not know how true it is but that's what history books say so attack publishers if u disagree not me

But in bengal, I can say,sati,was called satidaho. Wonen were forced to burn on husband's pyre. Mind you that time bramhin's n others toodid polygamy to the point that they'd keep a copy with list of wife names. N I'm not prejudiced or anything I am a bengali bramhin myself,my ancestors in 18 the century must've done this stuff themselves. Anyways, after this 80 year old guy dies , all his wives from 70 to 7 were forced to burn in pyre. Rammohan Roy worked damn hard against the society to save the women. People boycotted him,his own father kicked him out of his house. His main supporters were Rani Rasmoni, the woman who built dakhineshwar temple n her husband raja ramcuandra,who was an educated man . Rammohan used his association with British n made Lord Bentick pass a law banning sati. Many took it as a deliberate attack on their culture,very few supported him that time. Rammohan did a lot for sheltering orphan kids too. He tried to ban child marriage too but couldn't. Also he build many schools.

We Bengalis don't worship our icons, Vidyasagar has been criticised for doing child marriage of his own son or not educating his wife I think,I kinda forgot,keshabchandra has been criticised for marrying his own daughter sunitidevi off to kochbihar royal family when she was a kid while he was in bramho samaj propagating for child marriage abolition. Bramho samaj broke into two parts for this as many felt he was a hypocrite. Tagore family is criticised for being misogynistic at Times. There's been lots of films n books depicting rabindranath's relationship with his sister in law. But spewing nonsense about them surely hurts. Specially if it comes from an unresearched source.

As Chairaveti says, Sati was a social evil, perhaps not in the whole of India but definitely in a few parts. Since hinduism is not a uniform religion, if people in some region who are Hindu take part in an evil ritual, it will be attributed to hinduism. So, that's that.

Rammohan Roy may have been in association with British, but for that time, it wasn't wrong. I think people make it all black and white about the British but it wasn't like that. Ab BJP ki govt ko 100 saal baad log villains bolenge, toh Jo abhi unke saath association mein achhe kaam kar rahe Hain wo galat thode na ho jayenge? Jo govt hai, usi se kaam chalana padta hai na. Credit should be given where due. Propaganda should be avoided as much as possible. Seedhi baat.

Originally posted by: Girl_InMedicine

Yeah Sati Partha was evil and Ram Mohan Roy was a reformer but some of the things that Raja Ram Mohan Roy said were deplorable.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ARanganathan72/status/1133272865246068739

And before Ram Mohan Roy, also a few Hindu kingdoms banned Sati. So it’s not something which is integral to Hinduism, but i also agree that we shouldn’t be blaming invaders for everything.. Let’s just agree it was practised by some Hindus

And no Bhakt wants to bring back Sati, like seriously!! Especially this person called TheRowdiest matlab almost all his comments are about bhakts/ BJP/ Hindu terrorists 😆 Don’t know which Bhakt asked to bring Sati back..

Yes his contempt towards Hinduism is pretty well known, it was a religion he didn't feel was right specially idol worship. I don't think I will call anyone not liking a religions ideologies being a bad person though, being an atheist I find every religion problematic in some aspects. And you have to understand Bengal in that era was very conservative, thus the boom of western education was actually helpful. Schools he helped built like Scottish church or presidency college r still the top educational institutions of Kolkata. Rammohan who saw practices like sati n child marriage in his religion may have started despising it, specially his father was a very extremist guy. I don't think he was Christianity admirer though cz he built his own religion, and there are still practicingbramhos in Kolkata. They're kind of Hindus only but without idol worship.

I don't support everything he says though. A lot of initial stage reformers n congressmen were all for development of India but not for Independence. I myself was flabbergasted after knowing bapgangadhar tilak's view about women rights. Doesn't remove all the good he did though. Thus completely reducing the man to a chamcha n blaming everything on Invaders does no good. Not one religion is perfect but those who can evolve n self criticise n progress end up being the most timelessn n lovable ones.

Also Brits we're governing that time,a lot of people actually took advantage of the western education that was more developed that time and tried to assimilate into Indian society. And it worked. Reading about French revolution worked, reading about science n the political climate in the rest of the world worked . It fueled a sense of unity n protest. There were few British men who actually had Noble intentions like derozio or David hare,they built school after schools , association like young bengal. It sparked something. It's easy to criticise People one era later, like I've seen Americans criticise sc Bose for taking German help,but they don't understand at that time sc Bose did all he could to care for his people, the Brits did a lot of atrocities here n world turned a blind eye. You can't blame him for thinking enemy's enemy,my Friend. Also at that time, the Indian nationalism didn't come yet, there was statewise unity most, Rammohan wasabe gali working for a Maharashtrian king. I think it was the king of satara. His pension was being cancelled and Rammohan wrote a atriculate letter to Brits ensuring his king gets his pension. The whole feeling of kinship across India wasn't there yet. Enfield riffle fueled the kiship hugely I think.

Originally posted by: astha36

As Chairaveti says, Sati was a social evil, perhaps not in the whole of India but definitely in a few parts. Since hinduism is not a uniform religion, if people in some region who are Hindu take part in an evil ritual, it will be attributed to hinduism. So, that's that.

Rammohan Roy may have been in association with British, but for that time, it wasn't wrong. I think people make it all black and white about the British but it wasn't like that. Ab BJP ki govt ko 100 saal baad log villains bolenge, toh Jo abhi unke saath association mein achhe kaam kar rahe Hain wo galat thode na ho jayenge? Jo govt hai, usi se kaam chalana padta hai na. Credit should be given where due. Propaganda should be avoided as much as possible. Seedhi baat.

Brits we're evil I totally agree, whatever benefits happened happened propelled by Indian reformers backed by few good Brits men. But as a whole they came here to exploit the country n were extremely racist. And Bengalis knew that for most part honestly,you can't ignore the part Bengal played in freedom fight.

We don't ignore the part that few Bengalis read a bit of English n though they're above everything and did ji huzoori. They're mocked as the babu class , who had midparting hair with oil dripping,wearing dhoti , would waste money of pigeon fight etc. Everyone mocked them, rabindranath basically called them spineless bootlicking blots on humanity 😂😂 Noone liked them

Originally posted by: ibnbattuta

So no replies huh. How come all the Holier than Thou forum Bengali liberals are silent now?

They're always the first ones to raise questions on Hinduism. There are no instances of sati in the puranas or any of the epics. Few incidents which are there are poison injections. Jauhar was practise of course but no sati except in bengal where Kulin meat and beef eating brahmins were ruling. They had converted to Islam for personal benefits during Mughal rule and then supposedly converted back during Company rule albeit never giving up the meat etc and striking at the roots of Hinduism.

They became your Banddopadhyayas...the Upadhis they're given...yes all the Bannerjees, Chatterjess and Mukherjees...who then lorded over all the other Bengalis as ekdum awwal No Bengali Brahmins. See they ate meat and beef on odd days and niramish, that means no onion, no garlic and even no masur dal on even days. So these people started these practises to usurp properties etc and Hinduism gets the blame.

No sireee, its not Hinduism its a Bengali problem. If anyone who claims to be a Hindu and then practises wrong things it does not mean Hinduism has to answer. Khot aap mein hain. Clean up your own houses before raising fingers at others as is their wont...the modern sanctimonious Bengali liberal apparent Hindu.

Sati was a social evil, not a part of Hinduism. It's not that difficult to differentiate between the two.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Absolutely! From Satyavati to Uttara, and even the of widows of thousands of slain warriors, not a single woman sat on the funeral pyre to commit Sati. There's just one incident of self-immolation in the whole epic. Madri committed Sati after upon being consumed by extreme guilt and sorrow after Pandu's death.

Sati was a social evil, not a part of Hinduism. It's not that difficult to differentiate between the two.

But I do think religion gets interpreted n evolves, sometimes for good sometimes for bad. Stuff keeps getting added. An example, in Christian wedding , there's the removing garter ceremony that's very objectifying the woman n voyeuristic to many. But people still do due to it being a traditin. But in reality it was not even a tradition,but in midieval age people would often follow the bride groom to their room to see them consummate cz people were meddling,thus the groom started showing the garter as a proof of we did it to avoid those people coming in.

Thus traditions get added to culture, which might not trace back to totally ancient scriptures. But it was something the hindus did, maybe only in the eastern region if u say so I won't argue cz I don't know much about other regions history with sati. Also when stopped,the backlash from Hindu Bengalis was immense. Thus it is connected to Hinduism,cz it's such a vast religion, always evolving, always different at every part of India.

Originally posted by: Charaiveti

I do think it was not in any of the ancient scriptures. Mind my ignorance as an atheist I am not very well read about this but I don't think Geeta or manusmriti had sati in them? Though I do have other problems with manusmriti as a woman, sati isn't there right?

But I do think religion gets interpreted n evolves, sometimes for good sometimes for bad. Stuff keeps getting added. An example, in Christian wedding , there's the removing garter ceremony that's very objectifying the woman n voyeuristic to many. But people still do due to it being a traditin. But in reality it was not even a tradition,but in midieval age people would often follow the bride groom to their room to see them consummate cz people were meddling,thus the groom started showing the garter as a proof of we did it to avoid those people coming in.

Thus traditions get added to culture, which might not trace back to totally ancient scriptures. But it was something the hindus did, maybe only in the eastern region if u say so I won't argue cz I don't know much about other regions history with sati. Also when stopped,the backlash from Hindu Bengalis was immense. Thus it is connected to Hinduism,cz it's such a vast religion, always evolving, always different at every part of India.

I know social evils get attributed to religion, but I believe it's important to separate evil and outdated social practises from Hindu/Sanatana Dharma to have a clearer view.

Lastly, I'd like to add that Dharma and religion are not the same thing. A religion is supposed to have an origin, a founder, and a common book allegedly approved by a common God to follow. Dharma, on the other hand, is universal and not restrained to a specific community. It is something that's meant to be learned, followed and practised. It's an inherent duty, a role you're supposed to play...unlike religion which is all about forcing duties and owes its existence to human beings.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Belief in God has nothing to do with either Ramayana or Mahabharata. Bhagvad Geeta is a part of Mahabharta Book 6, Bhishma Parva. It contains no mention of Sati. Regarding Manusmriti, I haven't read the complete text. But I hear it's the most abused ancient text and a favourite among Hindu bashers. Also, Manusmriti isn't the only smriti. Padma Purana mentions 36 smritis, half of them being major ones. Each one is said to be applicable in different Yugas. I don't think any of those smritis prescribe Sati. Moreover, it's notable that neither Buddha nor Mahavira talked about Sati.

I know social evils get attributed to religion, but I believe it's important to separate evil and outdated social practises from Hindu/Sanatana Dharma to have a clearer view.

Lastly, I'd like to add that Dharma and religion are not the same thing. A religion is supposed to have an origin, a founder, and a common book allegedly approved by a common God to follow. Dharma, on the other hand, is universal and not restrained to a specific community. It is something that's meant to be learned, followed and practised. It's an inherent duty, a role you're supposed to play...unlike religion which is all about forcing duties and owes its existence to human beings.

Manusmriti as far as I know was more of a book of law than religion? I am not sure.

My pov on religion is same. There's misogynistic n homophobic stuff in each one I can't ignore n I just am not able to blv in it. I do think there must be some higher power but I also think we human may never totally find about it . I do enjoy the cultural part n festivities though. Maybe I'm an agnoistic Hindu,bcz there's atheism in Hinduism

Originally posted by: Charaiveti

well I have seen many religious people around me adhere to Geeta as the prime book of Hinduism that's why I said so. It's the one that my mother reads while doing her daily puja too I guess.

Manusmriti as far as I know was more of a book of law than religion? I am not sure.

My pov on religion is same. There's misogynistic n homophobic stuff in each one I can't ignore n I just am not able to blv in it. I do think there must be some higher power but I also think we human may never totally find about it . I do enjoy the cultural part n festivities though. Maybe I'm an agnoistic Hindu,bcz there's atheism in Hinduism

You were once propagating a never heard before story of hindu men cutting their women's forehead with an axe to fill their maang with blood so as to prevent other men from eyeing her which was really fascinating. I wonder if it's this mohan Roy dude who is your source of knowledge regarding all things hinduism ? You seem to have full faith in him from your writings. 😆