India's portrayal by foreigners

What do you think of when you think of India? Many think of the bustling, colorful markets of Old Delhi. Some envision the tranquil backwaters of Kerala. And others think of the old-world marble architecture of what is arguably India’s most famous landmark, the Taj Mahal. But India is not just whimsical towns filled with old-school charm. No, it’s so much more than that.

The subcontinent is home to hundreds of towering buildings, to winding freeways filled with Audis and BMWs galore, to massive shopping malls filled with every brand under the sun. India is a place where businessmen in Armani can get cups of steaming chai at roadside tea shops, a place where the colors of Holi and the lights of Diwali intermix with glass-and-steel skyscrapers. It’s where you can eat a pao-baji — an Indian sandwich of potatoes with spicy and sweet sauces — at a vendor on the street before heading to a five-course dinner at the Taj Hotel.

It is an incredible mixture of traditional culture and brand-new innovation, a mélange of languages and religions and ideas. But why does Western media not portray it that way?

The West is often disappointed when it gets to India and sees that it is so much more than the land of sadhus and spices that the media portrays it as. When they’re hit with a dose of reality and modernization in place of clichés, they often look around in confusion.

So, let's answer some questions:

Buddha- Indian or Nepali ?

How some western media bodies wrongly potray hindu revivalism

Is caste system exclusive to India as perceived in the West?

Is Napoleon Europe's Samudragupta?

Why is India a subcontinent when Europe is a continent ?

Is Napoleon Europe's Samadragupta?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

First of all, I doubt that you guys know about Samudragupta. Even most of the Indians don't know about this great conquerer because as far as I remember only a single page is devoted to him in our 'school history books' and in that he is referred to as India's Napoleon. But is Napoleon worthy enough to be called as Europe's Samudragupta?

4th century AD, India was once again divided into numerous kingdoms. The great Mauryan empire (Ashoka's empire) which was once created by the immense hardships of the great Mauryan kings had shattered. For nearly 500 years after the death of Ashoka, the numerous small kingdoms warred with each other. Finally a new empire started to take shape in the Northern India. The 'empire of Guptas' started to take shape which was going to provide political stability to India once again.

Samudragupta was the younger son of the founder of the Gupta empire. The small empire founded by his father started to take a gigantic shape under him. His indefatigable energy and strong determination along with his brilliant strategies and diplomatic skill and shrewdness made him the 'king of kings'. His policy of conquest and liberal attitude towards the defeated kings earned him a place in the list of the greatest Indian kings. His diplomatic triumph opened new way for cementing friendliness with the foreign rulers of southeast Asia and middle East. He commanded the biggest army of the world at that time.
He was also a great administrator. The reforms brought by him formed the basis of administration of the later Indian rulers.

But Samudragupta was more than a fighter; he was also a lover of the arts. He set the stage for the emergence of classical art, which occurred under the rule of his son and successor Chandragupta II. Samudragupta is also known to have been "a man of culture". He was a patron of learning, a celebrated poet and a musician. Several coins depict him playing on the Indian lyre (veena). He gathered a galaxy of poets and scholars and took effective actions to foster and propagate religious, artistic and literary aspects of Indian culture. Though he favoured the Hindu religion like the other Gupta kings, he was reputed to possess a tolerant spirit for other religions. His reign is rightly called as the 'Golden Age' of India.

According to professor Dr. HC Roychowdhury, Samudragupta was more versatile than King Ashoka. Ashoka was proficient in scriptures only, but the versatility of Samudragupta lies in the fact that Samudragupta was proficient in all facets of art and culture.


Comparison with Napoleon:

Samudragupta never lost a single battle during his entire reign. Napoleon on the other hand faced numerous defeats throughout his career which ended with his ultimate defeat at Waterloo. Napoleon’s forces regularly plundered and pillaged the territories which he conquered. His rule which consisted of wars spread over 17 years supposedly left 6 million people dead across Europe, led to the loss of overseas French territories and the great nation of France became bankrupt. He also emancipated the Jews across Europe, the Catholics in Protestant majority countries and the Protestants in Catholic countries.

On the contrary, Samudragupta was a man of honour. He treated his opponents with respect. He established relations with almost all kingdoms in India and cemented them through matrimony. He was a man of culture and his court was filled with some of the greatest intellectuals. He was a Hindu by faith but encouraged all faiths. At the request of the Sri Lankan king and the Buddhist monks from over there, he allowed the construction of a large monastery at Bodh Gaya one of the holiest sites for Buddhists. Nalanda University was founded during this Golden Age. This center of Buddhist learning was built in a place that the Buddha himself had visited a number of times, and was patronized by the Gupta kings. He left behind a great legacy which is rightly called as The Classical Age in Indian history.

There is absolutely no similarity between Samudragupta and Napoleon yet European exceptionalism creates that similarity and the much superior Samudragupta is called as Indian Napoleon, a man who was nowhere near his standards.

More Articles:
Home

Is there a moral need for Britain to commemorate Indian soldiers of World Wars?

Homepage           About me             Contact me               Privacy policy

Brits commemorated the animals who lost their lives in world wars by building a memorial ' Animals in War Memorial ' in London. But it seems that they have forgotten the contribution of Indian soldiers who were made to fight for their colonisers. This post seeks to generate awareness among people about the Indian contribution in the allied victory.

In fact, every sixth soldier fighting for the Brits was from the Indian subcontinent. India contributed with more soldiers than Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa combined. 

 53,486 Indian soldiers lost their lives, 64,350 were wounded and 3,762 went missing or were imprisoned. Nearly 9,000 died due to severe winters in France. Apart from men and material, India also contributed with 100 million pounds of wealth. Not just combatants, there were 43,737 men who worked in the Indian Labour Corps. Within weeks of the war being declared, India also supplied 70,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, 600,000 rifles, motors and machine guns.  The total value of India’s war contribution amounted to £ 80,000,000. That's about ₹ 7,420,800,000 in today's money. British continued to drain Indian money and manpower which resulted in death of 3 million Indians due to famines. This fact was never highlighted. The army was forgotten.

The Britain along with some other major powers who overlook India as a third world country have forgotten the Indian contribution in their prosperity. The India which once contributed 26% of world GDP before the arrival of British was exploited so much that after their departure India could contribute just 4% of world GDP. 

So, I think it's a moral responsibility of Britain to commemorate the Indian soldiers who fought for them in world wars. 

Read more articles:

Home

Untouchability- Is this a problem present only in Hinduism?

Home          About            Contact me             Privacy policy

Whenever India's achievements are discussed on world stage, someone always pops up a question that maligns India's name- 'Untouchability'.
The caste system of India remains a dark spot in the otherwise vibrant history of India. But is it exclusive only for India?

Innocent uneducated folks have always suffered because of some educated groups who were able to climb the social ladders using the shoulders of the fellow masses as the steps of ladder. It is not just a matter of history. Even today, the less educated masses work as labourers and drain-cleaners while the more educated people continue to hold big lofty posts. The division of work is essential for the function of any society. This is called the 'varna system' in Hinduism. The original varna system was just like the present day division of work. It was a mobile system where the son of a potter could become the head of the Republic while the son of a chieftain could learn and teach others. The problem began with the increase in power of some particular groups who destroyed the mobility of varna system.
Still, there have been many instances in the history of India where people from the 'oppressed classes' became rulers though I won't state their names because this will start a new caste claiming debate. According to the Hindu mythologies, there are many instances where Gods took birth even in the 'oppressed class' families. One of the supreme Hindu dieties, Lord Krishna was born in a yadav family which is now considered as another backward community by the government of India. So, it was not always the case that some castes were always excluded from the mainstream society of Indians. This was the nature of the caste system or the varna system of India. Now, let's talk about the other societies of the world.

To begin with, let's talk about the western society which constantly ridicules India for its caste system:
Cagots- Cagots were the dalits( which means 'the oppressed') of France and Spain. They were made to live in outskirts of town. Cagots were excluded from all political and social rights. They were not allowed to marry non-Cagots, enter taverns, hold cabarets, use public fountains, sell food or wine, touch food in the market, work with livestock, or enter the mill. They were allowed to enter a church only by a special door, and during the service, a rail separated them from the other worshippers. Either they were altogether forbidden to partake of the sacrament, or the water stoup was reserved for their exclusive use. They were compelled to wear a distinctive dress.
Their cruel treatment lasted through the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution, with the prejudice fading only in the 19th and 20th centuries. These types of castes were present in almost all the societies that existed. Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, Middle Eastern and Africans all had such kind of a caste system. However, only the Indian caste system seems to be highlighted every now and then. If you try to give an explanation for this prejudice by saying that it still exists in the Hindu society, then you need to need to know that even other religions have this kind of divisions. Islam has Ashrafs which are considered superior because of their aristocratic ancestry while the Ajlafs and Arzals are considered inferior. There are separate seats, separate communion cups, burial grounds, and churches for members of the lower castes, especially in the Latin Catholic Church.

I am not supporting caste system but I do wish to say that India is not the only place where caste system prevailed. So, do keep this in mind before you ridicule my nation!!

Read more articles:
Homepage 

How western media and Indian journalists see Hindu revivalism in India?

Homepage          About me         Contact me       Privacy policy

19th March 2017: 

Newspapers like the New York Times started crying on the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a ‘Hindu nation’ where minorities have no place. The Swiss NZZ wrote that it is hardly possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.

Western media can't be blamed because these 'pseudo-liberals' include even Indian journalists. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh blasphemy laws. 

A Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called ‘liberal’ media. If only they knew what Hindus actually are!! 

They are open towards other views, unlike ‘good’ Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.
Remember that the Hindus did not fight crusades or jihads. 

Hinduism is a peaceful religion where even animals are thought to contain a part of God. Majority of the vegetarians therefore comprise of Hindus. 

It has to be held in favour of Hindus that they held on to their tradition and did not succumb to the pressure and even violence brought on them to adopt blind belief that only one particular person has revealed the full truth. Instead, they continued trusting their sages who never asked for blind belief, but asked to verify their insights through experience.

Hindustan is the land where children chant “Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu” (let all be happy) instead of Humpty Dumpty, which happens in primary schools in the west?

So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a possible ‘Hindu nation’. What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.

Hindus are the exemplary role model for ‘how not to exclude others’? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to realize this fact. If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe for harmony and peace in the world.

Read more articles at:
Home