How non-violent were Hindus historically?
The image of the mild, non-violent, vegetarian Hindu animates many history books as well as the self-image of many Hindus. The image of a barefoot Mahatma Gandhi taking on the might of the world’s largest empire has been etched into the history of mankind. But how accurate is this image for Hindus as a whole?
July 29th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Hi,
The article, “How non-violent were Hindus historically?”, is a nice piece.
I would like to add a few comments that:
- the Indian civilization cannot be as short as described of 10000 years. For any civilization like Mohenjadaro and Harappa, will require several thousand years for it to become perfect and achieve the pinnacle.
- There were not historical evidences that Hindu invasion into other territories, and trying to convert to Hindu Religion. This is the significant reason why Hindus are non-violent. The Hindus never invaded any country, destructed cultural epitomes, unlike, what India suffered, India’s Taxila, the seat of learning was completely burnt.
There was one Chinese Ambassador once noted that, India won the whole world without even sending even a single soldier. This winning in the form of culture, the Buddhism, prevalent till today in most of the Asian countries, except India!
Regards… Saradhi.
July 29th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
“The Hindus never invaded any country”
We may not have destroyed cultural epitomes but we certainly invaded other countriles from Lalitaditya Mukhtapida in 8th century A.D to Generaal Zorawar Singh (a Hindu Dogra General under the service of Maharaja Ranjit Singh renowned for his military exploits) in the 19th century when he annexed Ladakh and invaded Tibet.
July 30th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
In the context of whether or not Hindus were historically ‘non-violent’, whatever that may mean, it is perhaps worth mentioning the booklet “Were the Hindus Cowards? and other thought-provoking essays” by G M Jagtiani.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
^^ U got a link to any stuff by this author?
Whether Hindus (or any other people) were historically non-violent is quite is quite a clear question, I would have thought.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:41 pm
This is a very well written and well thought our article. Very nice.
I have myself asked this question many times and I think some of the readers answered very nicely that our non-violence is defined by the non-aggression towards other cultures, although we have fought wars in the past. Even though Mahabharata talks about the war between Kurus and Pandava’s, Gita raises the question of “ahimsa” (violence) or “non-violence” and Krishna goes on to discuss this issue in great length. The fact that our religious text raised this question in people’s minds gives an insight as to why Hindus think twice before turning to violence, and believe in non-violence on the whole. Relating non-violence to cowardice is to give sanction to a non-ideal world of violence. Hinduism even influenced the intolerant islamic religion and led to the so called sufi movement, which was a more milder version of islam. I believe from a historical perspective, Hindus have come out very strong finally. Although I am in an endless debate with myself on this, perhaps in our tolerance lies our strength. However, this is a trait which we may find difficult to uphold in today’s violent world. But let us hope we can persevere and change the world.
August 14th, 2006 at 3:20 am
a good piece of work and a common thought in every hindu mind that why dont we retaliate against our enemies, why we are taking every blow on our face, dont reply back and tend to forget after sometime. yes because this is in our hindu society. since our birth, we been told that we dont fight and keep patience. like in somnath temple when around 17000 pujaris in there and ahmad shah(or another muslim invader) attcked the temple because of precious stones and diamond with 1500 men. all the pujaris keep on praying somnath bhagwan coz they wanted to prey in their last times. rather then standing up and fight for themselves and eventually every single one got killed
that is what hindutava teahes us. well why can we never answer pakistan or other terror groups. when israel for its military safety can attack beirut coz some terorist organisation are there, why not attck POK and destroy the camps and take control of that area.
well at this scenario, we hindus need a common organisation under which all hindus can unite. we need something like vatican then atleast threat of hindu extinction will be gone.
take care guys
September 4th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
The article was a good read, but I couldnt help but feel that the moral of this story is that we Hindus needs to unite, if we had done that all those years ago then the Muslims would never have stood a chance and the whole history of our great India would have been different and maybe just maybe we would be a Hindu country today rather than a “secular” one. Ahh we can all dream.
September 4th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
That a good dream. I would like to see it also. What stops Hindus from uniting into a single front? Is it that we are pluralistic, weak, cowardly, open minded, foolish. Or is it that we as hindus want to leave it to someone else (a rajput, a Shivaji, a Gandhi)?
hariaum