What's new

South India

CricketCartoons said:
Which Hindu scriptures do you consider supreme? The earliest form of vedas did not have casteism. There is a hymn in Rig Veda which says " I am a singer, my father is a physician, and my mother in a grinder of corn". That early vedic society was clan based. It transformed into varna based system gradually during the Gupta period, and a lot of hindu scriptures were re-written/modified, including the vedas. Rig Veda got that famous hymn:

"When the gods made a scarifice with the Man as their victim...
When they divided the Man, into how many parts did they divide him?
What was his mouth, what were his arms, what were his thighs and his feet called?
The brahman was his mouth, of his arms were made the warrior.
The thighs became the vaishya, of his feet the shudra was born.
With Sacrifice the gods sacrificed to Sacrifice, these were the first of the sacred laws"

Both indologist Basham, and leftist historian Romila Thapar (some call her anti hindu) say that this verse was a later addition, which gave religious sanction to the origin of castes.

So if you cite religion as the reason for following the caste system, then it depends on which scripture you consider supreme. If you think it is the Rig Veda, then it was modified during the Gupta period. Not that the earlier vedas had any divine (everything is man made) origin, but followers consider the earliest version the pure one. So if you base your religion on the Vedas, then you must disobey the caste system, unless you think that the modified one was supreme, or any other scripture written in that era that endorses the caste system.
Click to expand...

No one follows the Vedas anymore mate you think we would be that behind now if we followed initial vedas?Hinduism is not about Vedas anymore all Tantra Mantra now.
 
JaDed said:
No one follows the Vedas anymore mate you think we would be that behind now if we followed initial vedas?Hinduism is not about Vedas anymore all Tantra Mantra now.
Click to expand...

I don't think india would have progressed either if hindus followed vedas, something written thousands of years ago. but sadly people have the right to treat anything as divine and base their entire existence on it.
 
Swanny said:
Lol what a martyr !

Poor little soul cant even marry the girl of his choice becoz of all the idiotic customs which he himself decided to follow :(

You can chose to worship whoever you chose but why are you painting your family as bad in earlier posts when they are imposing the same customs on you which you yourself chose to follow & are ok with :confused:
Click to expand...

LOLWHAT.

No.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Which Hindu scriptures do you consider supreme? The earliest form of vedas did not have casteism. There is a hymn in Rig Veda which says " I am a singer, my father is a physician, and my mother in a grinder of corn". That early vedic society was clan based. It transformed into varna based system gradually during the Gupta period, and a lot of hindu scriptures were re-written/modified, including the vedas. Rig Veda got that famous hymn:

"When the gods made a scarifice with the Man as their victim...
When they divided the Man, into how many parts did they divide him?
What was his mouth, what were his arms, what were his thighs and his feet called?
The brahman was his mouth, of his arms were made the warrior.
The thighs became the vaishya, of his feet the shudra was born.
With Sacrifice the gods sacrificed to Sacrifice, these were the first of the sacred laws"

Both indologist Basham, and leftist historian Romila Thapar (some call her anti hindu) say that this verse was a later addition, which gave religious sanction to the origin of castes.

So if you cite religion as the reason for following the caste system, then it depends on which scripture you consider supreme. If you think it is the Rig Veda, then it was modified during the Gupta period. Not that the earlier vedas had any divine (everything is man made) origin, but followers consider the earliest version the pure one. So if you base your religion on the Vedas, then you must disobey the caste system, unless you think that the modified one was supreme, or any other scripture written in that era that endorses the caste system.
Click to expand...

Vedas is not the only thing.

Here's the entire list:

Vedas, Upanishads, Vedangas, Puranas, Itihasas (Ramayana, Mahabaharata, etc) are all part of Hindu scriptures.

Not just Vedas or Bhagavat Gita.

Varnashrama Dharma is all mentioned in Upanishads. See Dharma Shastra (Hindu jurisprudence) to know that caste thing is real.

Whether its good or bad, caste is there in Hindu system.
 
I said the customs are like that and in a rational sense...don't make sense.

But they have to be followed due to faith. :)
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Vedas is not the only thing.

Here's the entire list:

Vedas, Upanishads, Vedangas, Puranas, Itihasas (Ramayana, Mahabaharata, etc) are all part of Hindu scriptures.

Not just Vedas or Bhagavat Gita.

Varnashrama Dharma is all mentioned in Upanishads. See Dharma Shastra (Hindu jurisprudence) to know that caste thing is real.

Whether its good or bad, caste is there in Hindu system.
Click to expand...

Of course, I never denied that caste is not in hindu scriptures. It is very much enshrined in hindu scriptures (most famously in manusmriti)

I wanted to know which scripture you consider as supreme. If it was vedas, then you should not be following it. But since you clearly follow all the entire branch of vedic and post vedic literature then your adherence to caste system is understood.

Also, do you think that the hindu scriptures are of divine origin? or just something written by brahmans according to the times they lived in? If it is the former, then blind faith is understood.

And there is never a question of good or bad in caste system. It is clearly bad and reprehensible system.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Of course, I never denied that caste is not in hindu scriptures. It is very much enshrined in hindu scriptures (most famously in manusmriti)

I wanted to know which scripture you consider as supreme. If it was vedas, then you should not be following it. But since you clearly follow all the entire branch of vedic and post vedic literature then your adherence to caste system is understood.

Also, do you think that the hindu scriptures are of divine origin? or just something written by brahmans according to the times they lived in? If it is the former, then blind faith is understood.

And there is never a question of good or bad in caste system. It is clearly bad and reprehensible system.
Click to expand...

Philosophy of Iyengars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (IAST Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: विशिष्टाद्वैत), the philosophy of the Sri Sampradaya , is a sub-school of the Vedanta (literally, end or the goal of knowledge, Sanskrit) school of Hindu philosophy, the other major sub-schools of Vedānta being Advaita, Dvaita, "Dvaitadvaita" and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda. VishishtAdvaita (literally "Advaita with uniqueness; qualifications") is a non-dualistic school of Vedanta philosophy. It is non-dualism of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists, but is characterized by multiplicity. It can be described as qualified monism or qualified non-dualism or attributive monism.

It is a school of Vedanta philosophy which believes in all diversity subsuming to an underlying unity. Ramanuja, the main proponent of Vishishtadvaita philosophy contends that the Prasthana Traya ("The three courses"), namely the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma Sutras are to be interpreted in a way that shows this unity in diversity, for any other way would violate their consistency.
Click to expand...

Who told you Vedas are written by Brahmins or anyone?

No one has a claim to have written it.

Religious speaking.

No one.

Ved Vyas compiled Vedas in written form but it was in practice even before.

Caste system has no place now. Agree. Let people keep their private faith to themselves.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Philosophy of Iyengars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita



Who told you Vedas are written by Brahmins or anyone?

No one has a claim to have written it.

Religious speaking.

No one.

Ved Vyas compiled Vedas in written form but it was in practice even before.

Caste system has no place now. Agree. Let people keep their private faith to themselves.
Click to expand...

Ved Vyas did not write vedas. Neither did he write the Mahabharata. Neither did Valmiki write the Ramayana. These are mythical names. All these scriptures had multiple authors with additions and modifications with each age. But I digress. Question was, do you consider the vedas and what followed to have divine origin?

Vedic era came after Indus Valley Civilization, so the vedas cannot predate that.

Yet you still continue to follow the caste system. Knowing it is bad. Just because it is part of the religion you follow. The religion in which lot of scriptures have been modified and added with each passing age.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Philosophy of Iyengars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita



Who told you Vedas are written by Brahmins or anyone?

No one has a claim to have written it.

Religious speaking.

No one.

Ved Vyas compiled Vedas in written form but it was in practice even before.

Caste system has no place now. Agree. Let people keep their private faith to themselves.
Click to expand...

Only Brahmins or some other upper castes were allowed to read/write in those times. So, its obvious who they were written by.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Swanny...that's the worst comprehension fail buddy.
Click to expand...

Read your own earlier posts buddy. You say your own family will disown you, they will find a bride specifically as per your own custom which are fine with.
Then you moan about there being no good girls in the sect you are supposed to marry into.

You cant blame your family for following the exact same customs you are cool in following.

Remember in few years time you'll be standing in their shoes.

At that time atleast think about you're childrens dreams & ambitions instead of following your customs & traditions.
 
Swanny said:
Read your own earlier posts buddy. You say your own family will disown you, they will find a bride specifically as per your own custom which are fine with.
Then you moan about there being no good girls in the sect you are supposed to marry into.

You cant blame your family for following the exact same customs you are cool in following.

Remember in few years time you'll be standing in their shoes.

At that time atleast think about you're childrens dreams & ambitions instead of following your customs & traditions.
Click to expand...

I am not.

In fact I am saying I will be following the customs and the fact that I will be doing is is :facepalm: but I will be doing it cos I CHOOSE to.

Not blaming anyone in particular. Just talking about how things are.
 
Abhilash93 said:
Only Brahmins or some other upper castes were allowed to read/write in those times. So, its obvious who they were written by.
Click to expand...

Talking about religiously speaking.

Every community when a script is written, someone gets the credit.

There is no such thing here.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
I am not.

In fact I am saying I will be following the customs and the fact that I will be doing is is :facepalm: but I will be doing it cos I CHOOSE to.

Not blaming anyone in particular. Just talking about how things are.
Click to expand...

if someone "chooses" to do something despite not liking it and thinking it is wrong, then it is because of compulsions. and therefore there is no choice. You should say that you are compelled to do that, not that you are choosing it.
 
CricketCartoons said:
if someone "chooses" to do something despite not liking it and thinking it is wrong, then it is because of compulsions. and therefore there is no choice. You should say that you are compelled to do that, not that you are choosing it.
Click to expand...

There are different human emotions other than like, dislike, choose, compelled.

Surprised that a poster of your stature doesn't seem to realize this and you say I am compelled.

I am not.

Religious compulsions are not the same as regular compulsions. I can walk away from my religious compulsion any time I choose and do what i please and there is no threat to my life nor will anyone say anything.

I do it cos I accept my religion and do it. And I gave a big explanation for that aspect.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
There are different human emotions other than like, dislike, choose, compelled.

Surprised that a poster of your stature doesn't seem to realize this and you say I am compelled.

I am not.

Religious compulsions are not the same as regular compulsions. I can walk away from my religious compulsion any time I choose and do what i please and there is no threat to my life nor will anyone say anything.

I do it cos I accept my religion and do it. And I gave a big explanation for that aspect.
Click to expand...

I did not know that to choose and to be compelled are emotions.

You clearly dont like it, and yet you are doing it. So tell me what it should be called, if not compulsion.
 
There is a world of difference between accepting and doing something and doing something grudgingly.

Sure you can say both are compulsions (religious compulsions) but there is a world of difference between those 2.
 
CricketCartoons said:
I did not know that to choose and to be compelled are emotions.

You clearly dont like it, and yet you are doing it. So tell me what it should be called, if not compulsion.
Click to expand...

See post #417.

Its like saying 1 guy who has lied 10,000 times and another guy who lies 1 time are the same cos they both are TECHNICALLY liars.

Many might feel compelled cos they don't accept it and do it inspite of it.

I don't feel compelled cos I accept the rules.

And therein lies a difference irrespective of technicalities.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
There is a world of difference between accepting and doing something and doing something grudgingly.

Sure you can say both are compulsions (religious compulsions) but there is a world of difference between those 2.
Click to expand...

So now you are saying that it is compulsion, except that you are not doing it grudgingly. Ok, that is very deep and beyond my comprehension. Anyway, wanted to know what do you think about the origins of hindu scriptures..were they of divine origins or just man made customs.
 
CricketCartoons said:
So now you are saying that it is compulsion, except that you are not doing it grudgingly. Ok, that is very deep and beyond my comprehension. Anyway, wanted to know what do you think about the origins of hindu scriptures..were they of divine origins or just man made customs.
Click to expand...

Ok no need to be sarcastic.

Every religious guy doing ANYTHING religion based (as to even pray) is compulsion technically.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
See post #417.

Its like saying 1 guy who has lied 10,000 times and another guy who lies 1 time are the same cos they both are TECHNICALLY liars.

Many might feel compelled cos they don't accept it and do it inspite of it.

I don't feel compelled cos I accept the rules.

And therein lies a difference irrespective of technicalities.
Click to expand...

I concede that this is beyond my understanding. If you dont agree with something, and know it is wrong, yet accept and follow it, without feeling any compulsion, then it is something that I concede that I don't understand. And that is fine. I will try to think about it.
 
Anyway, this is a long derailment. and it deserves a thread of its own. I will create a thread on this topic in a day or two, to discuss casteism and hindu scriptures.
 
CricketCartoons said:
I concede that this is beyond my understanding. If you dont agree with something, and know it is wrong, yet accept and follow it, without feeling any compulsion, then it is something that I concede that I don't understand. And that is fine. I will try to think about it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I found it wrong that I have to marry within my caste.

I said in the rational sense...it doesn't make sense. Not that its wrong.

Religion comes with its compulsions. I accept that and I follow it but I can switch over to a rational argument and think inspite of being religious allegiance.
 
To take this thread back to South India. There is A Place Called Kerala Cafe not far from my house. What would any Keralan (not sure if thats right term) would advise me
 
Adil_94 said:
To take this thread back to South India. There is A Place Called Kerala Cafe not far from my house. What would any Keralan (not sure if thats right term) would advise me
Click to expand...

Prefer 'Malayalee' to 'Keralan'.

Probably run by a malayalee to attract other malayalees and the many Brits who visit Kerala in Winter.
Other than that, nothing to do with Kerala.
 
Sorry, I was only mentioning whether there are similar cafe in Kerala, not about what is served in the cafe.
 
Have South Indian people here travelled far North to Himalayas? What are your travelling habits?
 
Thivagar said:
Do you live in Bangalore ? What is your background ? Don't people of Northeasterners/Hindi look down on South Indians as well ?
Click to expand...

i worked in banglalore for a year.
Some northies refer to north easterners as "chinkis",but dont look down on Southies.

I am from Orissa(Bordering West bengal),so a neutral point of view.
 
Electron said:
Have South Indian people here travelled far North to Himalayas? What are your travelling habits?
Click to expand...

Have been to manali with friends. Thats the farthest north of India that I have gone. 2 days in Durando express one way.:22:
 
When you have those small eyes and a Chapta nose, it's natural that people will find them different. not sure about looking down, but the term Chinki is pretty common in Mumbai too for North Easterners or any Nepali. Same in Delhi.
 
eradicator said:
When you have those small eyes and a Chapta nose, it's natural that people will find them different. not sure about looking down, but the term Chinki is pretty common in Mumbai too for North Easterners or any Nepali. Same in Delhi.
Click to expand...

North Easterners suffer from a victim mentality. They are quick to pull out the race card whenever things don't go their way.
 
eradicator said:
When you have those small eyes and a Chapta nose, it's natural that people will find them different. not sure about looking down, but the term Chinki is pretty common in Mumbai too for North Easterners or any Nepali. Same in Delhi.
Click to expand...

similarly when people have dark complexion, it is natural for others to find them different. nothing wrong in calling them kalla or any other such name.
 
I'm south Indian but from what I've seen and as evidenced by this thread no matter how educated some south Indians, they simply tend to think a bit too traditionally for my liking. Educated north Indians on the other hand tend to be rather liberal in their thinking.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
I'm south Indian but from what I've seen and as evidenced by this thread no matter how educated some south Indians, they simply tend to think a bit too traditionally for my liking. Educated north Indians on the other hand tend to be rather liberal in their thinking.
Click to expand...

That is true. Northies sure are more liberal.
 
Electron said:
That is true. Northies sure are more liberal.
Click to expand...

Who do you mean by liberal? I have seen very few educated indians who are liberals, because they still follow rules of their caste. Anyone who follows caste defined marital practices is not a liberal.
 
People who don't even respect eating habbits of fellow citizens can be called liberals ?
 
CricketCartoons said:
Who do you mean by liberal? I have seen very few educated indians who are liberals, because they still follow rules of their caste. Anyone who follows caste defined marital practices is not a liberal.
Click to expand...

I must be living in a totally difference North India then because majority of people I have met or been around are not following caste rules.

Also, when I say "liberal", it is all a relative observation.
 
Electron said:
I must be living in a totally difference North India then because majority of people I have met or been around are not following caste rules.

Also, when I say "liberal", it is all a relative observation.
Click to expand...

caste rules doesnt only mean untouchability (which is practiced in villages), but also dietary restrictions (not dining with a low caste) and marital restrictions (not allowing marriage with low castes). The so called liberals are still practicing the last one.

Northies are as liberal as southies are "rational minded".
 
CricketCartoons said:
caste rules doesnt only mean untouchability (which is practiced in villages), but also dietary restrictions (not dining with a low caste) and marital restrictions (not allowing marriage with low castes). The so called liberals are still practicing the last one.

Northies are as liberal as southies are "rational minded".
Click to expand...

That sounds about right.
 
Inter-caste marriages involving dalits

Andhra is top of the heap with 3,040 marriages in 2012, compared to 1,805 in 2011 and 1,641 in 2010. Kerala clocked 2,454 inter-caste marriages, a healthy jump from 1,040, 1,000 and 996 in the previous three years.

Interestingly, Tamil Nadu in 2011 notched 2,750 marriages, up from 2,356 in 2010. The state witnessed violence in July after a dalit boy from Dharmapuri married a Vanniyar-OBC girl, a love affair that ended in social unrest with groom Ilavarasan found dead on the railway tracks in mysterious circumstances.

The stats appear to bear out the trend of caste hostility in feudal societies - with Haryana reporting the highest annual figure of 160, Himachal Pradesh (232), Madhya Pradesh (232), Punjab (252) and Rajasthan (130) over the last five years.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Ste...ges-involving-dalits/articleshow/22728944.cms
 
Ambi said:
Inter-caste marriages involving dalits

Andhra is top of the heap with 3,040 marriages in 2012, compared to 1,805 in 2011 and 1,641 in 2010. Kerala clocked 2,454 inter-caste marriages, a healthy jump from 1,040, 1,000 and 996 in the previous three years.

Interestingly, Tamil Nadu in 2011 notched 2,750 marriages, up from 2,356 in 2010. The state witnessed violence in July after a dalit boy from Dharmapuri married a Vanniyar-OBC girl, a love affair that ended in social unrest with groom Ilavarasan found dead on the railway tracks in mysterious circumstances.

The stats appear to bear out the trend of caste hostility in feudal societies - with Haryana reporting the highest annual figure of 160, Himachal Pradesh (232), Madhya Pradesh (232), Punjab (252) and Rajasthan (130) over the last five years.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Ste...ges-involving-dalits/articleshow/22728944.cms
Click to expand...

I am a little confused about this article.

Aren't these numbers only of people who came forward and declared their marriage to claim promised govt. incentive?

Lemme know if I am wrong.
 
^ If that the case these people feel secure and don't fear backlash from society.
 
Ambi said:
^ If that the case these people feel secure and don't fear backlash from society.
Click to expand...

That stat is not very meaningful without total number of marriages, so that we get to know what percentage are inter caste marriages. It is estimated that only 5% of marriages are inter caste in india. Whether south is 1% better than north means nothing. As recent as 2012, a temple was out of bounds for dalits in tamil nadu. And last month itself a temple was locked because upper castes denied entry to dalits. Just because these inhuman practices dont make headlines doesnt mean south is better for inter caste harmony.
 
Ambi said:
^ If that the case these people feel secure and don't fear backlash from society.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's true.

But what it also tells is that states who do not have these "cash-reward" policies won't have as many people coming out declaring their marriage officially, so these numbers shouldn't be used to reach any such conclusion.
 
Electron said:
Yes, that's true.

But what it also tells is that states who do not have these "cash-reward" policies won't have as many people coming out declaring their marriage officially, so these numbers shouldn't be used to reach any such conclusion.
Click to expand...

Rajasthan has increased the incentive to 5 lakhs. I think it is the highest incentive offered by any state.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Rajasthan has increased the incentive to 5 lakhs. I think it is the highest incentive offered by any state.
Click to expand...

Yes, Riddle told be about that before. That is a crazy amount, highlights how difficult it must be to get inter-caste marriages work in Rajasthan culture.

Are you aware of how many states offer such incentives? Rajasthan and Haryana have done that for few years, while UP too has started similar scheme this year. Any other prominent states?
 
^ First of all that post was to show any kind of superiority, It was about inter cast marriages involving only dalits , I don't have the details of marriages between other castes in south india. Iam aware about the issues between various castes in tamilnadu, I think now most of the issues are between sub castes of lower castes.
 
Electron said:
Yes, that's true.

But what it also tells is that states who do not have these "cash-reward" policies won't have as many people coming out declaring their marriage officially, so these numbers shouldn't be used to reach any such conclusion.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the other states , Here in kerala, government updates these records. People can access these records through RTI
 
I would disagree with any post that tries to paint a picture that somehow south indians are more refined, educated or superior to north indians. South India has a whole slew of its own problems. Take Tamil Nadu for instance. It is probably the worst governed state in south india, possibly even all of India. There is rampant corruption and the same one or two families have governed the state for 50 years. Tamil Nadu has serious disputes with its neighbors like Karnataka and has been embroiled in the civil war in Sri Lanka for decades with the DMK government strongly expressing support for the rebel tamils for years. Education, particularly english medium education has taken a serious backseat in recent years in Tamil Nadu. There is a rampant growth of tamil and tamil fundamentalists and it has led to general decline of the quality of education statewide.

I will say this, generally the state of women in southern india is better than in northern india. This is not true for all strata of society obviously. The poor still suffer the same plight as in other states. However, I do believe the plight of women in the lower middle class and middle class is better in the southern india. This is mostly because of the emphasis on education for everyone irrespective of whether they are male or female. In fact, you will find many south indian women holding advanced degrees and career oriented than their north indian counterparts. Women in general enjoy a higher degree of freedom and respect in south indian society than they do in north india. Recent generations of south indian women are much more independent than previous generations being able to establish great careers in science and technology and therefore gaining independence from persecution by men. Generally, south india has been safer for women, however we are starting to see cases of rape and mistreatment of women being reported more often now than in decades prior. Overall though a lot more can be done for the state of women and children who are poor.
 
One of the questions I had in OP was:

in what points of history before british colonization were they ever united as one country?

if anyone knows the answer and want to have a discussion then it would be great
 
Nikhil_cric said:
I'm south Indian but from what I've seen and as evidenced by this thread no matter how educated some south Indians, they simply tend to think a bit too traditionally for my liking. Educated north Indians on the other hand tend to be rather liberal in their thinking.
Click to expand...

South Asian liberal or Western liberal ? I always thought it was the other way around from what I saw in Canada. Maybe the people who moved here stuck in the past while India moved on ?
 
As I pointed out in my post on the migration topic, you cannot determine whether someone is "indian" based on the religion, culture, language, color or ethnicity they share with other indians. That is a losing battle because of the fact that there is such a diverse population in India. As OPs friend suggested, south indians have little in common with north indians. Our food is completely different, the foundation of our music is different, it is karnatic while north indians is hindustani, language is different, our customs and traditions are different. But the point is that India thrives on its diversity not in everyone following some cookie cutter traditions.

In recent decades, a lot of northern india has influenced southern india. for example, in south indian weddings you can see people doing mehndi and sangeet these days. There would be nothing of the sort if you had gone back couple of decades. There is also a lot more influence of hindi now mostly because of bollywood. There is also higher acceptance of hindi in south india now than maybe in the 60s when there was lot of contention over this.

Forget north india, if you cross the border from tamil nadu into karnataka or kerala, the culture changes, the language changes, the customs are different. Each region of India has these same issues. Pakistanis often do not realize the extent of diversity in India, which leads to many misinformed and wrong conclusions about indian people. India was never founded to become a melting pot like the US. That would be impossible to accomplish given its thousand year history of many kingdoms and cultures. Multi-culturalism and tolerance for differences is the at the very core of India becoming a success. No country is perfect and India has had its share of mishaps, but most indians readily accept the mistakes and debate them in the public sphere and do not try to push them under the carpet. Its only the politicians who try to.
 
Slog said:
One of the questions I had in OP was:

in what points of history before british colonization were they ever united as one country?

if anyone knows the answer and want to have a discussion then it would be great
Click to expand...

From what I have gathered, Tamil Nadu and Kerala were never united with the rest of India before the British era.
However, most of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka was part of the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka. I think the era after the Mauryan empire is considered the classical age both in North India (Gupta period) and South (Chalukyas, Rastrakutas, Palas, Cholas) and the north and south grew further apart culturally in this time period.

The Mughals under Aurangzeb had a foothold in south (Deccan) as did the Marathas as well but their influence was mostly limited to Andhra and Karnataka.
 
anand99 said:
I would disagree with any post that tries to paint a picture that somehow south indians are more refined, educated or superior to north indians. South India has a whole slew of its own problems. Take Tamil Nadu for instance. It is probably the worst governed state in south india, possibly even all of India. There is rampant corruption and the same one or two families have governed the state for 50 years. Tamil Nadu has serious disputes with its neighbors like Karnataka and has been embroiled in the civil war in Sri Lanka for decades with the DMK government strongly expressing support for the rebel tamils for years. Education, particularly english medium education has taken a serious backseat in recent years in Tamil Nadu. There is a rampant growth of tamil and tamil fundamentalists and it has led to general decline of the quality of education statewide.

I will say this, generally the state of women in southern india is better than in northern india. This is not true for all strata of society obviously. The poor still suffer the same plight as in other states. However, I do believe the plight of women in the lower middle class and middle class is better in the southern india. This is mostly because of the emphasis on education for everyone irrespective of whether they are male or female. In fact, you will find many south indian women holding advanced degrees and career oriented than their north indian counterparts. Women in general enjoy a higher degree of freedom and respect in south indian society than they do in north india. Recent generations of south indian women are much more independent than previous generations being able to establish great careers in science and technology and therefore gaining independence from persecution by men. Generally, south india has been safer for women, however we are starting to see cases of rape and mistreatment of women being reported more often now than in decades prior. Overall though a lot more can be done for the state of women and children who are poor.
Click to expand...

Ithai idlynnu sonnaa chutney kooda nambaathu.
 
were there any indian famous freedom fighters from tamil nadu or kerala?

I know there weren't any well known Muslim League leaders from these areas
 
Slog said:
were there any indian famous freedom fighters from tamil nadu or kerala?

I know there weren't any well known Muslim League leaders from these areas
Click to expand...

There were revolts against the British in 1721(Kerala ) and 1806 (TN) which some consider the first war of Indian Independence.

Also, IIRC, a European Navy (the Dutch) tasted their first defeat in Kerala (1741).
In the 16th century, there was Kunjali who fought against the Portuguese- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunhali_Marakkar

There were no major leaders from Kerala during independence, but there was participation in Civil-Disobedience and Quit India movements.
We were mostly busy with social reformations- untouchability, temple entry for lower castes, getting rid of superstitions, etc.
 
mallu said:
There were revolts against the British in 1721(Kerala ) and 1806 (TN) which some consider the first war of Indian Independence.

Also, IIRC, a European Navy (the Dutch) tasted their first defeat in Kerala (1741).
In the 16th century, there was Kunjali who fought against the Portuguese- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunhali_Marakkar

There were no major leaders from Kerala during independence, but there was participation in Civil-Disobedience and Quit India movements.
We were mostly busy with social reformations- untouchability, temple entry for lower castes, getting rid of superstitions, etc.
Click to expand...

South India had the least participation in the sepoy mutiny/first war of independence. The most famous uprising was the Moplah rebellion (but it was as much against british as against hindus, and temples were desecrated).
Regarding the social reformations...seems it is still going on.
 
were the ppl there kind of indifferent almost in the 1930s and 1940s when the major decisions were happening?
 
CricketCartoons said:
South India had the least participation in the sepoy mutiny/first war of independence. The most famous uprising was the Moplah rebellion (but it was as much against british as against hindus, and temples were desecrated).
Regarding the social reformations...seems it is still going on.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on the Moplah rebellion. It was not considered a revolt against the british until recently. A minor case of history being rewritten. BTW, you seem to know too much about Kerala; How?, if I may ask, I thought you were in Bengal :)

As for the reformations, I don't know what you have in mind, please explain.
 
Slog said:
were the ppl there kind of indifferent almost in the 1930s and 1940s when the major decisions were happening?
Click to expand...

About Kerala, from what I could understand:
The Dalits viewed the British as helpful. We also had a popularly elected legislative assembly by 1904 (first in India) so it was not bad for the people. Some agitations here and there, against mostly the local kings/landlords rather than the British. By 1940s communism caught on with the people, and communists viewed the INC with suspicion.
 
mallu said:
Agree with you on the Moplah rebellion. It was not considered a revolt against the british until recently. A minor case of history being rewritten. BTW, you seem to know too much about Kerala; How?, if I may ask, I thought you were in Bengal :)

As for the reformations, I don't know what you have in mind, please explain.
Click to expand...

I think the moplah rebellion was against hindu landlords and their oppressive attitude. If I'm not wrong many hindus were part of rebellion and i don't think it severely affected the life of common hindus.
 
Slog said:
were the ppl there kind of indifferent almost in the 1930s and 1940s when the major decisions were happening?
Click to expand...
Tamil Nadu had one of the largest participation in the Indian National Army of SC Bose .So no they were just as agitating as any other part of the country
 
Ambi said:
I think the moplah rebellion was against hindu landlords and their oppressive attitude. If I'm not wrong many hindus were part of rebellion and i don't think it severely affected the life of common hindus.
Click to expand...

It started with that, but became something worse. ordinary hindus were beheaded and raped. History was revised to make it into a patriotic act.
 
CricketCartoons said:
It started with that, but became something worse. ordinary hindus were beheaded and raped. History was revised to make it into a patriotic act.
Click to expand...

They fought against alliance of British and hindu landlords, Moplahs were not outsiders.
 
CricketCartoons said:
I suggest you do some research on this topic and read all accounts, and not from Kerala textbooks.
Click to expand...

They fought against British and they deserves credit for that, the hindu landlords were oppressive and british suckups. I'm not justifying violence behavior of moplahs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rickroll
Hindi Imposition in South India - Factor for Breakup of India?
2 3
Replies
161
Views
6K
gazza619
gazza619
Bhaag Viru Bhaag
"Hindi is not our national language; It's an official language": Ravichandran Ashwin
Replies
51
Views
1K
Birdman
B
rickroll
Pakistani Biker in India
Replies
9
Views
642
rickroll
rickroll
FearlessRoar
"Secularism is a European concept, no need in India": Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi
Replies
9
Views
360
Red-Indian
R
gazza619
Flat Earth
Replies
12
Views
179
LordJames
LordJames
Back
Top