User talk:Kautilya3

Was this a mistake?

[1] or have I missed something?

Kindly talk me on Watsapp it's urgent +919876167540 Rohit497 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion & Request

Revolving around Akshant Kautilya Sharma, this story is an alarm for the Indian nation's authorities to rise before two major problems, namely misoriented youth and the caste-based reservation system take India to the depths of darkness. I also request that an article about the same be written if you consider it fit. It is somewhat popular on Facebook with a cult following for itself on its Facebook page.. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs)

References

Please comment on Talk:History of South America

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

FLC for List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69)

Hi! I have nominated the subject list for FL. Could you find some time out and give your comments here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Turkic(Muslin) conquest of N.India was a liberation for majority of Hindus - The subaltern Theory (???)

Here is a direct quote a Govt published "model" book (2013) for Universities :"It has been pointed out that as the popular Bhakti Movement could not take root in Northern India before the Turkish conquest because the socio-religious milieu was dominated by the Rajput-Brahman alliance which was hostile to any heterodox movement. The Turkish conquests brought the supremacy of this alliance to an end. The advent of Islam with the Turkish conquest also caused a setback to the power and prestige commanded by the Brahmans: Thus, the way was paved for the growth of non-conformist movements, with anti-caste and anti-Brahmanical ideology. The Brahmans had always made the people believe that the images and idols in the temples were not just the symbols of God but were gods themselves who possessed divine power and who could be influenced by them (i.e. the Brahmans). The Turks deprived the Brahmins of their temple wealth and state patronage. Thus the Brahmans suffered Both materially and ideologically. The non-conformist sect of the Nathpanthis was perhaps the first to gain from the declining power of the Rajput-Brahman alliance. This sect seems to have reached its peak in the beginning of the Sultanate period. The loss of power and influence by the Brahmans and the new political situation ultimately created conditions for the rise of the popular monotheistic movements and other Bhakti movements in Northern India."

Then, these subaltern historians go on to say how this Bhakti Movement uplifted the majority of Hindus (non-upper caste) and hence the 1206 Turkish conquest was a blessing in disguise for Hindus actually, paving the path for Marathas and Sikhs ultimately. Do you agree with such new interpretations???Ghatus (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: yes, I do. It makes perfect sense. Contemporary Brahmanic writers want us to belief that Hinduism = Brahmanism/Vedism, but it's clear that a large part of "Hinduism" is heterodox. I've been working on Vaishnavism and Sri Vaishnavism for the past few weeks; great movements, opening the gates for the Sudras! Now that I read your comments above, I understand more of it.

It's also related to Nirguna Brahman (influence of Islam?) and the popularity of Neo-Advaita, c.q. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj in the west: lay religiosity, initiated by the Sant movement. Funny thing is, most westerners think that this is Advaita Vedanta; it has become Sanskritizised and elitizised again, just like Ramana Maharshi. "Power to the people!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it is plausible, and quite likely to have been true. The correlation between the arrival of Islam and the Bhakti movements has always been noted. That the Turks broke the Brahmin power is also clear. This passage is attributing a causal connection between the two. Makes sense. However, I am not sure of the Rajput connection. Rajputs, being neo-Kshatriyas themselves, patronised Brahmins (they had to), but they were hardly orthodox. They themselves promoted Vaishnavism, Saivism as well as Jainism, constructing humongous temples (including the one at Ayodhya). This movement had its parallels in the South too, where, for example, Kakatiyas happily proclaimed that Shudra heritage. So, I would say that the Turkic rule accelerated a process that was already under way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the same group of historians say that Hindutva is an extension of Brahmanism which is a modified version of Mimamsa which is just one of the six orthodox Hindu philosophies ( Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta).Ghatus (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya, Rajputs had no other way but to support the Brahmins as their social status was dependent on them. Further, we must not confuse the Rajputs of Pre-Turkish era with the Post Turkish conquest era. When the Worship of "Lord" Ram started is itself controversial.

Another interesting quote from the same source:

" There arose during the Sultanate period (13th-15th century) many popular socio-religious movements in North and East India, and Maharashtra. Emphasis on Bhakti and religious equality were two common features of these movements: As has been pointed out, these two were also the features of the South Indian bhakti movements. Almost all the bhakti movements of the Sultanate period have been related to one South Indian vaishnava acharya or the other. For these reasons, many scholars believe that the bhakti movements of the Sultanate period were a continuation or-resurgence of the older bhakti movement. They argue that there existed philosophical and ideological links between the two either due to contact or diffusion. Thus, Kabir and other leaders of non-conformist monotheistic movements in North India are believed to have been the disciples of Ramananda who, in turn, is believed to have been connected with Ramanuja's philosophical order. Similar claims have been made that Chaitanya, the most significant figure of the vaishnava movement in Bengal, belonged to the philosophical school of Madhava. This movement is also believed to have been connected with Nimbarka's school because of its emphasis on 'Krishna' bhakti.

There are undoubtedly striking similarities between the older bhakti tradition of South India and various bhakti-movements that flourished in the Sultanate and Mughal periods. If we exclude the popular monotheistic movements of Kabir, Nanak and other 'low" caste saints, the two sets of movements can be shown to have possessed many more common features. For example, like the South Indian bhakti movement, the vaishnava bhakti movements of North and Eastern India and Maharashtra, though egalitarian in the religious sphere, never denounced the caste system, the authority of Brahmanical scriptures and the Brahmanical privileges as such.

Consequently, like the South Indian bhakti, most of the vaishnava movements of the later period were ultimately assimilated into the Brahmanical religion, though in the process of interaction, the latter itself underwent many changes. However, the similarities end here. Bhakti movement was never a single movement except in the broad doctrinal sense of a movement which laid emphasis on bhakti and.religious equality. The bhakti movements of medieval India differed in many significant respects not only from the older South Indian bhakti tradition but also among themselves. Each one of them had its own regional identity and socio-historical and cultural contexts. Thus, the non-conformist movements based on popular monotheistic bhakti contained features that were essentially different from various vaishnava bhakti movements, Kabir's notion of bhakti was not the same as that of the medieval vaishnavm saints such as Chaitanya or Mirabai. Within the vaishnav movement, the historical context of Maharashtra bhakti was different from that of the Bengal vaishnavism or North Indian bhakh movement of Ramanand, vallabna, Surdas and Tulsidas. During the later period, when the vaishnava bhakti movement crystallized into sects, there arose frequent disputes between them which sometimes even turned violent. Among all the bhakti movements of the period between the 14th and 17th century, the popular monotheistic movements of Kabir, Nanak, and other "lower" caste saints stand out fundamentally different."

Ghatus (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: I figured the same, about the Brahmins trying to regain control! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan,, OMG. I am a Brahmin myself!!! Evil but smart Brahmins!!! :-)Ghatus (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG? I'm just a dumb-ass working-class descendant; what does OMG mean? Anyway, I'm glad there are Brahmins with self-mockery! And, by the way: if Hindutva = Brahmin = Mimamsa, then Advaita Vedanta = heterodoxy in disguise? (yes it is, yes it is!) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG = Oh My God!Ghatus (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

To speak frankly, we Brahmins are the real minorities in India with just 5% share of population. And, there are still many underprivileged and poor Brahmins living in our country. However, the perception has gone like Brahmins are always too smart and are always privileged. And further, you will find that majority of those who are leading the fight against "Hindutva" at the intellectual level are Brahmins. You can not hold one accountable for what has his ancestor done 2000 years ago, can you?Ghatus (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. I appreciate your contributions! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, why? No need of it. Actually, I do have a great laugh when I go through such discussions in Quora. :-)Ghatus (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Ghatus, 5% share of the population doesn't necessarily make Brahmins a "minority." What is their share of the graduates? Bureaucrats? Ministers? RSS pracharaks?

I am not quite sure what the point of the long quote is. But it is quite certain that the Brahmins did exercise a significant amount of power in the society before the advent of the Turkic rule, which was broken by the latter, not consciously but by the natural mechanics of power. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The difficulty is that much of the history and evidence is contrary to this hypothesis. Many of the early and famous Bhakti saints were Brahmins, including Ramananda whom many of their medieval texts credit influencing Kabir, Nanak and many others. Kabir, Nanak etc, were not from "low caste", general consensus among scholars is that Kabir was Muslim by birth who criticized Islam (and criticized Hinduism too). Bhakti movement started centuries before Turk invasion, "visibly" grew after 12th century, despite Islam and not because of Islam (see Karen Pechelis' recent book). Nirguna Brahman and nondualism has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is dualistic monotheism. If there is any sub-school that is closer to Islamic ontology and dualistic theology, that may be Madhvacharya's Dvaita, but even Madhva's views have major differences. Strange are the views in the "model" book proposed there!!! Interesting history reconstruction effort and a creatively imaginative discussion, nevertheless. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Dasas and Ludo Rocher

@Kautilya3: Have you seen Ludo Rocher's more recent review of the term 'Dasas', particularly with respect to Sudras, in ancient and medieval literature? It is in chapter 30 of this, particularly pages 507-512 (edited by Donald Davis Jr). Interesting. Some of it supports what you mentioned months ago, some doesn't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ooty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ooty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Kulbhushan Yadav

Hello,
I've noticed that the article is still protected form editing. Also that nobody has added any further comment to the talk page. I was wondering what is happening?

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: I notice that it is under full protection till 27 April. If there is visible consensus on the talk page, then you can request the protecting admin, or any other admin, to unprotect it. However, it is unlikely that you will see visible consensus. So it is better to wait it out. You can of course copy the page to your sandbox and do your editing there, and install the changes after it gets unprotected. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit
		For laudatory work at Pakistan. LavaBaron (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LavaBaron means 'laudable' and he's only done this because you reverted me, sorry... Firebrace (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. LavaBaron (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he does (if we keep this up do you think we can make Kautilya3's talk page even more of an ugly mess than the edit warring report I filed against you earlier?) Firebrace (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. This behavior is unacceptable. This is a barnstar thread for goodness sake. LavaBaron (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Go bake an apple pie and calm down. Firebrace (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. As a member of WP:INDOPAK, I would request both you to find ways to collaborate with each other rather than confront. Paraphrasing Lord Mountbatten from another context, India and Pakistan can never run away from each other! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

last date for release and rearrest of Irom Sharmila Chanu

Dear Kautilya3 you appear to have some interest in tidying up this wiki article. An error is now becoming entrenched because it appears to be referenced but no one has checked the reference. It regards the long standing legal action against Sharmila. I can provide some help if you want but if editors can't find it by other means you tend not to want my assistance.

The last paragraph of the Fast and Responses section now states:

On March 28th 2016, she was released from judicial custody as charges against her was rejected by a local court in Imphal.[30] Sharmila kept her vow of neither entering her house nor meeting her mother till the government repeals AFSPA and went to continue her fast at Shahid Minar, Imphal on the same day of her release.[31] She was again arrested by the police under the same charge of attempt to commit suicide by means of indefinite fast.

These are references to two separate trials somehow mashed together. She was in Delhi from 28-31 March having been released by a judge in Imphal who had not heard any of the evidence at that trial in Imphal the newly appointed CJM IW. He had held her for over 400 days and then released her unconditionally earlier in March but not on the day stated in wiki. Previously the longest she had been detained continuously was 758 days http://scroll.in/article/804983/why-irom-sharmilas-fast-holds-no-meaning-for-those-shes-trying-to-move but on that occasion (2004) the Supreme Court ordered her release on the grounds that a year comprises 365 days. Since then she had been released after a maximum of 367 days until the last occasion where a manipuri prison year lasted for over 400. You can check for exactly how long if it interests you.

The date of 28 March has no supporting reference. On 30 March she was declared not guilty of IPC 309 again by a new judge who had not heard any of the previous evidence and was released conditionally with some kind of six month detention order in case the judgement was appealed. That was the trial in Delhi which has now ended.

The trial in Imphal is awaiting the charge sheet which the Police claim they have despatched but the new judge there says hasn't arrived the next hearing is 3 May 2016. I don't know how intested you are in tidying up this article but mistakes after a period become entrenched. I leave it up to you you appear to be interested for now. Desmond Coutinho using Portumna Library Computer free access I believe the IP address follows83.71.21.137 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Desmond, I will take a look. But you can edit the page yourself. It is not protected. At a minimum, you can add a {{failed verification}} tag so that other people can look into it. I would also recommend that you register an account. You will be taken more seriously if you have an account. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe under conflict of interest or something I am advised not to edit the page directly. I am Irom Sharmila's fiance. I have known her for about seven years and did 77 days prison with the torture option for her last year. Wiki editors get very touchy about how things are done it is my belief if what I am saying is verifiable and true then others can work it out. I don't really understand the rule of wiki so I feel it's better just to point out to others who do understand the rules that there are errors. But I am not pressing the matter. But thanks for your courteous response. If you don't have time perhaps someone else will.

Brahmaguptas Multan connection

I see that you have removed the sourced reference to Multan in Brahmagupta article, and added an unsourced reference of your own preference. I also saw your reasoning in the talk page [2] of the article where you speculate on the background of the author of my source whilst making references to "Islamists and Pakistani Militarists being thrilled". I have replied there, but I also need to inform you that I have raised a case with Wiki Arbitration here [3] --Xinjao (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As Robert McClenon has noted, there has been "inadequate talk page discussion." Your first step is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. By the way, what is an "unsourced reference"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)