Denigration of Hindu values? Where have I undermined Hindu values? I respect all religion, I though I have made that clear.
I won't argue with your statistics, but have you considered population into your calculations? Majority of the population of Kerala are Hindus, doesn't it make sense that when you collect all the poor people in the state, there will be more Hindus in that list? And the tribal people? Isn't that the same with ALL the tribal communities in India? Why do you think we have an insurgency in the North East and naxallites killing our soldiers? Tribal people have always been underrepresented everywhere in India. That's something we have to change.
And that thing about the British. Are you really saying that the British were looking out for the Indian Christian community? That as a brown skinned Indian in the 19th or 20th century me being Christian would've made any difference? The British were occupiers, who came here for our resources, not out of the goodness of their hearts to save us through Christianity. They couldn't have cared less about us. They could've exerted more control over the Christians and that's about it. Nothing more. Christians in India weren't exactly invited for tea with the queen of England you know.
It's becoming clear that your views have nothing to do with religion. You're just looking for something to hate, anything, and apparently, you landed on the one state where people don't really care about religion, where people seem to get along just fine with people of different religions.
I'll give you credit for one aspect though. You're right about me being Christian. Doesn't hold me back though. I've been to plenty of temples in my life. Mosques too. I've had Hindu friends who used to come to church with me.
Hell I haven't even read the Bible yet but I have read the Mahabharata, Ramayana and a bit of the Bhagavad Gita.
You should let go of this blind hatred you have for everyone. It's wont do you any good in the 21st century.
LOL at your attempt to paid gray over the statistics.
Those are PERCENTAGES, so the population should not matter.
The British were CHRISTIANS and Almost ALL Christians (except Syrian Christians) in kerala converted under the british rule to find favor with the British.
LOL at you for attempting to white wash history.
In fact when Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama made to Kerala, Syrian Christians presented Da Gama a ‘Rod of Justice and “swore allegiance to the Portuguese kings and implored Portuguese protection”.
More than this they suggested (to Da Gama) that with their help he should conquer the Hindu kingdoms and invited him to build a fortress for this purpose in Cranganore (Kodungallur). This was the recompense which the Hindu rajas received for treating with liberality and kindness the Christians in their midst. Especially after the syrian chritians found refuge in kerala after they were kicked out of the Middle east. THAT is the true lessons of history.
In a letter of late 1524, the Syrian Christian bishop
Mar Jacob writes after recounting all his actions in favour of the Portuguese Crown: “This, Sire, is the service that I have done in these parts, with the intention of moving you to the help me in the expansion of these people (Syrian Christians) through this India in the faith of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer.”
In the same context, he hence offered the aid of the Syrian Christians as an auxiliary military force, to aid the Portuguese, claiming that they represent ‘over 25,0000 warriors’.
How many of you studied this "secular" history in school ?
How many of you studied that the muslim king of Kerala, Ali Raja actually invited Hyder Ali to invade Kerala and convert everybody to Islam ?
The very fact that you accuse me of "hate" shows your intolerance for the Truth. The reality is that you just cannot handle the truth, you would rather seek solace in kerala "secularism" that seeks to destroy hinduism, hindu values and civilization because that is what makes you feel "safe". Its just history repeating itself.
I am not surprised, and if you had read your own history, you would be forced to face reality too. But I do not have such high hopes for you yet.
What stopped the Gujjus then from getting represented with regiment post Independence?
I'll tell you what.
Because they can't fight a damn. And the Indian Army does not want to waste time money and resources on making fighters out of baniyas.
The British were not fools. Neither were they short on courage tactics technology or intelligence. They were THE superpower of the world, and won two world wars on Indian blood and treasure.
They knew the fighters. And the non fighters. And built their army from the handpicked fighting forces.
It would not help a Malayali or a Gujarati feel nice about themselves, but ask any Jat or Sikh or Baloch or Gurkha or Maratha and they'll just smile.
Cheers.
LOL..... its only the poor and the desperate who opt for a job in the Indian Army. That is why 11% of the army is represented by Bihar.
If you had known your history you would have known that the pre 1857 the British Indian army consisted MAJORITY of BRAHMINS from Bengal. Why did you think that was ? because the Hindus of bengal was GRATEFUL to the British for liberating them from the islamic tyranny that made them slaves in their own land.
But post 1857 when the SAME Brahmin bengali's revolted against the british army because of the use of cow fat, the british had to use the punjabi's and the gorkhas to defeat the rebels. THAT is when they decided to invent the "martial race" theory.
As a matter of fact the
Nair Brigade of kerala was merged with the british army from Madras and is now known as the Madras regiment. In fact the Nair Brigade is the OLDEST battalion of the Madras regiment and was raised in 1704.
So there goes your theory of Bongs and Mallus being cowards.
The british were no fools, they choose communities who would be loyal to THEM, not to fellow Indians. And when that changed post 1947, the british left India in a big hurry.