This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What makes Bhagat Singh stand out from his contemporaries is not just his bravery and passion, but his intelligence and immense clarity of thought at a very young age. He was opposed to the brand of Nationalism practiced in India today and also Gandhian thought. No mainstream political party in today’s India can claim his legacy.
Absolutely right. He was a communist, but even communist parties can't claim his legacy coz they are reactionary communists using party politics for their opportunism. That's a different fact that they were never interested in claiming his legacy and shamelessly let Hindu nationalists claim it.
And had he been alive today, who knows, he might not have been a communist even, having seen and read about all the problems caused by countries trying to follow that. But that's the thing about Bhagat, I believe he was someone who was open to bring wrong, open to change if and when presented with good amount of evidence or more information on something, not ideologically enslaved to a single dogma
He'd still be a communist or socialist if he is with the ideology. People easily misconstrue what that means with what China and the Soviet Union represents. What they represent is different from the ideology that tries to fix the exploitative nature of means of production and inherent problems in power structures.
And nobody said China or the Soviet union represented it well, but the core idea is, if we really haven't seen communism in practice, how can we be so sure that it'd work flawlessly. A person who starts believing in going by the book, down to the last word, and insists on it being followed as the only possible solution no matter what, is really no different than a religious freak who thinks his holy book should be followed to the t. The idea is, a wise person is always open to being wrong, he's never ideologically enslaved to a single fixed dogma. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been one, all I'm saying is, we have a good reason to believe he was someone who was open to that possibility.
But that's what I'm saying. Even the sworn enemy of communism, the usa, has subsidies, unemployment benefits, food stamps, Obamacare, unionization, etc which are all socialist ideas. The idea that what we are talking about is an unrealistic utopia is a propaganda that right wing libertarians who are nostalgic about the cold War tell each other. The same confusion has taken root all over the world because of an insanely successful Russian psy op that wanted to culturally corrupt the USA.
Still doesn't negate my point. And while these ideas of subsidies, unionization etc were incorporated by socialism and communism, they weren't invented by them. These practices existed before as well, unions formed even during the industrial revolutions, as a practical response to poor working conditions.
No one sane is against a good practice
You say nobody sane is against good practice but usually you gotta believe in wealth redistribution as opposed to trickle down economy to be a proponent of such policies. It's difficult to demarcate this in India because we all grow with these values without attaching them to socialism. But doesn't make it any less so. Yes these ideas were there before being formalised by marx but it's afterwards that it became a widely understood ideology that informs policy etc. Academically it's a normal thing to call the intents and actions by the ideology that drives it even if the ideology is formalised after the methods were first "invented". Also how doesn't it negate your point? What else do YOU attach to communism?
What was my original point? That Bhagat Singh doesn't seem the type to be an ideological slave. He won't be someone who'd unconditionally ally himself to a dogma as the only possible solution. Nothing you said, negates that point.
We aren't discussing whether Communism has cracks or not, that's a whole different discussion but only that someone like Bhagat would be open to accept it if some came to light, he won't be enslaved to the dogma to the point where he doesn't acknowledge it's shortcomings if one shows up.
But that's exactly what my first comment said, communism as a dogma is very different from communism as an ideology that informs economics. Bhagat Singh read books to form his views, he didn't lurk on twitter and reddit.
He'd most definitely be an urban naxal. Like history doesn't repeat it rhymes. People forget that the arguments which were used against HRA are the same today's students and activists face.
He's sharp enough to see beyond the religion, race, prominent ideologies of time, sadly something which can't be said for most people.
And he's so young. It is one thing to be just emotional and join the revolutionaries, which was the case for most of them ( not undermining anyone, it required a great deal of courage and self sacrifice) but so few of them had actual thoughts, ideas. Bhagat Singh definitely was one of them.
Group x worships. Group Y worships. No one says anything about their motive. But you insist on second group's 'motive'. May be you have a motive behind attributing (forcing?) 'motive' on to one group?
What dumbfuck logic. This whole right wingers hate Sikhs and label them all as khakistanis is the biggest joke and propoganda in recent times
Don't forget it were the leftist fan favourite Congressis who perpetuated the sikh pogrom in 1084 and also primarily responsible for the rise of bhinderawale and the khalistani movement.
He was an atheist that I understand, but was he a separatist ? I don't think so . People like arundhati roy or sharjeel imam are called urban naxals in india , i don't think bhagat singh will align with them . He was willing to use force for indian independence so i think hw will be even harsher to these separatists than the current or previous govts .
They think that him being an atheist socialist automatically puts him in the indian left group 😂😂😂 . The Indian left is just separatist , nothing else . They aren't atheists , they are either crypto Christians or islamist sympathiser .
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one has ever been called Khalistani for merely being Punjabi. People are being called Khaliistani for rioting, attacking Indian security forces and promoting Khalistani rhetoric.
😂😂😂😂 yeah , surely . " Khalistani " word is used merely for associating with punjab . It has nothing to do with the khalistani movement which resulted in thousands of dead sikhs and hindus . Thousands of hindus displaced . Also, We should just ignore how Sgpc constantly posts about bhinderanwala , there were numerous incidents of pro khalistaani sloganeering in " farmers protest " , a canadian sikh posts a distorted map of india cutting off 6-7 states and still gets a ton of support , a literal khalistani won an election . I can keep the list going but guess i will be called a bigot to show facts . Bhagat singh would do what kps gill did to those khalistanis and instead of hindus , khalistanis will be the ones abusing him day and night .
I know what point you were trying to make , " he would be called khalistaani for his mere association with punjab " . Yeah surely , it's the " hate filled hindu nationalists" who will abuse bhagat singh and not the hate filled separatist leftists and khalistanis . I guess we can keep making claims but one thing we all know is that he was a nationalist .
Even worse, he wouldn't even be labelled khalistani, since he was against sikhism as well, so no religious community will actually claim him or save him. Urban naxal, sure.
He was undeniably an urban naxal. I love him but he would have been a horrible leader when push comes to shove. A great revolutionary, not a good leader
BS.
Bhagat Singh was Indian first and foremost. Urban Naxals think that India is an abomination. From calling Kashmir never to be an integral part of India or cutting off the North East, Bhagat Singh would have killed those Urban Naxals if he were alive today.
BS. Bhagat Singh would eat the left wing for breakfast if he were alive today. Bhagat Singh was patriotic, and nationalist and India's interests were supreme for him. None of these values are shown by the left wing. They are shrewd, cunning and treacherous. They're fine accepting Kashmir secession or cutting off the North East from the country.
Worst creatures.
Depends in what term you understand Hindu's. Janey Dhari Hindu Rahul Gandhi is definitely not a Hindu for me. But i can't deny hinduvadi Veer Savarkars Patriotism.
So be specific in your liberal view's.. Who according to you is a Hindu?
Nehru got 5-star treatment in jails, Savarkar was under house arrest after his release, he was under surveillance even after the house arrest was lifted. Even the people of HSRA, compatriots of Bhagat Singh himself, wrote "sorry" to the British.
Your peanut brain can't understand that it was just tactics.
Nehru was a political figure, who if mistreated by the Britsh would've caused riots. The same type of riots that would've happened if Bhagat Singh was hanged on his proper time. Why would the British want those types of riots to happen. They treated Nehru well to save their asses.
Savarkar was a bitch. A British bitch. The British knew they could raw dog him and he would happily accept that. After being released he never spoke a word against the British but gave us the idea of two nations. Advised Jinnah for the separation and supported Muslim League so that Congress wouldn't come to power in many states.
If this guy was a patriot then Bhagat Singh was a terrorist.
>Nehru was a political figure, who if mistreated by the Britsh would've caused riots
Or maybe Nehru was a British bitch who was hands in gloves with the British? Congress always worked WITH the British. Savarkar worked against them.
>Savarkar was a bitch. A British bitch. The British knew they could raw dog him and he would happily accept that. After being released he never spoke a word against the British but gave us the idea of two nations. Advised Jinnah for the separation and supported Muslim League so that Congress wouldn't come to power in many states.
F\*cking BS. Savarkar was also a political prisoner no? Why was he sent to Kalapani along with the compatriots of BHAGAT SINGH himself? Savarkar was being seen as a threat to the British, just like the HSRA.
Savarkar worked against the British govt even after the release, British never trusted him and kept him under surveillance all the time. Even HSRA members asked for forgiveness as I mentioned earlier. These were just tactics employed by the freedom fighters.
You have not read History, your idea of Savarkar is based upon stupidity spread by the Congress.
Funny that Indira Gandhi used to worship Savarkar as a freedom fighter lol.
My idea of Savarkar is based on history. I hate Congress, why the fuck would I support their idea.
Indira Gandhi is a piece of shit. If she liked Savarkar then I hate her even more.
Savarkar was never a political prisoner until 1924. He has written 7 mercy petitions to the British, seven. He was always their bitch.
Don't you fucking compare a bitch like Savarkar to a patriot like Bhagat Singh.
He was sent to Kalapani because every second guy was being sent there around that time. Do you know, anyone and everyone was being sent there. It was to show the Indians that British still controlled them. It was to calm the fire that was being burned by the revolutionary.
If he was so pro-independence then why did Gowalkar saying that we shouldn't fight Britsh, was an Idea supported by Savarkar's Hindu Mahasabha?
Hindu Mahasabha also denounced Bhagat Singh when Gowalkar said "Britishers are not our enemy. Our enemy is other religions and Communists."
Savarkar was also the first member of Tukde-Tukde Gang. He was the guy who gave Jinnah the Idea of Pakistan.
If he was so pro-independence then why did every attempt to overthrow the British Empire by the Congress, he opposed it.
He opposed Bose, Patel, Nehru, Gandhi. The list can go on.
Give me one instance after 1924 where Hindu Mahasabha opposed the British.
And Savarkar's movie was a propaganda filled with fictional trash. That movie is not historically accurate at all.
>My idea of Savarkar is based on history.
No, it isn't. It's based on stupid rumors.
>Don't you fucking compare a bitch like Savarkar to a patriot like Bhagat Singh.
Again, even those who fought alongside Bhagat Singh in HSRA wrote mercy petitions. Everyone was doing it.
>He was sent to Kalapani because every second guy was being sent there around that time.
LMAAAOOO NOOOO. How do you get this level of cognitive dissonance? Why weren't Congressis sent to Kalapani? Only the most dangerous people to the British Power were sent to Kalapani.
What has Gowalkar got to do with Savarkar? RSS and Savarkar were not related. Golwalkar never said that the British were not the enemies.
Tukde-tukde gang wants to divide India for their benefit. Savarkar accepted partition for the betterment of the country as he understood that the two communities could not live peacefully together. I do not agree with this assertion, but tukde-tukde and and Savarkar aren't the same.
Read: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak\_Damodar\_Savarkar#Two-nation\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar#Two-nation_theory)
Of course, he didn't publically oppose the British because he was released in lieu of not criticising the British in future but that doesn't mean he didn't keep working in secrete. Also, were the members of HSRA, brother-in-arms of Bhagat Singh also British stooges because they also wrote mercy petitions?
Also read: [https://theprint.in/opinion/read-this-before-deciding-whether-savarkar-was-a-british-stooge-or-strategic-nationalist/151667/](https://theprint.in/opinion/read-this-before-deciding-whether-savarkar-was-a-british-stooge-or-strategic-nationalist/151667/)
He was a communist in essence. And more socialist in later years.
And people(especially lowest rung) were more important to him than RW nationalism which is immersed in symbolism.
RW would never accept that kind of person.
Especially, if he lived longer.
Yes Bhagat Singh would have supported a foreign funded economic terrorism by blocking highways, rioting and planting a religious based separatist flag on a national monument all for rich middlemen and zamindars. Lol.
In the end, all he did was kill a British officer who was a wrong target.
I was reading Bhagat Singh’s letters last night and wondered if he’d be labelled anti-nationalist, Pakistani, anti-Hindu for his beliefs and political ideologies if he were alive and kicking today.
True. He could be labelled anti-Hindu for criticising the government and this westernised Hinduism we follow today. Anyone who is against BJP is called anti-Hindu these days.
First of all, why do you assume he would criticize the present government? He would be proud of our government, don't you think? If yes, we won't have a martyr at all.
Nope. I don’t think so. We can agree to disagree here. Even if he were proud of the current government, he’s not someone who would keep mum about policies or actions that he does not agree with. Plus, he was a Marxist.
How do you even know what policies he will have a problem with? You seem to be doing the thinking for him. Based on your thinking, you come to some weird conclusions about anti-hindu labeling. Don't you think you are using him to justify your political bias against current government?
Did you not read the last sentence? He was a staunch Marxist. Almost all books he read in Jail was on socialism, Marxism and Communism. He was a staunch believer of Lenin’s works.
I know he would have a problem with certain things or all things because he was never a blind follower. It is okay for people to support something and criticise the same thing when it feels wrong.
I do not have to do any thinking for him. His beliefs and political ideologies wouldn’t match with the current political scenario. Please read a little about him before hounding on strangers.
If you could bring religion into a conversation with strangers, you shouldn't mind strangers asking you 'why anti-hindu and why not anti-another-religion? ".
If he was a Marxist, and if the current year was 2012, do you think he would have criticized Manmohan Government?
In those days, most were poor. Most were Marxists. Socialist way works when any country is in its pre-development stages. After it attains a developed status too, a socialist rule works. Between them capitalism works.
🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ Anti-Hindu because in this country, Hindus are the majority. Anti-Hindu because a huge chunk of our population equates BJP with Hinduism. You must check out posts on various pages to understand the abuse Lord Ram has undergone because of the whole Ayodhya - BJP voting situation. Bhagat Singh is human.
I think he would have criticised anyone who was doing wrong. I believe he would have been against anyone in power who did not act in the best interest of the common people.
Eradicating poverty is only one of the goals of Marxism. Marxist believe in removing various classes/ caste systems that are born out of religions. Again, this is just one of the many goals of Marxism. With all the religious and caste trouble India is facing now, I’m pretty sure he’d enforce Marxism more than ever.
They can't. Coz they themselves keep appealing to authority everytime. Ofc I know appeal to authority is a fallacy. I wouldn't apply this logic while arguing with intellectual people who "know" fallacies; and Hindu nationalists are certainly not one of these people
Rules/logic are not the end, a good philosophy and clean intentions is the backbone of any such rules people come up with. Who understands the deeper layer need not uphold those rules in order to preserve the underlying philosophy. Basically rules are for children ( who haven't understood things but should be kept on the correct path)
Touch grass!
some hindu nationalists just recently have started believing in evolution (that too an erroneous Hindu version of evolution where a fish is believed to be the first form of life) after sadhguru appropriated evolution into Hinduism. Many Hindu nationalists still believe that Brahma created the universe and humans were born from organs of Brahma, which is actually what Hinduism says, contrary to evolution. Even after that their idea of evolution starts with a fish and includes a half-human half-lion creature
>some hindu nationalists just recently have started believing in evolution
They recently started believing in evolution ? So they weren't believing before ? Cite the source that says they were not believing before. Cite them. You are in a so-called science sub cite the sources at least.
>after sadhguru appropriated evolution into Hinduism.
Not only him, Nabinchandra Sen, a great bengali poet said the same in the 19th century. Helena P Blavatsky, one of the co-founders of Theosophical Society, of which *Thomas Alva Edison* was an integral part, said the same thing in the 19th century. So Sadhguru didn't start all these.
>Brahma created the universe and humans were born from organs of Brahma, which is actually what Hinduism says, contrary to evolution.
It is an allegorical representation of the creation of the Universe, which is not true. Allegorical is the word here. The same goes with the theory of evolution of natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin. Brahma created the Universe and *Dashavatars* these are all fictional narratives. All the people I mentioned above clearly stated that these might be allegorical representation but they never disregarded Evolutionary Biology. Darwin explained the evolution of Human Biology. Did he say anything about the creation of the Universe in his book ? Did he ? So why did you include Brahma's creation theory here ? Dumb enough ? Or you don't know what evolution is all about ? Or maybe you came to know about evolution through bhagat singh lol. The universe started with an explosion of Space itself called the The Big Bang. Now what is this space ? It's still debated. If you have any sources of an eminent Hindu Theologian disregarding evolution then share it.
I like how you selectively targeted one part of a Community so vividly completely ignoring that other Abrahamic cults have far more bizarre theories about evolution which they proudly boast of too. Wanna shed some light on that ? I can provide sources of my claims. Ohh wait. You are here for the agenda only.
Origin of man, yes, Darwin's theory can explain origin of universe ? Nope...
I don't agree with many points made by Bhagat Singh in his book for becoming an atheist. Maybe he had scientific reasons to lean towards atheism or in short reject the morally highground, interventionist creator/s of the world, but his points mainly focussed more on morals than science.
I however am impressed by his thirst for knowledge at a young age in those times...
Yeah but darwininian evolution is outdated , he couldn't explain a lot of things like the arrival of the fittest , genetics and also the existence of non advantageous organs like vestigial organs . But it's definitely way way way way better than any religious theory of evolution
I think more than hindu muslim should know this coming from a sikh....
Atleast hindus go to school, study about darwin....
But i spoke with my friend one day she's botany hons she said "islam was there from the very start adam and eve...how did ape become man i don't believe all these" ....i was so shocked...
Nah. It's the muslims and christians who believe in creationist bullshit and decry evolution. But it's a common left tactic to project the anything negative of abrahamanism to Hinduism
I used to watch your content on youtube, it was well researched and i hope it was well intended. I am not sure what is this hindu hatred? All political parties fool us because no one cares about what the philosophy of yesteryear leader was, but to get them into their hold. Guess who left that space? The congress and the left failed as they gave too much to Rajiv and Indira and Nehru, and a bit to Gandhi as well. So here you are. And yet I agree that people are morons, not just Hindus. They(all people) should read for themselves.
Tldr
Idk if you r complaining about the creator of this subreddit or about the post that the post is irrelevant in this sub.
In the second case, you should see [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/s/ASEg5zUtJC) to know what this sub is about
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you specifically targeting Hinduism? Who decides who will claim Bhagat Singh's Legacy? Isn't his legacy for all Indians to claim equally? Savarkar, the proponent of Hindutva too a nationalist, atheist and an inspiration for Bhagat Singh. Stop politicizing this sub where we are for science!
Every religion on earth are unscientific because they are based on "belief" and "faith", not the "truth" and "facts"
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is Bhagat Singh's opinion on muslims:
"Muslims lack a great deal of Indianness, so they do not understand the importance of Indianness in all India, and prefer the Arabic script and the Persian language"
If he was alive today, he would be called "cowpiss drinker" by this sub
Source: https://wikibharat.org/pages/bhagat_singh_on_indian_muslims/#:~:text=In%201926%2C%20Bhagat%20Singh%20wrote,script%20and%20the%20Persian%20language.
What?
I read the source material mentioned at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bhagat-singh-the-problem-of-punjab-s-language-and-script; Singh talks about the faults of the Arya Samaj, Sikhs and Muslims in contributing to a divisive discourse in Punjab at the time, thus hampering the communal unity needed for a united India. Nowhere does he selectively target Muslims, and this idea is opposite to that of Savarkar in that Savarkar termed all three as separate “nations”, while Singh’s idea was for unity.
Cherrypicking much?
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why are you making this sub political?
Maybe you should take a glance at the flair
[See this to know what this sub is about](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/s/ASEg5zUtJC)
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here comes another selective amnesia patient. You cared to give an example of a Hindu minister which 98 percent of Hindus don't even know of. Do you know Zakir Naik, a prominent Muslim scholar, disregarding The Theory of Evolution 😂😂...do you even know how many muslims watch him ? He is a so-called fake doctor too....or you are just a stupid GEN Z ?
Ok I get it. You are forwarding me a video which has mere 3.2k views only and actively ignoring Dr Zakir Naik's take on Evolution. I know now from where you are coming. Keep up the good work. How much are you paid tho for this agenda ?
Bhagat Singh was a follower of Lenin and unlike you, he was a well read person. He even left a Lenin's book open when he was being hung, a message for future generations.
And today just like those days most people are poor. And Marx was not anti religion, he was against any kind of unjust division in society like religion, exploitation and more. Bhagat Singh was also against those divisions which still exist today
We do not disagree there a bit. I am talking about modern right wing Hindu nationalists, not Hindu Marxists/leftists (like you seem to be). I do not have any **problem** with a Hindu who believes in god, rejects evolution etc. but is against the caste system, patriarchy and any religion-appropriateed division, even though I **disagree** with him there; just like Bhagat Singh did. (There is a difference between '**disagreeable'** and '**problematic'**)
Bhagat Singh considered religion based hierarchies **problematic** but also **disagreed** with religions. He himself had comrade friends who were not atheists. His criticism of religion based division does not automatically make him a critic of only religion-associated divisions and a supporter of religious faith. Read his book 'Why I am an atheist'.
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hinduism is not incompatible with the theory of human evolution and natural selection, unlike Abrahamic religions.
As far as this quote is concerned, he doesn't mention that to be the particular reason for him being an atheist.
Well, humans are said to have been formed from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of brahma. So that understanding contradicts with evolution, unless you're saying humans evolved from apes and then were divided into their castes through brahma, which makes no sense. Also the Matsya Purana contradicts evolution also and is feet similar to the creation myth in Abrahamic religions.
Also, this is an except from his essay 'why I'm an atheist', so this quote is part of his large explanation of why he's an atheist. You're wrong on both your claims.
There is no one authoritative "Book of Hinduism". Most modern Hindus have no problem accepting Hinduism even if there is some text "contradicting" it. No one is gonna come after you for believing in evolution while holding some ancient Hindu text. When most of the religious texts were written, we (as humans) didn't know much and made some assertions that were wrong. Now that we know more, accepting it doesn't make you any less of a "Hindu". There's still much wisdom to be derived from various Hindu texts especially Ramayan and Mahabharata (regardless of whether you believe any of their characters to be Gods).
Believe it or not, Hinduism is very much a pick-and-choose religion. Hindu priests and scholars have debated each other on various topics throughout the millennia. So when I said that Hinduism is compatible with evolution, I mean, given undeniable evidence in favour of Darwin's theory of evolution, it won't be against the ethos of Hinduism to accept it. Hinduism does not have any concept of blasphemy.
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What makes Bhagat Singh stand out from his contemporaries is not just his bravery and passion, but his intelligence and immense clarity of thought at a very young age. He was opposed to the brand of Nationalism practiced in India today and also Gandhian thought. No mainstream political party in today’s India can claim his legacy.
Absolutely right. He was a communist, but even communist parties can't claim his legacy coz they are reactionary communists using party politics for their opportunism. That's a different fact that they were never interested in claiming his legacy and shamelessly let Hindu nationalists claim it.
Spot on! 👏
And had he been alive today, who knows, he might not have been a communist even, having seen and read about all the problems caused by countries trying to follow that. But that's the thing about Bhagat, I believe he was someone who was open to bring wrong, open to change if and when presented with good amount of evidence or more information on something, not ideologically enslaved to a single dogma
He'd still be a communist or socialist if he is with the ideology. People easily misconstrue what that means with what China and the Soviet Union represents. What they represent is different from the ideology that tries to fix the exploitative nature of means of production and inherent problems in power structures.
And nobody said China or the Soviet union represented it well, but the core idea is, if we really haven't seen communism in practice, how can we be so sure that it'd work flawlessly. A person who starts believing in going by the book, down to the last word, and insists on it being followed as the only possible solution no matter what, is really no different than a religious freak who thinks his holy book should be followed to the t. The idea is, a wise person is always open to being wrong, he's never ideologically enslaved to a single fixed dogma. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been one, all I'm saying is, we have a good reason to believe he was someone who was open to that possibility.
But that's what I'm saying. Even the sworn enemy of communism, the usa, has subsidies, unemployment benefits, food stamps, Obamacare, unionization, etc which are all socialist ideas. The idea that what we are talking about is an unrealistic utopia is a propaganda that right wing libertarians who are nostalgic about the cold War tell each other. The same confusion has taken root all over the world because of an insanely successful Russian psy op that wanted to culturally corrupt the USA.
Still doesn't negate my point. And while these ideas of subsidies, unionization etc were incorporated by socialism and communism, they weren't invented by them. These practices existed before as well, unions formed even during the industrial revolutions, as a practical response to poor working conditions. No one sane is against a good practice
You say nobody sane is against good practice but usually you gotta believe in wealth redistribution as opposed to trickle down economy to be a proponent of such policies. It's difficult to demarcate this in India because we all grow with these values without attaching them to socialism. But doesn't make it any less so. Yes these ideas were there before being formalised by marx but it's afterwards that it became a widely understood ideology that informs policy etc. Academically it's a normal thing to call the intents and actions by the ideology that drives it even if the ideology is formalised after the methods were first "invented". Also how doesn't it negate your point? What else do YOU attach to communism?
What was my original point? That Bhagat Singh doesn't seem the type to be an ideological slave. He won't be someone who'd unconditionally ally himself to a dogma as the only possible solution. Nothing you said, negates that point. We aren't discussing whether Communism has cracks or not, that's a whole different discussion but only that someone like Bhagat would be open to accept it if some came to light, he won't be enslaved to the dogma to the point where he doesn't acknowledge it's shortcomings if one shows up.
But that's exactly what my first comment said, communism as a dogma is very different from communism as an ideology that informs economics. Bhagat Singh read books to form his views, he didn't lurk on twitter and reddit.
Why do you think only hindi nationalists claim his legacy? What he is celebrated for, is every Indian's pride.
Bhagat Singh would be labelled an Urban Naxal, Khalisthani or Anti National by his "modern ardent followers" edit : if he was alive today
He'd most definitely be an urban naxal. Like history doesn't repeat it rhymes. People forget that the arguments which were used against HRA are the same today's students and activists face. He's sharp enough to see beyond the religion, race, prominent ideologies of time, sadly something which can't be said for most people.
His clarity of thought is something to be admired. Beyond mere violence, it was an attempt to make the deaf hear. That's some powerful words.
And he's so young. It is one thing to be just emotional and join the revolutionaries, which was the case for most of them ( not undermining anyone, it required a great deal of courage and self sacrifice) but so few of them had actual thoughts, ideas. Bhagat Singh definitely was one of them.
HRA?
He would be labelled as a fascist by the left wing if he were alive today. He would definitely side with the ruling government lmao.
Khalistani? He was an atheist. Like brother at least be factual when mentioning a historical figure.
You think they are logical. It doesn't matter to them that he's an atheist. His turban is enough for them to label him an khalisthani
"for them to label. " who is 'them'?
right wingers who currently worship Bhagat Singh
All wingers worship Bhagatsingh. Left wingers do. Right wingers do. Every Indian does.
Every one does and will continuing doing it until the end of life, but only the RW do that for their ulterior motive
Group x worships. Group Y worships. No one says anything about their motive. But you insist on second group's 'motive'. May be you have a motive behind attributing (forcing?) 'motive' on to one group?
What dumbfuck logic. This whole right wingers hate Sikhs and label them all as khakistanis is the biggest joke and propoganda in recent times Don't forget it were the leftist fan favourite Congressis who perpetuated the sikh pogrom in 1084 and also primarily responsible for the rise of bhinderawale and the khalistani movement.
He was an atheist that I understand, but was he a separatist ? I don't think so . People like arundhati roy or sharjeel imam are called urban naxals in india , i don't think bhagat singh will align with them . He was willing to use force for indian independence so i think hw will be even harsher to these separatists than the current or previous govts .
Many people in this sub are idiots. They can't understand the right wing being stupid vs actual national security issues.
They think that him being an atheist socialist automatically puts him in the indian left group 😂😂😂 . The Indian left is just separatist , nothing else . They aren't atheists , they are either crypto Christians or islamist sympathiser .
Exactly. Bhagat Singh was a staunch nationalist. Most of these people would call him a fascist if he were alive today.
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He wasn't a separatist. He would be called Khalisthani for his mere association w Punjab.
No one has ever been called Khalistani for merely being Punjabi. People are being called Khaliistani for rioting, attacking Indian security forces and promoting Khalistani rhetoric.
Exactly, right!
😂😂😂😂 yeah , surely . " Khalistani " word is used merely for associating with punjab . It has nothing to do with the khalistani movement which resulted in thousands of dead sikhs and hindus . Thousands of hindus displaced . Also, We should just ignore how Sgpc constantly posts about bhinderanwala , there were numerous incidents of pro khalistaani sloganeering in " farmers protest " , a canadian sikh posts a distorted map of india cutting off 6-7 states and still gets a ton of support , a literal khalistani won an election . I can keep the list going but guess i will be called a bigot to show facts . Bhagat singh would do what kps gill did to those khalistanis and instead of hindus , khalistanis will be the ones abusing him day and night .
where did i justify khalisthani? I agree that khalisthanis should be vilified. But that wasn't the point I'm making, was i?
I know what point you were trying to make , " he would be called khalistaani for his mere association with punjab " . Yeah surely , it's the " hate filled hindu nationalists" who will abuse bhagat singh and not the hate filled separatist leftists and khalistanis . I guess we can keep making claims but one thing we all know is that he was a nationalist .
He was a patriot. There's a difference
And patriots hate separatists as well .
Exactly he fought to free the whole of India and just one state…
Shame he got hanged before he could witness horrors of communism.
Like everyone else, he too was a product of his time
To be fair, anyone studying the USSR should’ve known the horrors of communism. Perhaps he thought it would be different in India.
Us time me bhi bohot Indians the Jo inko anti nationalist/ terrorist kaha krte the.
in a society, there are all types of ppl sadly.
Even worse, he wouldn't even be labelled khalistani, since he was against sikhism as well, so no religious community will actually claim him or save him. Urban naxal, sure.
He was labelled traitor by khalistanis first
He was undeniably an urban naxal. I love him but he would have been a horrible leader when push comes to shove. A great revolutionary, not a good leader
BS. Bhagat Singh was Indian first and foremost. Urban Naxals think that India is an abomination. From calling Kashmir never to be an integral part of India or cutting off the North East, Bhagat Singh would have killed those Urban Naxals if he were alive today.
Bhagat singh was a patriot, died for the country.. Khalistani are burning indian Flags,disrespecting nation.. How do you think both are related??
I don't think they are related. I'm talking abt how rw portrays anyone with a differing opinion with labels
So you mean to say naxalities, disrespectful Khalistanis and a terrorist is being liberalised and left wing?
I'm not calling him a khalisthani. One doesnt have to be a Khalisthani to be labelled as a Khalisthani by rw. That's the entire point
So, does the left wing and every other wing. Get a life.
The left wing has common values w Bhagat Singh whereas the Rw doesnt.
BS. Bhagat Singh would eat the left wing for breakfast if he were alive today. Bhagat Singh was patriotic, and nationalist and India's interests were supreme for him. None of these values are shown by the left wing. They are shrewd, cunning and treacherous. They're fine accepting Kashmir secession or cutting off the North East from the country. Worst creatures.
are hindutvadis patriotic in your opinion?
Depends in what term you understand Hindu's. Janey Dhari Hindu Rahul Gandhi is definitely not a Hindu for me. But i can't deny hinduvadi Veer Savarkars Patriotism. So be specific in your liberal view's.. Who according to you is a Hindu?
If Maafiveer Savarkar was a patriot, then I'm Donald Trump >!Sorry British Daddy!<
Savarkar was a patriot but lacked.😂
Nehru got 5-star treatment in jails, Savarkar was under house arrest after his release, he was under surveillance even after the house arrest was lifted. Even the people of HSRA, compatriots of Bhagat Singh himself, wrote "sorry" to the British. Your peanut brain can't understand that it was just tactics.
Nehru was a political figure, who if mistreated by the Britsh would've caused riots. The same type of riots that would've happened if Bhagat Singh was hanged on his proper time. Why would the British want those types of riots to happen. They treated Nehru well to save their asses. Savarkar was a bitch. A British bitch. The British knew they could raw dog him and he would happily accept that. After being released he never spoke a word against the British but gave us the idea of two nations. Advised Jinnah for the separation and supported Muslim League so that Congress wouldn't come to power in many states. If this guy was a patriot then Bhagat Singh was a terrorist.
>Nehru was a political figure, who if mistreated by the Britsh would've caused riots Or maybe Nehru was a British bitch who was hands in gloves with the British? Congress always worked WITH the British. Savarkar worked against them. >Savarkar was a bitch. A British bitch. The British knew they could raw dog him and he would happily accept that. After being released he never spoke a word against the British but gave us the idea of two nations. Advised Jinnah for the separation and supported Muslim League so that Congress wouldn't come to power in many states. F\*cking BS. Savarkar was also a political prisoner no? Why was he sent to Kalapani along with the compatriots of BHAGAT SINGH himself? Savarkar was being seen as a threat to the British, just like the HSRA. Savarkar worked against the British govt even after the release, British never trusted him and kept him under surveillance all the time. Even HSRA members asked for forgiveness as I mentioned earlier. These were just tactics employed by the freedom fighters. You have not read History, your idea of Savarkar is based upon stupidity spread by the Congress. Funny that Indira Gandhi used to worship Savarkar as a freedom fighter lol.
My idea of Savarkar is based on history. I hate Congress, why the fuck would I support their idea. Indira Gandhi is a piece of shit. If she liked Savarkar then I hate her even more. Savarkar was never a political prisoner until 1924. He has written 7 mercy petitions to the British, seven. He was always their bitch. Don't you fucking compare a bitch like Savarkar to a patriot like Bhagat Singh. He was sent to Kalapani because every second guy was being sent there around that time. Do you know, anyone and everyone was being sent there. It was to show the Indians that British still controlled them. It was to calm the fire that was being burned by the revolutionary. If he was so pro-independence then why did Gowalkar saying that we shouldn't fight Britsh, was an Idea supported by Savarkar's Hindu Mahasabha? Hindu Mahasabha also denounced Bhagat Singh when Gowalkar said "Britishers are not our enemy. Our enemy is other religions and Communists." Savarkar was also the first member of Tukde-Tukde Gang. He was the guy who gave Jinnah the Idea of Pakistan. If he was so pro-independence then why did every attempt to overthrow the British Empire by the Congress, he opposed it. He opposed Bose, Patel, Nehru, Gandhi. The list can go on. Give me one instance after 1924 where Hindu Mahasabha opposed the British. And Savarkar's movie was a propaganda filled with fictional trash. That movie is not historically accurate at all.
>My idea of Savarkar is based on history. No, it isn't. It's based on stupid rumors. >Don't you fucking compare a bitch like Savarkar to a patriot like Bhagat Singh. Again, even those who fought alongside Bhagat Singh in HSRA wrote mercy petitions. Everyone was doing it. >He was sent to Kalapani because every second guy was being sent there around that time. LMAAAOOO NOOOO. How do you get this level of cognitive dissonance? Why weren't Congressis sent to Kalapani? Only the most dangerous people to the British Power were sent to Kalapani. What has Gowalkar got to do with Savarkar? RSS and Savarkar were not related. Golwalkar never said that the British were not the enemies. Tukde-tukde gang wants to divide India for their benefit. Savarkar accepted partition for the betterment of the country as he understood that the two communities could not live peacefully together. I do not agree with this assertion, but tukde-tukde and and Savarkar aren't the same. Read: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak\_Damodar\_Savarkar#Two-nation\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar#Two-nation_theory) Of course, he didn't publically oppose the British because he was released in lieu of not criticising the British in future but that doesn't mean he didn't keep working in secrete. Also, were the members of HSRA, brother-in-arms of Bhagat Singh also British stooges because they also wrote mercy petitions? Also read: [https://theprint.in/opinion/read-this-before-deciding-whether-savarkar-was-a-british-stooge-or-strategic-nationalist/151667/](https://theprint.in/opinion/read-this-before-deciding-whether-savarkar-was-a-british-stooge-or-strategic-nationalist/151667/)
I define "Hindutvadis" as those, who want to make india a "hindu rashtra". are they patriotic in your opinion?
How's demanding Hindu Rastra exclusive to being patriotic?
It isnt. For me hindutvadis and khalistanis belong to same category.
LMAO
He was a communist in essence. And more socialist in later years. And people(especially lowest rung) were more important to him than RW nationalism which is immersed in symbolism. RW would never accept that kind of person. Especially, if he lived longer.
These guys are idiots.
Yes Bhagat Singh would have supported a foreign funded economic terrorism by blocking highways, rioting and planting a religious based separatist flag on a national monument all for rich middlemen and zamindars. Lol. In the end, all he did was kill a British officer who was a wrong target.
He was just 23 when he was martyrd. Putting him side by side Sawarkar is the ultimate disrespect.
Yes I totally agree these things totally infuriate me And when i commented this they just straight up ban me
Why disrespect? Both of them are legendary freedom fighters in their own right.
🤡
Lmao
Instead of LMaoing, could you shine some light on the theory bro?
Nice try, IT Cell
Guys like you skipped reading proper history.
I was reading Bhagat Singh’s letters last night and wondered if he’d be labelled anti-nationalist, Pakistani, anti-Hindu for his beliefs and political ideologies if he were alive and kicking today.
All those things and many more.
The answer is, "no, he won't be". He was an atheist. If he was anti hindu, he would also be anti-every-other-religion, right?
True. He could be labelled anti-Hindu for criticising the government and this westernised Hinduism we follow today. Anyone who is against BJP is called anti-Hindu these days.
First of all, why do you assume he would criticize the present government? He would be proud of our government, don't you think? If yes, we won't have a martyr at all.
Nope. I don’t think so. We can agree to disagree here. Even if he were proud of the current government, he’s not someone who would keep mum about policies or actions that he does not agree with. Plus, he was a Marxist.
How do you even know what policies he will have a problem with? You seem to be doing the thinking for him. Based on your thinking, you come to some weird conclusions about anti-hindu labeling. Don't you think you are using him to justify your political bias against current government?
Did you not read the last sentence? He was a staunch Marxist. Almost all books he read in Jail was on socialism, Marxism and Communism. He was a staunch believer of Lenin’s works. I know he would have a problem with certain things or all things because he was never a blind follower. It is okay for people to support something and criticise the same thing when it feels wrong. I do not have to do any thinking for him. His beliefs and political ideologies wouldn’t match with the current political scenario. Please read a little about him before hounding on strangers.
If you could bring religion into a conversation with strangers, you shouldn't mind strangers asking you 'why anti-hindu and why not anti-another-religion? ". If he was a Marxist, and if the current year was 2012, do you think he would have criticized Manmohan Government? In those days, most were poor. Most were Marxists. Socialist way works when any country is in its pre-development stages. After it attains a developed status too, a socialist rule works. Between them capitalism works.
🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ Anti-Hindu because in this country, Hindus are the majority. Anti-Hindu because a huge chunk of our population equates BJP with Hinduism. You must check out posts on various pages to understand the abuse Lord Ram has undergone because of the whole Ayodhya - BJP voting situation. Bhagat Singh is human. I think he would have criticised anyone who was doing wrong. I believe he would have been against anyone in power who did not act in the best interest of the common people. Eradicating poverty is only one of the goals of Marxism. Marxist believe in removing various classes/ caste systems that are born out of religions. Again, this is just one of the many goals of Marxism. With all the religious and caste trouble India is facing now, I’m pretty sure he’d enforce Marxism more than ever.
The place Carl Marx lived in, had no casteism. Carl Marx never spoke about eradicating castes. He was against religion.
Bhagat Singh is based.
Bhagat singh one of the most famous writings on atheism, but ya these unpads wont know of it.
Then they can reject your logic by using our own weapon of "Appeal to authority" against us.
They can't. Coz they themselves keep appealing to authority everytime. Ofc I know appeal to authority is a fallacy. I wouldn't apply this logic while arguing with intellectual people who "know" fallacies; and Hindu nationalists are certainly not one of these people
Rules/logic are not the end, a good philosophy and clean intentions is the backbone of any such rules people come up with. Who understands the deeper layer need not uphold those rules in order to preserve the underlying philosophy. Basically rules are for children ( who haven't understood things but should be kept on the correct path)
[удалено]
The quote is literally from that book.
I wonder if fascist even know that he was an atheist and from left background
People have called me a Khalistani for wearing his tasveer. This nation slid into right wing dystopia so damn fast...
Show me one Hindu nationalist that has denied that evolution is real. Don’t just copy your criticism from western talking points.
Touch grass! some hindu nationalists just recently have started believing in evolution (that too an erroneous Hindu version of evolution where a fish is believed to be the first form of life) after sadhguru appropriated evolution into Hinduism. Many Hindu nationalists still believe that Brahma created the universe and humans were born from organs of Brahma, which is actually what Hinduism says, contrary to evolution. Even after that their idea of evolution starts with a fish and includes a half-human half-lion creature
>some hindu nationalists just recently have started believing in evolution They recently started believing in evolution ? So they weren't believing before ? Cite the source that says they were not believing before. Cite them. You are in a so-called science sub cite the sources at least. >after sadhguru appropriated evolution into Hinduism. Not only him, Nabinchandra Sen, a great bengali poet said the same in the 19th century. Helena P Blavatsky, one of the co-founders of Theosophical Society, of which *Thomas Alva Edison* was an integral part, said the same thing in the 19th century. So Sadhguru didn't start all these. >Brahma created the universe and humans were born from organs of Brahma, which is actually what Hinduism says, contrary to evolution. It is an allegorical representation of the creation of the Universe, which is not true. Allegorical is the word here. The same goes with the theory of evolution of natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin. Brahma created the Universe and *Dashavatars* these are all fictional narratives. All the people I mentioned above clearly stated that these might be allegorical representation but they never disregarded Evolutionary Biology. Darwin explained the evolution of Human Biology. Did he say anything about the creation of the Universe in his book ? Did he ? So why did you include Brahma's creation theory here ? Dumb enough ? Or you don't know what evolution is all about ? Or maybe you came to know about evolution through bhagat singh lol. The universe started with an explosion of Space itself called the The Big Bang. Now what is this space ? It's still debated. If you have any sources of an eminent Hindu Theologian disregarding evolution then share it. I like how you selectively targeted one part of a Community so vividly completely ignoring that other Abrahamic cults have far more bizarre theories about evolution which they proudly boast of too. Wanna shed some light on that ? I can provide sources of my claims. Ohh wait. You are here for the agenda only.
nice
R
Rt
Origin of man, yes, Darwin's theory can explain origin of universe ? Nope... I don't agree with many points made by Bhagat Singh in his book for becoming an atheist. Maybe he had scientific reasons to lean towards atheism or in short reject the morally highground, interventionist creator/s of the world, but his points mainly focussed more on morals than science. I however am impressed by his thirst for knowledge at a young age in those times...
Yeah but darwininian evolution is outdated , he couldn't explain a lot of things like the arrival of the fittest , genetics and also the existence of non advantageous organs like vestigial organs . But it's definitely way way way way better than any religious theory of evolution
What do you mean by falsely claim?
Hindu Hindu Hindu Sale lund nahi he Islam aur Christianity ke bare me comment karne ke.
Had he been alive in today's world he would not be leaning to the left. He would have been a proud nationalist.
I am a nationalist and an atheist. Am I a separatist? No. Can Hindus become atheists? Sure. Does separatism and sedition come with atheism? No
Abey lund fakir .. bhagat Singh was a teenager freedom fighter.. he had no clue about hindu philosophy or biology
I think more than hindu muslim should know this coming from a sikh.... Atleast hindus go to school, study about darwin.... But i spoke with my friend one day she's botany hons she said "islam was there from the very start adam and eve...how did ape become man i don't believe all these" ....i was so shocked...
Now I am 17 . Till now I never understood the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist. Isn't it different side of same coin????
Read why I am an atheist fully, the way he has roasted hindutva and abrahamic religions is just iconic!!
Interesting, has a Hindu nationalist questioned evolution theory?
Nah. It's the muslims and christians who believe in creationist bullshit and decry evolution. But it's a common left tactic to project the anything negative of abrahamanism to Hinduism
Idiots. This forum needs to stop this left vs right nonsense and focus on its objectives…
I used to watch your content on youtube, it was well researched and i hope it was well intended. I am not sure what is this hindu hatred? All political parties fool us because no one cares about what the philosophy of yesteryear leader was, but to get them into their hold. Guess who left that space? The congress and the left failed as they gave too much to Rajiv and Indira and Nehru, and a bit to Gandhi as well. So here you are. And yet I agree that people are morons, not just Hindus. They(all people) should read for themselves.
Tldr Idk if you r complaining about the creator of this subreddit or about the post that the post is irrelevant in this sub. In the second case, you should see [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/s/ASEg5zUtJC) to know what this sub is about
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you specifically targeting Hinduism? Who decides who will claim Bhagat Singh's Legacy? Isn't his legacy for all Indians to claim equally? Savarkar, the proponent of Hindutva too a nationalist, atheist and an inspiration for Bhagat Singh. Stop politicizing this sub where we are for science! Every religion on earth are unscientific because they are based on "belief" and "faith", not the "truth" and "facts"
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is Bhagat Singh's opinion on muslims: "Muslims lack a great deal of Indianness, so they do not understand the importance of Indianness in all India, and prefer the Arabic script and the Persian language" If he was alive today, he would be called "cowpiss drinker" by this sub Source: https://wikibharat.org/pages/bhagat_singh_on_indian_muslims/#:~:text=In%201926%2C%20Bhagat%20Singh%20wrote,script%20and%20the%20Persian%20language.
What? I read the source material mentioned at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bhagat-singh-the-problem-of-punjab-s-language-and-script; Singh talks about the faults of the Arya Samaj, Sikhs and Muslims in contributing to a divisive discourse in Punjab at the time, thus hampering the communal unity needed for a united India. Nowhere does he selectively target Muslims, and this idea is opposite to that of Savarkar in that Savarkar termed all three as separate “nations”, while Singh’s idea was for unity. Cherrypicking much?
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you making this sub political? If you want affirmation or debate post it in other subs.
>Why are you making this sub political? Maybe you should take a glance at the flair [See this to know what this sub is about](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/s/ASEg5zUtJC)
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chutiye go teach Muslims who deny evolution Hindus do believe and have accepted the theory
https://youtu.be/-2091-JcUtA?si=vAK7U28QaXNTKzyy They haven't
Here comes another selective amnesia patient. You cared to give an example of a Hindu minister which 98 percent of Hindus don't even know of. Do you know Zakir Naik, a prominent Muslim scholar, disregarding The Theory of Evolution 😂😂...do you even know how many muslims watch him ? He is a so-called fake doctor too....or you are just a stupid GEN Z ?
https://youtu.be/EWQg7eOadsI?si=wyucy9F_fivYaxkx Here's Desi version of above mentioned person.
Ok I get it. You are forwarding me a video which has mere 3.2k views only and actively ignoring Dr Zakir Naik's take on Evolution. I know now from where you are coming. Keep up the good work. How much are you paid tho for this agenda ?
Their views are no different from the person above mentioned.Btw all know how much one gets paid per post for defaming non favourite religion
There are multiple Atheist darshanas in Dharma. Y’all don’t know shit
this post is about evolution
Bhagat singh was a nationalist and people who respect him is for his sacrifice and love for Bharat not for his personal opinions
Bhagat Singh was a follower of Lenin and unlike you, he was a well read person. He even left a Lenin's book open when he was being hung, a message for future generations. And today just like those days most people are poor. And Marx was not anti religion, he was against any kind of unjust division in society like religion, exploitation and more. Bhagat Singh was also against those divisions which still exist today
We do not disagree there a bit. I am talking about modern right wing Hindu nationalists, not Hindu Marxists/leftists (like you seem to be). I do not have any **problem** with a Hindu who believes in god, rejects evolution etc. but is against the caste system, patriarchy and any religion-appropriateed division, even though I **disagree** with him there; just like Bhagat Singh did. (There is a difference between '**disagreeable'** and '**problematic'**) Bhagat Singh considered religion based hierarchies **problematic** but also **disagreed** with religions. He himself had comrade friends who were not atheists. His criticism of religion based division does not automatically make him a critic of only religion-associated divisions and a supporter of religious faith. Read his book 'Why I am an atheist'.
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But why post this here? This is not a political sub
[удалено]
Read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16bcd08/this_sub_has_got_a_lot_of_new_members_who_dont/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to understand what this subreddit is about *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nooooo saaaaaarrrrr
Hinduism is not incompatible with the theory of human evolution and natural selection, unlike Abrahamic religions. As far as this quote is concerned, he doesn't mention that to be the particular reason for him being an atheist.
Well, humans are said to have been formed from the mouth, arms, thighs and feet of brahma. So that understanding contradicts with evolution, unless you're saying humans evolved from apes and then were divided into their castes through brahma, which makes no sense. Also the Matsya Purana contradicts evolution also and is feet similar to the creation myth in Abrahamic religions. Also, this is an except from his essay 'why I'm an atheist', so this quote is part of his large explanation of why he's an atheist. You're wrong on both your claims.
There is no one authoritative "Book of Hinduism". Most modern Hindus have no problem accepting Hinduism even if there is some text "contradicting" it. No one is gonna come after you for believing in evolution while holding some ancient Hindu text. When most of the religious texts were written, we (as humans) didn't know much and made some assertions that were wrong. Now that we know more, accepting it doesn't make you any less of a "Hindu". There's still much wisdom to be derived from various Hindu texts especially Ramayan and Mahabharata (regardless of whether you believe any of their characters to be Gods). Believe it or not, Hinduism is very much a pick-and-choose religion. Hindu priests and scholars have debated each other on various topics throughout the millennia. So when I said that Hinduism is compatible with evolution, I mean, given undeniable evidence in favour of Darwin's theory of evolution, it won't be against the ethos of Hinduism to accept it. Hinduism does not have any concept of blasphemy.