Hi Lotus :),
You’re very welcome!!
Hey Surya!
Did your gods do all the things I mentioned or not?
And did Ram kill Baali by deceit or not? Do you condemn Ram for it?
How about his treating Sita?
Or was it all symbolic and was mis-interpreted by the Britishers?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;37380]Trika Yogi,
I am not worrying about anything. All I am concerned with is what is true. Satyameva Jayate.
[/QUOTE]
You are lying. You are so restless and worried. You are an anti-thesis of a Yogi. You missed yoga by a 100 miles.
I have no Guru at this moment in time. I intend to change that very soon as I decided to allot at least 2 years of my life in India with a guru. I will soon begin my research on which Gurus to check out in India. I am not going to rush into this major life decision without research.
No surprise you are what you are, without a guru to give you understanding.
[QUOTE=whatsinaname;37393]Hey Surya!
Did your gods do all the things I mentioned or not?
And did Ram kill Baali by deceit or not? Do you condemn Ram for it?
How about his treating Sita?
Or was it all symbolic and was mis-interpreted by the Britishers?[/QUOTE]
I’m pretty sure 95% of the Hindu texts I’ve read were translated by Hindu Sanskrit pandits. Some may have been commented on by westerner, but it’s not like they pulled it out of their arses, they all came from Hindu lineages with qualified gurus/teachers.
Namaste Surya Deva,
You are so wrong here. Most translations of the bible today stem from the 4th century Vulgata by Jerome who was commissioned by Pope Damascus I to do a revised translation from the Vetus Latina. It is widely accepted under christian scholars today that there are many problems with both these translations as the Roman Catholic Church do not allow anybody access to the original greek, aramaic and hebrew texts to verify if translations was and is still correct. The bible translations are becoming more and more controversial and it is today clear that much of the original message of the Bible was lost in translation, changed and there has been gross additions to suit political views of the Popes or even a nation. I have a bible in my possession that actually indicates which parts are original and which were added later and i can tell you 70% of what you think is the truth about Christianity are wrong and were added.
Secondly, as a Liberal Catholic Priest in training myself, I can tell you many of the saints, christian thinkers, scholars and philosophers you quote in this thread and in some of your other threads to proof certain points, are not widely accepted by the christian community as authoritive anymore, many of them have long been rejected.
But thanks anyway for lively discssions on these matters.
Namaste Whatisinaname,
There will be no further correspondence between you and I. You are not here to discuss, you are here to flame and troll.
It is widely accepted under christian scholars today that there are many problems with both these translations as the Roman Catholic Church do not allow anybody access to the original greek, aramaic and hebrew texts to verify if translations was and is still correct.
This is very interesting. Can you share further information on this?
SD,
In terms of the translations, one of the biggest problems was and still is what we call the replacement of words. Here is one of the most well-known examples: the difference in the Old Latin (Verus Latina) and the Vulgata is in the our Father. In the Vetus Latina, [I]quotidianum panem[/I], “daily bread”, becomes [I]supersubstantialem panem[/I], “supersubstantial bread” in the Vulgata. There are many such problems. Now if you are a christian and knows christianity well, you will immediately see the huge problem this creates for many christians.
Another problem came in the form of who copied the various translations of the Bible. Many of the monks, although learned and educated, delegated the tedious task of making copies of the bible to less educated monks, who would make mistakes in the process. We still see this same problem today in the form of who interprets something.
The bible as we know it today was only officially accepted in the 16th centrury during the Council of Trent and it was still controversial as there were many scholars and theologians who were unhappy with the translations and additions. Before that time the bible was not widely read, preached or accepted and other books were also in use. Many churches didn’t even had a bible to read from or to preach from.
As far as i know you cannot gain access to the original texts that comprises the bible today as they are kept in the secret library of the Vatican. One of the main reason cited usually is their vulnerability to touch and handling, but I belief the truth revealed in them will completely destroy the power of the Roman Catholoic Church, therefore the secrecy.
[QUOTE=Trika_yogi;37395]I’m pretty sure 95% of the Hindu texts I’ve read were translated by Hindu Sanskrit pandits. Some may have been commented on by westerner, but it’s not like they pulled it out of their arses, they all came from Hindu lineages with qualified gurus/teachers.[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of Hindu texts have been translated accurately. This is because they are written in classical Sanskrit and classical Sanskrit is well known. If something was translated inaccurately, it would be caught.
The only controversial area is translating Vedic Sanskrit. This is because this is thousands of years older than classical Sanskrit. It is much more complex than classical Sanskrit, many of its words are archaic and not used in classical times, and its grammar is far more complex. There are 10 tenses in the Vedic Sanskrit and only 3 in classical Sanskrit. There is also a change in sounds. Like I said, even Sanskrit scholars find them difficult to translate.
Fortunately, in the Sanskrit grammar tradition ancient books on etymology have survived known as the Nirukta. This book contains a huge list of obscure Vedic roots and their meanings.
The Western scholars did not consult the Nirukta when they translated the Vedas. This is like not consulting a native dictionary when translating the text of another language. Like I said, the way they were translated was by looking at European languages(latin, ancient greek, german etc) based on the belief that the Aryans originated in Europe and invaded India. If x word in Sanskrit was similar to y word in a European language, they translated the Sanskrit x word close to what y word meant. Rather than what Sanskrit dictionaries themselves said it meant. It is easy for any objective person to see it was basically just racism against the native culture.
If I was going to translate a german text I would look at a german dictionary. If I was going to translate a french text I would at a french dictionary. However, does it make any sense of translating a french text by looking at what words they sound like in the german dictionary? 
Anyway 19th century scholarship on India(Indology) is widely considered to be obsolete by modern scholars. Aryan race myths are dead. Aryan invasion theory of India is dead, even modern Western scholars reject it. A lot of racist propoganda was published in early Western academia on India. The author of first translation of the Vedas himself admitted his mission was to destroy the religion by destroying the sacred scripture.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;37403]The only controversial area is translating Vedic Sanskrit. This is because this is thousands of years older than classical Sanskrit. It is much more complex than classical Sanskrit, many of its words are archaic and not used in classical times, and its grammar is far more complex. There are 10 tenses in the Vedic Sanskrit and only 3 in classical Sanskrit. There is also a change in sounds. Like I said, even Sanskrit scholars find them difficult to translate.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the clarification Surya. I pay no mind to the Vedas for i’m not Hindu. I know there are gems within the texts, but I prefer other systems.
The good news is that you don’t need to read the Vedas to understand Vedic philosophy. Just reading the Gita, Yoga Vasistha, Yoga Sutras, Upanishads, Atma Bodha, Brahma Sutras and Samkhyakarika will give you enough grounding in Vedic and Yogic philosophy. Even the Gita on its own gives you the core understanding of the Vedas. The Gita is often referred to as the New Testimant of Hinduism.
Personally, I learned loads by trying to read the Vedas directly. But it was painstreaking translating them, because it required so much analysis.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;37400]Namaste Whatisinaname,
There will be no further correspondence between you and I. You are not here to discuss, you are here to flame and troll.[/QUOTE]
I have said nothing personal here. You have disrespected every religion many times. Was is not you who said Jesus was arrogant?
Then why are you hurt when I point out things against Rama and Krishna?
I stick to my stand:
Lord Rama was not right when he banished his own wife to jungle for flimsy reason.
Lord Rama was not right when he killed Bali with deciet.
Lord Rama is worshipped by millions of Hindus all over the world!
And yet you say Hinduism is the greatest religion on earth and that every other religion inferior before it.
How can you say that?
What you have said until now is also flaming and trolling. Many people again and again have pointed this out.
I say again: Hinduism is nothing but a system of exploitation of lower classes at the hands of Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Vedas have been used for this very purpose for thousands of years. Whole of India knows this. I am just making people of other parts of the world aware over here.
have said nothing personal here. You have disrespected every religion many times. Was is not you who said Jesus was arrogant?
Yes, it was I who said Jesus sounds arrogant. If I told you I was the only way, the only truth and told you to get rid of everything you have and everyone you know, including your parents, and follow me you would say similar things to me.
Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum. If you engage in anymore personal attacks I will, as I said earlier, end all correspodence with you. I do not mind what critisms you bring up against Hinduism. You can be as aggressive as you want with them. I hold no bars when I criticise other religions, so why should you? I will concede where your point is valid and refute you where yours points are invalid.
Lord Rama: Lord Rama is just a human being in my opinion. I even believe Krishna was a human being. The tradition of deifying them as avatars is a later tradition within the Puranic period of Hinduism. They were, however, very evolved souls, with god-consciousness. The reason Sita was banished by Lord Rama was because the people of his kingdom had started to spread rumours about Sita’s purity because of her living for so long in captivity by Ravana. Lord Rama knew that Sita was pure and she already proven her purity through the agnipariksha, but the people of his kingdom were not so forgiving and they had turned it into an issue. Lord Rama then had to set aside his personal interests and faith in Sita and do his duty as the king(If you are familiar with Hinduism, you will know duty plays a large part in Hindu life) In order to maintain harmony in the kingdom the necessary evil of banishing Sita was required, so Lord Rama banished her. Valmiki(author of Ramayana) is quite sympathetic to the injustice against Sita and so are most Hindus, but they see it not as the fault of Lord Rama, but the fault of a narrow minded public and a king having to self-sacrifice to keep his people happy.
Lord Rama is considered to be Maryada Purushotam in that he is the ideal man. He is heoric, selfless, honest and respectful. He contrasts agaisnt Krishna, who is diplomatic, cunning, rational. Most Hindus consider Rama to be the ideal man. Sita is the ideal woman because she matches Rama’s purity in that she is selfless, honest, chaste, respectful, but in some respects she is even more purer than Rama.
There are of course varying interpretations of Sita by feminists. Some consider her to be an oppressed woman, while others consider her to be a very powerful woman.
You also mentioned Draupadi earlier on, who is also polarizes opinion of feminists. Some consider her to be just an object in the Mahabharata stating that she was shared by the 5 brothers, but others consider her to be another very powerful woman. She was born of fire, she was very bold and feisty. She was one of the biggest causes for the Mahabharata war because her humilation in the dice-game. The Mahabharata even says that when women of a society are disrespected then that society is on route to self-destruction. The Pandavas greatly loved and respected Drupadi, and they were very critical of Yudhishtra(as was Drupadi) for putting her up for stake in the game. This episode simply illustrated a strong moral lesson on how gambling can even stupify the minds of even righteous people like Yudishtra. However, Yudhishtra only put her up for the stake in the game, after first putting his kingdom, brothers, himself up for stake. Again many Hindus see what Yudhishtra did as bad. Even Krishna said it was bad.
The reason why Drupadi was shared amongst the five brothers was because in that time polygamy amongst the royal was common so it was not considered morally wrong at the time. There is nothing inherently morally wrong about polygamy anyway. The other reason was Krishna explains that Drupadi in her past life had done intense meditation and wanted the boon of having a man who was a perfect archer, great king, strong, handsome and agile. Krishna explained to her that it not possible to have all these qualities in one man, so she got what she wanted in the form of 5men, one who was a perfect archer, another who was a great king etc.
The Mahabharata, even the Gita are suppose to be very morally complex because they reflect real life where morality is never black and white. Hindus look at it as the fifth veda because it teaches through real historical events how to live according to dharma and how living according to dharma requires not abiding by a set of moral rules, but requires general principles of living, reason, intuition and performing the right action at the right time. In Hinduism there are no moral commandments. There are just general principles one should live by in order to be in harmony with the cosmos.
Note when Shishipal insults Krishna in the assembly, Krishna gives him 100 chances, before he slays him. In the entire Mahabharata you will know yourself how many times the Pandavas are subjected to injustice after injustice(the attempted assassination of Bhima, the lac palace and the assassination attempt, the allocation of the barren land of Indraprasth, the humilation at the dice game, the exile etc etc) They take one blow after the other and only in the end does the straw break the camels back.
You should read the Mahabharata objectively, as many have read it, Hindu and non Hindu alike and they find a lot of wisdom and virtue in it. In fact what makes the Mahabharata so compelling is just how complex the morality is. There is not a single character in the whole story who does not shades of grey, even Krishna.
I say again: Hinduism is nothing but a system of exploitation of lower classes at the hands of Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Vedas have been used for this very purpose for thousands of years. Whole of India knows this. I am just making people of other parts of the world aware over here.
You see this is a rather unfortunate view you hold of Hinduism and its just as one dimensional as your assessment of Lord Rama. There is no denying that in different times in India history there has been exploitation of the lower classes, but tell me which society in the world has not had such exploitation? You are living in a global society today which is based on an economic system which exploits lower classes. It is called capitalism. Society is a constantly evolving and devolving phenomenon because of causes like wars, corruption, internal conflict. Indian society has been no different.
To get an accurate historical view of what it was like to live in Hindu India you should read the Arthshastra which was the social policy of the time. You definitely find the caste system there but in a very different form. Brahmanas get more severe penalities than any other caste. A man gets more severe penalities than a woman. In the Mahabharata, when Yudishtra and Duryodhana are vying for the throne. A test of their ability to rule is administered. Before them 4 criminals are brought who have been complicit in murdering a man. There is a Shudra, Vaisya, Kshatriya and Brahmin. First Duryodhana is asked what sentence they should be given. He shouts, “Absolutely the death punishment for all of them, the punishment for each crime is the same for everybody” The audience cheers. Then Yudhishtra is asked what sentence they should be given. He reasons, "The Shudra is a man of low education, and thus his punishment should be the least severe. The Vaishya is a man of education, thus his punishment should be twice that of the Shudra. The Kshatriya is man of education and duty, his punishment should be thrice that of the Shudra. And the Brahman is the role model of society, his punishment should be the most severe. The Shudra, Vaishya and Kshatriya got imprisonment and the Brahmin got the death penalty.
Now this does not at all sound like a system of exploitation of the lower classes by the higher classes. In fact the Brahmin was the poorest of the castes, because his/her duty was to impart Vedic education, so they had no need for wealth. In fact the Brahmin subsisted on charity given by others and some even went around begged for food. The standard of character of a Brahmin was considered noble and they were expected to live up to a very high moral standard. If they transgressed, they would lose their caste and face punishment.
So how can you reconcile this with the dharmashastra/Manusmriti and the the oppression of the Dalits by the Hindu Brahmins in modern India? The answer is Manushastra was a relatively lesser known text in Hindu scriptures prior to the British finding this manuscript and translating it and stating it was the Hindu law book. In fact it was later discovered there are several dharmashastras and each one said something different. There is no evidence found by scholars that Manusmriti was authorative in Hinduism. The text itself is not a law book, but is a statements of “shoulds” written by an unknown author. There has been no evidence by historians of any of the suggestions in the Manusmriti being practiced in Indian history to a major extent anywhere. On the contrary Hindu society was based on the Arthashatra and it was enforced by the state.
So where do the Dalits come from then? The Dalits were actually originally members of the Shudra and Vaishya castes. They were physicians, blacksmiths, traders, artisans etc. However, when the British introduced their taxation system and outlawed all traditional systems of knowledge in India, they all lost their jobs and were forced in order to survive to resort to very menial labour. In fact the conditions were dire with tens of millions of Indians dying of famine within decades. Over generations this previously prosperous caste became the most downtrodden in Indian society. The new Brahman generations who were themselves exploited by the supercaste of the British, exploited the Dalits and justified it with the Manusmriti.
You can review the evidence youself prior to the British coming to India there was none of this caste untouchability problem as endemic as it was afterwards. British officials at the time report that every village in India had several schools and the schools had a mix of different caste students and different caste teachers. Some teachers were Shudras.
So you are really channeling your indignation in the wrong direction. Your beef should be with the British, not with your own people, the Hindus.
Just a brief word on what you said earlier about Aryans invading India and oppressing the indigenous people with their caste system and allegedly the Rig Veda describes this.
To date there is not a single shred of evidence that this invasion ever took place. In fact, on the contary, archeological evidence has found no invasion ever did take place. There has been found to be an unbroken continuity of tradition from Indus times to modern India. The Indus sites already have Vedic features.
Try to use your own logic. In 1500BCE the barbarian Aryan people come riding on their horses with swords and obliterate the Indian people and destroy their cities. They are savages who perform animal and human sacrifices to worship their massive pantheon of nature gods(sun, moon, wind etc) and they impose a terrible caste system that oppresses the indigenous people and they live by cattle-breeding, horse breeding and growing food.
Why is such a massive event and genocide in history not recorded anywhere in the Vedic literature? I mean come on these great white warlords travelling thousands of miles from the Caucasian mountains to lay seige to huge cities have not said anything about it. Funny even the archeological evidence has not found any record of it
Why on the contary would their literature record a continuous and unbroken timeline of history going back 10,000 years in India? They mention the exact geneologies of kings, the durtation of their reign. Simiar records are found by early Greek Historians on India. There is not even a whisper of Aryan/Dravdians 
How on earth does such a savage and barbarian people who invade in 1500BCE or 1200BCE by 1000BCE have democracies, and be writing treatises on medicine, astronomy, mathematics, grammar, yoga, philosophy all of which show very high level of development.
If the Vedic people came from Europe than why don’t we find Vedas in Europe? Where are the Lithuanian Vedas? The German Vedas? The Greek Vedas? Why is it that the only people who have Vedic like scriptures are Persians who live right next door to India?
What I don’t understand despite being Indian you would would prefer to believe in a racist theory but forward by racist 19th century scholars with no evidence to back it up. Do you also believe in their theories that black people have low IQ’s? It is very obvious to any sensible person that Aryan invasion is a racist myth. The only people who believe in it today, as I said are separatists in India or neo-nazis.
What a web of delusion! The sad part is that people like blame Britishers for their own shortcomings. Britishers did invade India and they did rule for two centuries and they did exploit us. But So did other muslim rulers for one thousand years. Britishers never had a chance to change the very grass-root nature of village people in India. It never happened.
India changed tremendously during the British rule but the top layers of administration, polity. The social evils of Hindus like sati, child marriage, caste system, oppression of women, condemning widows to a life of wretchedness all this was already there. In fact Britishers brought in several social reforms. They banned Sati, made it a legal offence.
None of the great Hindus ever made a law against it. Britishers did. A fact is a fact.
It is a well known fact that Raja Ram Mohan Roy, one of the pioneers of social reform in India was thoroughly in favour of western education and social ideals.
Let me just quote from wikipedia what Sri Ambedkar had to face in life.
Although able to attend school, Ambedkar and other untouchable children were segregated and given no attention or assistance by the teachers. They were not allowed to sit inside the class. Even if they needed to drink water somebody from a higher caste would have to pour that water from a height as they were not allowed to touch either the water or the vessel that contained it. This task was usually performed for the young Ambedkar by the school peon, and if the peon was not available then he had to go without water, Ambedkar states this situation as “No peon, No Water”.
This is the kind of inhuman treatment which Millions of ‘low castes’ suffered for thousands of years. And you are soooo lying when you say before Britishers came
the schools had a mix of different caste students and different caste teachers. Some teachers were Shudras.’
I am so deeply insulted when people like you now come forward and give tall speeches of how great Hinduism is. If it was this great it would have not done what they did.
Hindus followed caste system down to the last word! They did that. And it was done long before the britishers came on the scene.
In fact there are evidences that caste system was prevalent in many earlier periods like Gupta dynasty.
The brahmins should hang their heads in shame over what they did to the dalits.
Valmiki(author of Ramayana) is quite sympathetic to the injustice against Sita and so are most Hindus, but they see it not as the fault of Lord Rama, but the fault of a narrow minded public and a king having to self-sacrifice to keep his people happy.
Self Sacrifice? He sacrificed not himself but another human being. Where is all the rationality now?
Doing injustice just to keep the gossip down! Condemning a woman to years and years of jungle life! Is that the kind of rationality and a scientific attitude which Hinduism promotes? Can such a person be considered as an Ideal man? If not then how is hinduism superior over other religions? Say one thing and practice another? How is that right?
Do not try to fool westerners into thinking that ‘Oh things were not that bad!’ because they were not just bad they were the worst possible.
Britishers did not create the problem. Problem was there since thousands of years and Brahmins and Kshatriyas, the ones who read and listened to Vedas, they sinned against a large part of humanity for thousands of years!
Whatismyname,
You seem to have very fundamentalist and angry views over what has happened to the Dalits, which you blame Hinduism for. However, you appear to have swallowed a lot of modern propoganda spread by British colonialists hook, line and sinker.
Like I said you seem to prefer to want to believe in what early 19th century racists have to say about the natives, than what the natives have to say. I have never met a black person who has said that British slavery was good for them or a Jew that said the Nazis did good for them. You my friend, appear to be suffering from an inferiority complex. Perhaps because you want to feel like you are a victim of oppression? I think your anger is misplaced though.
If you read up on the history of India even by esteemed Western scholars you will find that what the British did to India was dasdardly. It was not just exploition, it was plunder, pillaging and letting the natives starve to death. It is easy for anybody interested in real history to see the deadly famines that hit India under British rule. It makes the holocausts look somewhat small.
Here is what some great respected scholars and intellectuals have to say about what the reality of British rule in India was like:
Sir V S Naipaul (1932 - ) Nobel laureate, He is the author of several books including Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, and India: A Wounded Civilization says:
“India has been a wounded civilization because of Islamic violence: Pakistanis know this; indeed they revel in it. It is only Indian Nehruvians like Romila Thapar who pretend that Islamic rule was benevolent. We should face facts: Islamic rule in India was at least as catastrophic as the later Christian rule. The Christians created massive poverty in what was a most prosperous country; the Muslims created a terrorized civilization out of what was the most creative culture that ever existed.”
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) poet, author, philosopher, Nobel prize laureate. Tagore was deeply critical of the British Raj in India.
“The chronic want of food and water, the lack of sanitation and medical help, the neglect of means of communication, the poverty of educational provision, the all pervading spirit of depression that I have myself seen to prevail after over a hundred years of British rule make me despair of its beneficence.”
“Rudely shaken out of my dream I began to realize that perhaps in no other modern state was there such hopeless dearth of the most elementary needs of existence. And all the time before our eyes Japan has been transforming herself into a mighty and prosperous nation. I have also been privileged to witness the unsparing energy with which Russia has succeeded in steadily liquidating ignorance and poverty wiping off the humiliation from the face of a vast continent. I cannot help contrasting two systems of governance: one based on cooperation and the other on exploitation. Thus, while these other countries were marching ahead, India smothered under the dead weight of British administration lay static in her utter helplessness”.
(source: A Hundred Years of Rule, The Manchester Guardian, Friday 2 October 1936 and Crisis of Civilization’ - By Rabindranath Tagore).
Dharampal (1922 - 2006) a Gandhian and author of several books including The Beautiful Tree and Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth century.
He wrote extensively of the damage the British Raj inflicted on India and Indians:
"The conquered in their view, had ultimately to disappear, if not wholly physically, at least as a culture and civilization. In Australia, and New Zealand practically all the local inhabitants were wiped out soon enough; in North America near complete elimination happened, over 300-400 years, and in Ireland only partially. The indigenous population of the Americas had been estimated at 112 to 140 millions in 1492.
In India a large number perished by British brutality and deliberate creation of famines, violation of persons bodies and dignity; in Palnad in Andhra, half of the population was said to be have perished every ten years, during several decades after the subjugation of the areas by Britain. It seems as if the intellectuals and leaders of Britain hated India, and felt outraged that in spite of all their brutalities, smashing of Indian institutions, high extortions, and tortures, men made famines and expropriation of Indian resources to the British state, and thus the all round breakdown of Indian society, the Indians on the whole, could not be wiped out that easily. "
(source: Despoliation and Defaming of India – By Dharampal published by Bharat Peetham, Wardha Other India Press, Goa p. 1 - 17).
Noam Chomsky (1928 - ) is an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of several books including Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (American Empire Project).
His book, Year 501: The Conquest Continues is a devastating and scathing critique and indictment of Western capitalism. It is the essential book for understanding the reasoning and motives behind the annihilation of the indigenous population of the world and the countries that were enriched by it.
He has observed that:
'Places like India and Bengal ( Bangladesh ) which were highly advanced industrial societies by the mid-1700’s but all of the industries which were superior to their counterparts in Britain were deliberately undermined or simply forced out of existence by the British colonisers. India and Bangladesh became extremely poor, feudal agricultural countries supplying Britain with raw materials and as a captive market for British goods."
Karl Marx (1818-1883), German social philosopher, the chief theorist of modern Communism, and author of Das Kapital, was not a sympathizer of imperialism or capitalism.
In The British Rule in India he wrote:
“There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindustan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindustan had to suffer before. They destroyed it ( India ) by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by leveling all that was great and elevated in the native society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything beyond that destruction.”
“Did they not, in India , to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity?
While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company’s own funds? The devastating effects of English industry, when contemplated with regard to India , a country as vast as Europe , and containing 150 millions of acres, are palpable and confounding.”
Much of the wealth that made possible Britain’s Industrial Revolution was earned, fairly or unfairly, within her Indian empire. In seventeenth century India had been far wealthier than England, the relative positions were sharply reversed by the end of the nineteenth century. Then, too, the British policy of free trade tended to prevent the development within India of the mechanized industries then coming into being in the West. Densely populated, with no new land to exploit and with a centuries-long history of invasions, India faced severe economic handicaps at independence. Ironically, India was seen by Western travelers in classical times and in the Middle Ages as a land of fabulous wealth.
(source: India: A World in Transition - By Beatrice Pitney Lamb p. 71 & 358).
I can produce literally hundreds upon hundreds of sources like these to show you just how evil the British were to India. How they destroyed all its industries, looted it and pillaged it continuously for hundreds of years, ridiculed its native culture and spread malicious propoganda against it to divide it, to defame it, to cause massive religious/ethnic/caste divisions.
They are the source of your angst not the native culture.