1) THE PROBLEM
The problem can be defined broadly as follows. There is a set of feelings expressed, or accusations made by Hindus that have no direct proof. And in the absence of direct proof the people who make such accusations are labelled extremist sympathisers because there is "direct proof" that Hindus are killing minorities.
One of the "accusations" that I hear being made by Hindus (which I agree with, that is why the topic interests me) is that there is subtle discrimination against Hindus. Why the furk should Hindus feel discriminated against? Where is the proof? Apart from mad Pakis and some assorted mulah, what evidence can be offered to support this contention? On the other hand, Hindus are clearly murderers who kiil wantonly as exemplified by Godhra, Kandhamal etc.
The other accusation (which I also agree with) is almost a Hindu whine that Hindus are "deracinated" and they end up being anti-Hindu. The latest avatar of this accusation comes from a post by CRamS in the India US thread in the shameless uncovered forum
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 25#p860325
I recently came across a question about unregistering" from "Hinduism" on a mailing list which led to what i thought was an interesting discussion although I pissed some people off. I like to think it was cognitive dissonance that sparked takleef when I showed the truth in the mirror.I have nothing against Buddhism, but pretty soon it might be passe to diss Hinduism and embrace Buddhism. Marraige or dating ads from elite Indians might read: "Born Hindu, but spiritually Buddhist" or some other characterization to dis-own their Hindu identity.
But I digress. Don't you think that if a person wants to leave and disassociate himself form "Hinduism" he can convert, change his name and associate himself with one of the other existing religions. No. But they rarely do that. The people who are critical of "Hinduism" like to sit inside Hinduism and criticize, or agree with all critics in an as lickingly servile manner? They do not have the courage to put their money where their mouth is and leave forever. And they do not have any pride in what they have.
2) POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
It is my belief that in order to understand why people behave in the manner described above, you need to clear the slate and re-explore why we call ourselves Hindu and how we view ourselves and how others may view us. And we need to go back a few thousand years.
Once again, I would like to remind all "Hindus" that the name Hindu was first applied on Indian people by someone else. I seem to recall that it was Alexander's record keepers who spoke of Indians as the people east of the Sindhu (Indus). That name was adopted and extended by Arabs and it became normal to refer to the people of India as Hindus. If you were an outsider who travelled through India at that time (and it is still true now) you would be bewildered by the vast array of ethnic groups and practices and would be hard put to give a single name or explanation for the variety.
3) RISE OF "THE RELIGIONS"
About 2000 years ago Christianity was invented, and was taken up as the official religion of the Roman empire. That version of Christianity had a very simple way of classifying people. "us" and "them". If you were Christian, you were "us" and you were a "soldier of Christ". If you were not Christian you were them. Initially Christianity was an urban religion, with a smaller following in the rural areas. The word "pagan" became associated with "them", villagers or "non Christians". The term was later extended as a pejorative term to classify anyone who was not Christian. Christianity itself was imposed by force on all of Europe, converting the pagans of Europe.
Just 700 years later Islam arose. It took a leaf from Roman Christianity, but a new God and a new Prophet were invented. This time this was declared as the final truth. It was spread by the sword, and some very capable armies, united by the religion which took "us versus them" to new extremes. If Christianity had claimed that pagans should be converted and "saved", islam was used to claim that those who would not be "saved" by submission to Islam should be killed.
The early centuries of Christianty were spend in converting pagans, creating vast swathes of Christian lands from the Roman empire. The early centuries of islam were spent in defeating and killing the local Jews and pagans (kafirs) of Arabia and a later expansion into Christian (Europe) lands and Kafir (Persia) lands.
All through the centuries when Christianity and Islam arose and expanded the Indian civilization existed and carried on as usual. Everything was set to change when the two expansionist religions came into contact with the people of India. You need to remember that representatives of both Christianity and Islam came to India at various times in the early centuries, some in the form of proselytizers and others as looters.
All these people who came to India knew of the people there as "Hindus", but once the two religions arose it was clear that all these Hindus were pagans (or kafirs). By definition, pagans are wrong. Their beliefs are wrong. Their practices are wrong. They need to be saved, converted, subjugated or destroyed depending on which page of the Christian or Islamic holy book you are reading.
4) AN ALTERNATE VIEW OF "HINDUS"
It is important to note that while Hindus were quote happy to be called "Hindu" - nothing wrong in a name, what most Hindus do not realise is that they are basicly pagans. They have pagan beliefs and pagan practices, with multiple gods, worship of images and statues, worship of the elements and nature, even animals. God (in his schizophrenic avatar as both Jehovah and Allah) has clearly stated that all these practices are wrong and the practitioners are also wrong and need to be changed. It says so in the holy books which are the last word on the matter.
So what a Hindu thinks about himself and his faith is only half the story. How he is viewed by others is an important half that is missed as long as the Hindu calls himself "Hindu" and imagines that he belongs to a religious group called "Hindus" who are on par with Christians or Muslims. That is balderdash. Hindus by definition are pagans. If a person is a self declared and devout follower of Christianity or islam then the Hindu is not on par. He is inferior. God does not accept him as long as he retains his false beliefs. It is another matter that the Hindu may accept Christian or islamic gods. That gives him no points. The Hindu pagan imagines that he earns extra points by accepting other gods as his own. But that is silly. It is natural for anyone to accept Jehovah (or Allah). But it is still wrong to accept other gods, practise idolatry and worship of images and beings other than Jehovah/Allah. You still remain a pagan despite all your false claims of being tolerant. "Accepting" the other god is not enough by half. You have to reject everything else. There is a positive and a negative here.
Staring from this you can see why there may be a subtle bias against Hindus. Let's face it. More than half the world gets a Christian or Islamic education. How many of you grew up like me reading about children in the West attending "Sunday school"? Do you think those kids were being taught about matsyavatar and vamanavatar in those Sunday schools? If any child is taught about Christianity and Islam and is compelled to follow those faiths, he will automatically be taught what a pagan is. h may not explicitly be told that Hindus are pagans. But he will certainly know a pagan when he sees one and will realise that Hindus are the very pagans whom he was taught about.
While no holy book has any specific reference to "Hindus" the same holy books are very clear that pagans are wrong. And if Hindus are pagan, guess who's wrong? According to God, at least.
5) INDIAN SECULARISM IN A MONOTHEISTIC WORLD
I will end my post by merely cross posting a reply that I made on a mailing list in response to a question:
I have a few things to add. Will do so in a later post. This has been too long and I still haven't got to an explanation of the "problem" as defined above.Imagine a common or garden pagan who is otherwise called Hindu who is going
about his sorry life in India. He discovers that his pagan beliefs and
practices are all described as being wrong according to the holy books of
some people. He then meets a missionary who explicitly tells him that his
beliefs are wrong and that he needs to change all that to be saved.
If the missionary is physically stopped from doing his proselytisation it
becomes a case of "minority discrimination" and lack of religious freedom.
The missionary after all is only doing what is religion tells him to do in a
country where there is religious freedom.
While it is legal for some religious books to be critical of pagan practices
and preachers to sell the idea that pagan practices, (which are Hindu
practices) are undesirable, there is no law that protects a pagan in India
from the advances of a proselytizer. Any pagan/Hindu who who resists a
persistent and painful pusher of religion gets dubbed a minority basher.
This is clearly a political problem in India. On the ground it is often solved
by violence. If the pagan gets sufficiently angry with the proselytizer who
is dissing the pagan's beliefs he may thrash him, or worse, kill him. That of
course becomes violent Hindutva.
But the fact of birth as a pagan in India puts the pagan at risk of being told
that his beliefs are bullshit and no law can protect him against "freedom of
religion" being used against paganism. Someone else's religious rights trump
the pagan's right to be a pagan without interference. This in fact is what
the BJP and other Hindu organizations have been pointing out. They have
widespread support despite the efforts to make them out to be murderers
because one has to be a pagan first to see what it feels like to have half
the world technically following faiths whose books explicitly say that you,
as a pagan, are to be discriminated against, destroyed, changed or saved. And
the people who want to save you or destroy you are funded by religious
charities abroad, and those people hide behind the "religious
discrimination"/minority discrimination" excuse at the slightest provocation.
That is one of the connections between religion and politics in India - in
case anyone had not figured it out. Ideally it must be settled without
killing. but since killing is easy it's not going to happen that way.