Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?

[Vayutuvan]

Shiv:

I skimmed your two posts. More later. But allow me to agin be a little provocative regarding rAmAyaNa. In telugu the story can be told in three words.

kaTTe == built (vArathi or popularly known as rAma sEthu now a days)
koTTe == struck (punished or killed rAvaNA)
techche == brought back (seetha dEvi)

Nothing can be simpler, right? Nothing to prove or refute, no verification necessary. A person committed a crime against society (in this case abducted the queen - casus belli), aggrieved party (rAma) punished the perpetrator using state machinery/army.

Now if I claim the following i would be laughed out of every thinking circle.

That during rAmA's time telugu people knew graphics:

00 - nothing, quiescent state, every body is happy with ime t_0
01 - nothing got bridged, the overwritten second zero signifies the bridge
10 - rAma signified by 1 beat zerrow (rAvaNA is the zerrow nobody)
11 - rAma and seetha (1 and 1) are reunited

Needless to say but speaking for myself I like the parsimony of the three word rAmAyaNa as opposed to the cunningly contrived binary symbolism. Of cities, Hindu philosophers/mathematicians/AchAryAs invented zero a necessary condition for any number system. They even had binary system and coding theory - rudimentary yes but yet quite sophisticated even for today (I will post a reference shortly).

But claiming far more than what can be gleaned from the itihAsa shorn of all exaggeration is a real problem. There is no denying that thpe west did not give credit to India generally and Hindu particularly for inventing the decimal number system. After we shouted it's elves hoarse for centuries finally HW they started - only started - to say Hindu-Arabic numerals.
----------------
ravi_g ji, That partial credit to Arabians is still a problem. But the solution is not to claim Hindus invented under the sky. It would be dismissed as "unscientific". Even the most staunch Hindu supporters, including supporters of political sanAtana dharma, will be hard put to throw their weight behind such a claim. by the way this has nothing to do with recent plastic surgery comment by PM Modi ji. He was pointing to a possibility that was well within reach of any skilled surgeon - does not require understanding of abstract mathematics and extremely sophisticated physics which is required for nuclear weapons or space travel. Forget teleportation - it is not possible now and it is not possible in the forever future as well, imho.

By the way Even muppALa ranganAyakamma's rAmAyaNa visha vruksham follows the same major story arc. adharma needs to be punished. But she stupidly tries to pull wool over readers' eyes by bringing in all kinds of contemporary caste/Dalit politics into picture and loses the intelligent/analytic reader. Same thing can be said about this other person Doniger.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji, when you bring out so many english words and simultaneously suggest that the meaning of these are sacroscant then one just has to look around to find if that is true. English is a prakrit without any kind of Sanskrit like life support available to it. English is like a label or a sticker on the refrigerator and the kid can instead of calling it a refrigerator, can using english, call it 'that thing with sticker on it'. And this kind of knowledge has its implications because the sticker can be moved. Eventually people lose respect for such a body of knowledge. Not our problem. Contrast that with the 'natural name' definitions that you had yourself expounded on at one point. The one that is based on natural properties observed. This kind of language will refresh itself even if it is not used by people (insiders or outsiders). Yes to personally benefit from the process of continuous refreshment we have to align ourselves with such a near eternal language and maintain it as a living history.

By bringing in the example of supernatural-superstition you are merely reiterating their claim. Since we are suffering those claims from last few centuries from all sects/types of islam/christianity/britishers/westerners, we could not have missed it. That allegation against itihaas, has not changed and will not change whether we find dates in itihaas or not. There claim is their business and we have no handle on it. Our freedom is important as a differentiating factor. Which is what some people are trying to exercise when they treat itihaas as something more than only morality kathas. Itihaas like dharma will appear many things to many people. That should not stop us from doing what we understand as right.

You are right english is used to keep us in the dark despite english being the near useless language by the simple method of using it in other fields designed to dominate us. Suggestions have been made, often by Hindutva vaadis, to treat english the way it deserves to be treated ie. as an incomplete language and to learn and develop our own systems instead ie. sanskrit.

Dharma is stated to be based on Satya IOW Devi is the face of Mahadev. You simply cannot ignore one and claim only the other. The particular is part and parcel of the universal and not divorced or contradictory to the universal. Now to claim all of the universal has already been found and fixed is too absolute a position. Hari Anant Hari Katha Ananta is how we should approach our itihaas and dates/places/relationships, should not be treated as contradictory to the general flow of kathas therein.

The above is the same as finding the solution to the problem put forth by A_Gupta ji when he says "Well, what will happen with History is - the Siva/Sati/Daksha took place in the Satya Yuga; so the next question would be - are any of the 51 shakti-peetams mentioned in the Treta Yuga Ramayana, or the Dwapara Yuga Mahabharata? Certainly the 51 shakti-peetams are attested to at present in the Kali Yuga. And so on."

There is a very natural explanation for it. Not everything of all times needs to be recorded (whether in oral Indian traditions or written Indian traditions). Time forces evolution, maintenance and devolution of ideas/gathas, too which is the natural order for us Indians. Similarly people are asking for a new evolution in the form of a logic based dating exercise etc. which is of significance to the kind of mind that is adept at scepticism. Its not like sceptics are doomed to remain outside the fold of shradha. Dating even today is not important devoid of its context. The context being (1) creating difficulties for the authorizers and thekedaars residing in the west; and (2) to find out what our ancestors left their progeny; and (3) allow the sceptical hindu, time to develop his own methods which is how the hindu traditions came into being in the first place. The rigour of arriving at the dates still remains important as just a new form of meditation. Now that you have brought our attention to a large body of people within the fold of hinduism that are sceptical (either due to rightful use of rationale or wrong use of cargo cult), would it be wrong to cater to the intellectual needs of at least the rational set. At some point these rational people too have to take the leap into the unknown instead of holding on to the safety of the explainable. And to cast such a responsibility on them would be fair only if they are allowed to do that of their own accord at their pace having quenched/managed/rationalized, their personal desires. Their efforts instead evolve a new path which will work in the same manner as the 'natural names language' that you had pointed out earlier. I am not tied down by my itihaas. I am set free by my itihaas and I see nothing wrong with getting the same freedom for the sceptical logic driven hindus.

Re. real provable history:
If the statement - "People who search for "real, provable" (LOL wtf is that?), written history in itihaasa have Protestant Christian minds" carries a fear that the process of dating is being accepted by Hindutva vaadis as being real and provable. We only have to approach the Hindutva vaadis and those who are attempting such a dating to figure out the truth. There is one person who has attempted dating on the forum and he has instead made a very different sort of claim. To my understanding his claim is that if x and y are true and z is closed function of x and y then something has to be accepted about z. That author in fact has told us that his attempt is the best considering the circumstances. He has stated his circumstances. He has also invited anybody who cares, to shift the circumstances around by finding new references. Now again how Hindutva vaadis accept it is for them to individually respond on. I personally accept his methods.

Re. need to avoid foreign languages:
It appears to me that our stands are very close to each other and yet so far. Apparently we are so close that when you claim - "Faulty translations being applied and silly rationalizations to explain why faulty translations should be accepted and perpetuated forever", I cannot say no. Faulty translations have been applied and propagaged of Indian texts. Earlier you had given examples of Griffith's translations and I do not contest. I tend to read Gita in the Gita press, Gorakhpur, Hindi version and while that suffices for my limited self, I am amazed at the christianized versions found emanating from a specific school of worship that has a lot of followers. In such a scenario preserving the original version becomes important and that can only be done when we learn Sanskrit on our own. Actually even with sanskrit there is a project already on to document it and have an authorised version of it ready to beat down the locals with while the locals are simultaneously treated to an english education ostensibly for economic reasons. Somebody had mentioned the irrational set of people who turned Israel into a Hebrew speaking people and if you think that Hindutva vaadis are irrational then from my POV, you only make it fuller of new possibilities. There is no way out then to learn and develop our own methods. In the case of Hebrew the language was actually already dead before being resurected. Sanskrit OTOH simply cannot die. Sanskrit has so many kids in which it lives on.

Re. itihaas and our history:
Itihaas, since it is expected to be dependent upon the universal truth, was forever meant to be for the benefit of everybody. Not just Hindus living within India. Itihaas is also supposed to remain open for interpretation and further writings. A route already used by good number of hindus. Hindutva vaadis merely worked to keep their universal their personal particular too. It is a stand meant to benefit both our individual and collective selves. What is meant for everybody cannot be divorced from the people who already practice it. This feeling of 'our' IMO thus characterizes the stand of Hindutva vaadis.
Your claim is that hindutva vaadis claim "itihaas is history", while my claim is that hindutva vaadis claim "itihaas is our history". I wish we could just go test this. Haan bhai, ususal suspects, kuch bologe. Your time now. I am not sure if I am acceptable as a Hindutva vaadi.

Re. history as a discipline:
Shiv ji you had given the following definition of history or at least a description of what the protestant-christian-historians claim is their job.

History has a very specific definition and I think most people who use the word loosely don't even understand this
1. It refers to the past
2. What it accepts within its "boundaries" must have been written, preferably with dates
3. That which was not written is not history
4. Everything outside of history is false; in other words - if something qualifies for the above criteria, then only history is the truth. History makes a truth claim about itself, excluding everything else as false.

But you have at other times pointed out how crazy results come out of this so called discipline. Lemuria, Avestan-before-Sanskrit, 3 piecs of horse skull etc. becoming invasions, ignorance of genetics and geology etc. All their conclusions falsified eventually.

OTOH we have also been told by others about the evolution of sciences. Consider again the example of how Newton's laws instead of getting falsified were instead contextualized by the new knowledge of relativity. There is no reason to believe that all science got frozen exactly at relativity and there is no life beyond that. Thus there will always remain a hope for those who are willing to accept the truth. History has proven itself incapable of accepting the truth. History was required for a christian concord to be established and people who are not christians are not obliged to accept it for their personal needs. Which is the same thing as saying that a westerner can take whatever he likes from Indian traditions and treat them the way he seems fit (which already is the case), but he cannot come dictate me how I should practice my traditions.

Infact your observation of an absence of 'pre-itihaas' takes away from itihaas its essential grounding in even more older traditions. Pre-itihaas is very much there exactly in a form that itihaas requires it to be to be truthful and fair. It is not there in the form of a story of big lizards and lizard eggs. Lizard hunting is their preoccupation. We cannot be saddled with it. Thus pre-itihaas goes to even earlier times then the westerners would allow it to (using their crutch of pre-history) and is in a form that remains relevant for all times. Now if you are willing to accept that what came out of our pre-itihaas is worthy of maintenance then why would you consider our subsequent developments to be any different. A mango tree will in all generations, give mangoes, unless there is some hanky-panky attempted by outsiders. And if hanky-panky has been attempted then to right it should also figure somewhere.

Our history is a off course our translation to match the requirements of reconciliation, if needed. 'Our' part of it is non-negotiable. History as a concept is not worthy of negotiation. Outsiders can listen to it whichever way they wish. We have to do our job of finding our truths. Hence a concession to use itihaas as an expedient translation for the limited purpose of the job at hand should not be disallowed. Most of the population already uses itihaas as more than just a history. But that cannot be taken to mean that itihaas remains itihaas only if it denudes itself of all dates, places, kinship and geographical ownership. Indians are not red-indians.

Having said all that I still subscribe to the view that there should be no force on unwilling Hindus to accept the position of Hindutva vaadis.

[shiv]

ravi_g my problem is the word "history"

itihaas includes BOTH history and pre-history. As long as we can accept that anyone who tries to prove anything by dating is only trying to validate some aspect of itihaas which is not rendered false by absence of validation. Note that history and pre-history are two different things, and by that reason alone, itihaas is not simply history. Even a brief reading of parts of itihaas reveal stories of creation of the universe. That would be our pre history. Dinosaurs are not excluded but that is a separate issue.

But the word history raises several other problems because of its peculiar Christian Protestant origin - and the way they wiped out pre-Christian mythology and recorded only what was "rational" in the same way that Plato demands in his "Republic". It was this Platonic/Socratic scepticism that the Catholic church faced initially from Rome. The protestants turned it around on the Catholics to their advantage. So the word history and concepts of history have a very Christian past and Hindus cannot simply say "oh we mean this by history, not the meaning that you have used for 2000 years".

What is OUR pre-history, or pre-itihaas? It is not dinosaurs alone. The Vedas and Vedanta are our pre-history. "Not written" "Pre-writing" Well documented and voluminous. What the Vedas and Vedanta do is give a very clear and very Hindu definition of the origins of the Universe and the unity/infinity of God from which the universe is formed.

What the itihaas and other smritis do is to constantly refer back to the Vedas and Vedantic knowledge as they set out examples and stories of what happened and what was done at various times. So there is a continuous thread of our past extending from Vedas (pre-history/pre-itihaas) to what we call itihaas. This is, to my mind, a precious past that must not be vulgarized by arguing and trying to prove anything to anyone.

How does this link up to the thread "Hindu nationalism being spoken of in a pejorative sense"?

Hindus have come across as despicable heathens to the British and for all their politeness the literature that was written out of India has smeared Hindus as badly as any people can be smeared. Normally (in the past) this would be the first step towards elimination of the entire hated thought process and the people who follow it - Hindus, by conversion or other means. That is after all what was done to all pre-Christian Europeans and later the indigenous Americans.

But Hindus were not eliminated. We Hindus tend to be very proud of this, but that is a mistake. What has been done is to create a sense of self hate in us. Our secularists are a part of the self haters, but even Hindutvavadis are part of the problem. They are not self haters, but they are aggrieved and angry people who do not have the words and means to express why these accusations are wrong. And it is expressions of anger that cause them to be accused of being violence prone.

Hindutva vadis may not be self haters, but they are just as hurt and ashamed about what was said about our past. In order to climb out of this deep sense of shame Hindus desperately try to deny and fight against all the accusations made:

They say "You have no religion" and we reply "No we have religion" because we are hurt by the accusation that its all "cults". the insulting connotation of "cult" compared to religion is something the British taught us and we accept their meaning and desperately want that accusation to be false. To be removed and Hinduism accepted as religion.

They say, "You have no history" We scream "No we do!" and present our itihaas, and then we are pinned down trying to prove that it was all written. We friggin well don't need to prove anything to anyone.

And so it goes about morality, ethics etc.

Modernity and science is for today. We don't have to back date it and apply modern science to take a re look at our past. That way we get things like (for example) Maybe Manu was gay. Maybe Arjuna had PTSD. Maybe Vyasa was a racist. Bhim was a psychopath. Ram was a misogynist with an inferiority complex. The God Shiva was the product of a mind that was high on an LSD like substance. Why are we copying Donigerian/Witzelian things?

And when these modern conclusions come out - they cause real anger and then what? "Hindus are medieval. Hindus are fundamentalist"

But Hindus have not been able to see what afflicts them. Because we use the language and words of the Brits like Religion, ethics and history to explain concepts that cannot be explained by those words. Applying those words leads to GIGO and then idiotic conclusions which cause anger. Angry Hindus are fundamentalist

[RajeshA]

Looking forward to have a formalized day for Hindu Muharram!

[ShauryaT]

Hindutva vadis may not be self haters, but they are just as hurt and ashamed about what was said about our past. In order to climb out of this deep sense of shame Hindus desperately try to deny and fight against all the accusations made:

Many learned observers have come to similar conclusions but absent a "positive" and non-reactionary framework, suited for the contemporary world, including the ability to reform without resorting to western frames of mind is the need. This can be done and has been done. E.g: The reform movements of the 19th century, say by a Brahmo Samaj and the Swami Narayan Panth shared many identical goals. But one achieved it by shaming our traditions and ways, the other did it without the shame associated with the reform process.

An opportunity for Hindus to define the Hindu code bills and its associated reformations, in their own language and objectives was missed in 1953. This led to reformations for sure, however it also killed the underlying unity of the family, at the heart of the Indian system. The then so called Hindu interests only wanted to block the bills. 60+ years and no Hindu even wants to talk about these. The result is a key part of the ways we live and values we propound has no backing in law!

On terms of reference, from an Indian Muslim or christian perspective, there is an issue in calling themselves as "Hindus". The term is used "officially" to denote non-muslim, christian sects in the republic and has been popularly used as such, since before independence also. "Hindu" as a geographical marker has waned in acceptance with the advent of the nation-state. The RSS view of the term, seeks to impose not only a geographical marker but a cultural marker on this word, in deed, opposed to muslims and christians. It is this opposition to minorities, the associated history of these groups and their works opposed to minorities that is at the heart of the issue. The failure of the republic to assimilate and integrate minorities adequately and the failure to provide a "native" framework by ways of principles, values, objectives and laws continues to challenge the unity and integrity of the nation.

[member_20317]

But Hindus were not eliminated. We Hindus tend to be very proud of this, but that is a mistake.

I have also used this stand point but you are right after a point it is s dangerous point to rely on. What this stand fails to provide us is a system even if informal of exploring new ideas. There is no Hindu counter part of a DARPA where new ideas can be developed and tested, which probably can result in a political success faster+safely but at the same time much more robustly. In earlier times the acharyas would have different types of schools but today we do not have anything like that. And in the absence of such schools we will keep creating more fear and more friction then what is really needed. There are always, better ways to do a job. But how do you achieve those skills if there is no school or organisation designed for the purpose. RSS is not it. It is housed with people working on cultural evolution.

Anyhow regarding the main point. That of angry hindus ending up as fundamentalists. A fundamentalists will have much more difficulty ingesting what the other side wants to put into his mindspace. It is so with muslim and christian fundamentalists also. There are other kinds of fundamentalists and they too end up the same way. The epithet fundamentalists cannot be used in the same sentence as colonized - except when speaking of colonization by self created categories.

Moreover Hindu fundamentalism has achieved quite a lot in the last 50 years. There was a time when the Hindu population had no say and today they are the ones saying what is going to be worked upon and in what order. And such a massive continent sized reverse-change was achieved:

1) without the extra-ordinary help from gifted people. Most Hindutva vaadis, are simply people with small town experiences of various types; and

2) without the kind of blood bath that happens when there is a shift in the power sharing arrangements of massive populations. Urop, China, Russia, US, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, Iran. You name it and there is no way a bloodbath is not involved. Even within specific sects of Abrahmic communities it is the same all across the world. That is why there are so many christian and muslim countries. These people basically cannot stand each other even within their own groups. Exception is India. When we say and if we say that India is democratic and peaceful only due to its Hindus, then we must concede that people who profess to formalize the contents of Hinduism into a political force too, are not much different either. You do not have to go far. Even on BRF the western trained people or people with exposure to the west, are faster on the trigger. People who cannot even stand their own kind, how can they even claim to be better at prescribing what is good for Hindus. And if Hindus are not going to be taking it then why would anybody considering Hindutva vaad.

Frankly I still do not know much of Hindutva vaad. If you have noted I keep mentioning Hindutva vaadi, without mentioning Hindutva vaad. I know there is something to be said about Hindus and anybody who says is bracketed as Hindutva vaadi and that way we at least know the characterstics of a Hindutva vaadi. But Hindutva vaad is specifically from a pioneer/propounder of it. There is a body that tries to control it. Don't know if they are successful or will remain successful in managing Hindutva vaad. Same is the case with much of the Hindu voters. Still a Hindutva vaadi becomes dangerous.

We harbor massive populations that take up rights on account of their history before 1947 but take up responsibilities only after and from the constitution promulgation date of 1950 [witness Re. ShauryaT ji -

"The term is used "officially" to denote non-muslim, christian sects in the republic and has been popularly used as such, since before independence also."

]. But still it is the mythic Hindutva vaad that is dangerous. Hell even the organs of the state plead ignorance of the itihaas of India but seek to control a billion people who practice their lives based on itihaas. I am sorry but even the organs of the state are dependent on Hindus and not the other way round. From the perspective of the state and abrahmics, Hindus are just a difficult to deal with property of the land and human resource they seek to control. It is almost laughable.

And despite knowing that Hindu was a geographical marker till some time back and despite knowing that Hindu itihaas was every bit a cultural phenomena (multilayered and all that) and despite seeking to take the benefits of Hindu itihaas (satya and all that) ShauryaT ji ends up suggesting that RSS is imposing a particular meaning on the word Hindu. Be that as it may a meaning is alleged to be imposed on a word by one side but the words of the other side are presumed to be sacrosanct. How can this sort of situation be any measure of the truth? RSS is taking a lot of hit from within its support base when it tries to enlarge the scope of the word Hindu and instead of treating that as a new opening for those non-Hindus who have no investment in this fight it is instead criticized for being manipulative of the word Hindu.

Non Hindus simply have to realize that Hindu culture is not a consumable resource. Hindu culture cannot simply be dammed, consumed, dirtied up and then flushed away and that too in its own lands.

[RajeshA]

The failure of the republic to assimilate and integrate minorities adequately and the failure to provide a "native" framework by ways of principles, values, objectives and laws continues to challenge the unity and integrity of the nation.

This formulation can come from both a Marxist as well as from a Hindutvavadi. It is a neutral formulation, when one keeps out issues like whose responsibility was to "assimilate and integrate", and thus who failed, and what were the reasons of failure, etc.

[ShauryaT]

ravi_g: Please clarify, if you are using the term "Hindu' as a geographical marker of a people with a cultural ethos, like Indian or Bhartiya or as a sectarian and community marker, distinct and separate from muslims and christians for example. Different posts are using that term alternatively and hence the observation. The RSS use of the word "Hindu" as a geographical marker is welcome, provided its deeds match the egalitarian nature of the term, and actions that promote a non-sectarian and non-hollow adherence to the term, "Hindu" - in its widest applicable usages of the term.

Also, I did not bring in "Hindutva" into the picture. A term, popularized by Savarkar, who's communal bigotry is beyond dispute and in my books the person responsible for Gandhi's murder, even if not convicted. The above part does not take away his contribution for the nation against the British or even the services the Hindu Mahasabha provided to the beleaguered members of the hindu nation, at the time of partition. Savarkar's "History" and his specific usage of "Hindutva" is there for people to judge, if it served the Indian nation then or does today. How the other so called "Hindu" parties who venerate him use that term and how the courts and laws pin down the hateful messages that make "Hindu Nationalism" pejorative, while desperately trying to rescue the egalitarian usages of the term, is an exercise that one should read and observe.

The point is Hindu Nationalists may not be Hindutva proponents as propagated by Savarkar, but choose to use the term as defined by the Supreme Court, in 2002 - which the RSS welcomed!

As many such term confusions exist, I choose to use the word Sanatan Dharma, to denote the cultural ethos and Aryas as people who embody that ethos and way of life and Bharat as a geography marker. But, Alas, our dear law makers have messed even that up, calling the Hindi Version of the pre-amble secular in our constitution as "Dharma Nirpekshata".

[RajeshA]

But, Alas, our dear law makers have messed even that up, calling the Hindi Version of the preamble secular in our constitution as "Dharma Nirpekshata".

Our Constitution says Panth-Nirpeksha (पंथनिरपेक्ष).

[A_Gupta]

A quote: (with a single substitution, and minor modifications)

X fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Xs achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. X is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.

Now try the substitutions, let us see which one you agree with most:

1. X=History
2. X=Itihaas
3. X=Myth
4. X=Scripture
5. X=Shruti
6. X=Smriti

Have fun!

[RajeshA]

.. magical belief, (considered to be) idle tale ...

3. X=Myth

[ShauryaT]

But, Alas, our dear law makers have messed even that up, calling the Hindi Version of the preamble secular in our constitution as "Dharma Nirpekshata".

Our Constitution says Panth-Nirpeksha (पंथनिरपेक्ष).

Thanks for the correction. I somehow thought the 42nd amendment added "dharma nirpekshata" and hence the BJP opposition, seems the actual translation is acceptable to all but for some reason a popular translation seems to be Dharma Nirpeksha and hence some opposition to the usage of the incorrect translation.

Also, increasingly words like Hindu Dharma, Mussalman Dharma, Isaai Dharm is used. The usage of Hindu dangerously associated with sectarian connotations, it will be a tragedy to loose the term Dharma also to the same forces.

[ShauryaT]

7. Religion

[shiv]

A quote: (with a single substitution, and minor modifications)

X fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Xs achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. X is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.

Now try the substitutions, let us see which one you agree with most:

1. X=History
2. X=Itihaas
3. X=Myth
4. X=Scripture
5. X=Shruti
6. X=Smriti

Have fun!

Here you go:

1. [quote]History does not fulfil fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it cannot expresses, enhances, and codify codifies belief, it cannot safeguards and enforces morality, it does not vouches for the efficiency of ritual and does not contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Histories do not achieve this social function and are not meant to serve as by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. History is not a thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it could be is not an idle tale, and not necessarily a but a hard-worked active force; it is often not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery based on the viewpoint of the historian, and is not designed to bebut a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.[/quote]
2.[quote]Itihaas fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Itihaass achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. Itihaas is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.
[/quote]
3.[quote]Myth fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Myths achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. Myth is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.
[/quote]
4. [quote]Scripture fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Scriptures achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. Scripture is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.
[/quote]
5. [quote]Shruti fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Shrutis achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. Shruti is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.
[/quote]
6. [quote]Smriti fulfills in culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief, it safeguards and enforces morality, it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Smritis achieve this social function by serving as guides, or charters, for moral values, social order and magical belief. Smriti is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of faith and moral wisdom.
[/quote]

[shiv]

Somehow, the word history seems to have insinuated itself in our psyche as an entity that replaces religion, myth, scriptures, shruti and smriti. We are all a bunch of WASP-stung Christu-brains.

The five latter words may not be exact synonyms, but have served a social purpose. Societies can survive and thrive without the subject "history" and "historians" to record them, and have done so for thousands of years.

History serves no social purpose. A document containing names and dates of things that individual humans recorded is inherently flawed as a document of what is important to a civilization. The reason why history takes such a low precedence in our lives is because history is designed to be a useless subject with subjective accounts of what some biased ba$tards wrote and not an account of our past. Please do not try to tell me that there are good historians and bad ones. That is like telling me that some people are more artistic in defecation than others. When the end product is crap, the artistry of the producer is immaterial.

Get rid of the psychological albatross round your neck that "history" is more significant that our past. The Hindu past is encoded in our shrutis and smritis. We do not need "historians" for that.

[shiv]

So, after all these pages, I will propose some reasons why Hindus are marked as different and worthy of labelling as medieval, backward and "different", and to be treated with suspicion. In fact it appears that Hindus in India are the last to hold out against WASP "universalism"

What Hindus need is a framework for describing themselves without utilizing the useless words and characterizations of Hindus and Hindu-ism.

Accusation 1: Hindus have no religion

Proposed explanation: Hindus describe themselves as following a dharma, or Hindu dharma. Dharma is a code of conduct and obligations to society that sits over and above religion. In other words, in the Hindu view, it is not some God who sits at the top, guiding man and ruling the world, it is Dharma. As long as everyone follows the code of conduct called dharma, the specific religion or God that people believe in does not break up social harmony. That is why Hindus have managed to live without killing each other despite having thousands of Gods and India, under Hindu dominance has given birth to more religions or more religion variants than any other civilization.

Accusation 2: Hindus have no history

Proposed explanation: It needs to be recalled that Hindus have a way of recalling their past. They do not call it "history". History is merely what has been recorded by humans since writing was invented and everything else is dumped into "pre-history". Hindus however have a tradition of passing on information verbally from the time of the Vedas - which date back to anywhere from 3500 to 10,000 years in the past. Hindu records, even after writing became widespread, were maintained on perishable media, which is why oral transmission was given great importance. The Hindu past goes back to well before writing was invented (as per the belief of modern day historians) - into a hoary pre-historic period. The Hindu past is available to us in what we Hindus call our Shrutis and our Smritis.

Accusation 3: Hindus have no ethics

Proposed explanation: This is a particularly vicious example of chicanery by Indologists who seem to allege that Hindus have no capacity for empathy and no moral code. In fact Hindu life is guided by Dharma, which sits over and above religion as a moral code for life. It is the mindless attempt to force-fit Hindus into a rigid box called "religion" that ignores the "elephant in the room" the "dharma" that guides all people of Hindu ancestry.

We ARE different.

[svenkat]

shivji,
Ainslee Embree was prafessar of hystery at Yale University.He was Executive Assistant to Frank Wisner Jr who was Ambassador to India in the Clingon Administration.

He has written a thought provoking article on hystery.I will list the salient points.
1)The Brahmanas sought Truth and they called it Brahmam(I use the samskrta uccharanam).Brahmam is an ever increasing circle encompassing 'smaller' truths.
2)The West had a vague idea of India in the past.India was simultaneously the land of riches and monstrosities.It was the limit-the very end of civilisation.
3)The West had to face existensial questions when confronted with India.Their most basic assumptions were turned upside down.They realised there is no unique way in this world.
4)Embree says the historian is confronted with the fundamental question as what prompts anyone to even record down events.whats the trigger and motivation for hystery?Why does anyone have to 'study' the 'other'?

After this,the article descends to modern politics and criticises Congress for holding onto unity of India.It claims the unity of India is a myth and djinnah was infact contesting this artificial unity for there never had been one India.

One can go further and even analyse bauddha,jain,tamizh nationalist,puraanic fundamentalist views from this standpoint.Why are there different narratives but 'no single unified' narrative?Why did learned shaashtris of the past not accept 'vayu is most important after Vishnu' or "Narayana is everything" or "vedic orthodoxy is the summum bonum of life' or "theres nothing beyond the way of Thathagatha" or "Thiruvalluvar can teach ethics to people of Bengaluru".This does not mean there are no people saying these things and there are others too who feel the need for planting a red and yellow flag in govt buildings because they are threatened by 'others' with 'other narratives'.

Its a gentle reminder not a facetious remark at all.I can add inscriptions(with details about coronation,conquests) from Maski,copper plates of Kadambas,prasasthi kavyas,the Vikramaditya eras etc etc Why is Itihaasa considered more important than puraana in the worldview of Ramanuja and Madhva but not in the view of Chaitanya?Why are there multiple puraana-s?Why the need for a Vishnu Purana and Bhagavatha to 'record' the exploits of Vishnu?How do they differ?

The orthodox Brahminical worldview considered Sruthi as primary.Itihaasa-s and Puraana-s were subsidiary to Sruthi.The Itihaasa-Puraaanas have no independent authority.

[Vayutuvan]

Shiv: great series of posts.

I also want to extend your

We ARE different

with

We are not ashamed of it nor do we look down upon those who are different.

[svenkat]

shivji,
Sruthis and Smrithis have not been accessible to the 'common man'.The Itihaasas and Puraanas were available through qualified intermediaries.

This is being questioned in the modern age.Also whats the link between modern nationalism and age old smrithis?How does Apasthamba help to solve issues before SC? And is the SC itself dharmic by the standards of Smrithi?There are tough questions we are skirting.

[svenkat]

I will present my thesis:
1)Hinduism is all the practices,customs,values,beliefs of the people of India.It encompasses arts,languages,literatures,values of Indian people.
2)These have evolved over millenia.They include diverse even contradictory beliefs.Hindus have had internal conflicts and tensions.
3)Its a fact British facililated political unity.Yet a greater part of India faced threat from mohammedans and were aware of this 'other'.The British too exploited India.
4)The modern age has seen great reflection and internal criticism.Most thinking Indians have no blind attachment to past and at the same time have no loathing for the past.They have pride in Indias thoughts,achievements in all secular fields.They no longer subscribe to western propoggandu and western sup-e-rearity.
5)They realise that Hindu scriptures have no readymade template for the modern world.We can seek parallels,comparisons,precedents and principles.Also Hindu nationalism will have to contend with competing identity politics and they have to carefully addressed by broad principles seeking commonweal.
6)True to his ideals,the hindu will seek the latest advances in science,technology as well as the best practices of progressive societies than any blind faith in RV3.4.18(to pick a random verse)
7)It will not be a simple task.Thats how it has been from 1947 to 2014.Why should it be any different from 2014 to 2037?
My 2 naya paise.

[member_22733]

Dont have much time, but need to come back to this later :

3)Its a fact British facililated political unity.Yet a greater part of India faced threat from mohammedans and were aware of this 'other'.The British too exploited India.

REALLY? You dont see a contradiction in the two bolded parts?

Falling for a divide and rule trick that was instituted around 1857 are we?

[svenkat]

LokeshCji,
There was no Indian nationalism at the beginning of 19th century and there was one at the end of 19th century(-RC Majumdar).Bankim Chandra wrote his Anand Math somewhere in between.

It would be wrong to believe that modern Indian nationalism is continuation of maratha sentiments just as it is wrong think there was no civilisational unity before Britshits.

[RajeshA]

I will present my thesis:
1)Hinduism is all the practices,customs,values,beliefs of the people of India.It encompasses arts,languages,literatures,values of Indian people.

Is the following painting by Gerard van Honsthorst from Utrecht, Netherlands part of Christianity? Is all art in the West part of Christianity?



If not, how can all arts, languages, literatures, etc. be part of Hinduism, which is supposed to be some Religion?

[shiv]

.It claims the unity of India is a myth and djinnah was infact contesting this artificial unity for there never had been one India.

One can go further and even analyse bauddha,jain,tamizh nationalist,puraanic fundamentalist views from this standpoint.Why are there different narratives but 'no single unified' narrative?

Absolutely true.

So your belief is that the British United India. Fair enough. You are not the only one with that view.

However I believe that a country with 20% of the world's population (as in 1947) cannot simply be united by legislation, or even by 200 years of colonization that lead to impoverishment of the "common man". There had to be some previous glue.

i have spent some time speaking of that glue earlier in this thread.

That glue forms the basis for Indian nationalism. That glue is not concerned with killing minorities. The fact that the glue is not easy to understand has been stated by you when you made the following statement:

2)The West had a vague idea of India in the past.India was simultaneously the land of riches and monstrosities.It was the limit-the very end of civilisation.
3)The West had to face existensial questions when confronted with India.Their most basic assumptions were turned upside down.They realised there is no unique way in this world.
4)Embree says the historian is confronted with the fundamental question as what prompts anyone to even record down events.whats the trigger and motivation for hystery?Why does anyone have to 'study' the 'other'?

Now if you take a bunch of people who cannot understand India and quote them, I do not believe that their views can be dependable especially when they have been honest enough to admit that they have been puzzled by India.

So how does the next statement become the truth, made, as it was, by the same people who could not understand India? How did they suddenly understand that the following statement is true?

the unity of India is a myth and djinnah was infact contesting this artificial unity for there never had been one India.

[JE Menon]

>>the unity of India is a myth

The unity of which significant country is not a myth?

[shiv]

2)These have evolved over millenia.They include diverse even contradictory beliefs.Hindus have had internal conflicts and tensions.
3)Its a fact British facililated political unity.Yet a greater part of India faced threat from mohammedans and were aware of this 'other'.The British too exploited India.

Problem - a major flaw in the hypothesis above.

What was this mysterious unity that all Indians developed with the Mohammedan threat? There was no such unity. Many Indians were quite happy with the Mohammedans. India was as disunited after they came, as it was before. Other than isolated action by Marathas and Sikhs - there was no united anti-Mohammedan action.

4)The modern age has seen great reflection and internal criticism.Most thinking Indians have no blind attachment to past and at the same time have no loathing for the past.They have pride in Indias thoughts,achievements in all secular fields.

They no longer subscribe to western propoggandu and western sup-e-rearity.
5)They realise that Hindu scriptures have no readymade template for the modern world.We can seek parallels,comparisons,precedents and principles.Also Hindu nationalism will have to contend with competing identity politics and they have to carefully addressed by broad principles seeking commonweal.
6)True to his ideals,the hindu will seek the latest advances in science,technology as well as the best practices of progressive societies than any blind faith in RV3.4.18(to pick a random verse)
7)It will not be a simple task.Thats how it has been from 1947 to 2014.Why should it be any different from 2014 to 2037?
My 2 naya paise.

Hmm - with respect - I think you have left out the other 98 naya paise while posting the above.

Recall that it was you who pointed out that the "common man" had no access to Shruti. The common man could not give a flying fug for RV3.4.18 from 2000 BC to AD 1947. How come you suddenly claim that the common man suddenly lost faith in RV3.4.18 after 1947? RV3.4.18 was never the uniting factor - although I suspect from your posts that you believe that there is some brahminical story-cooking up when people speak of pre existing Indian unity. I might be wrong. It would be valid if someone had such a view. Such views do exist. i dispute it. That's all.

[shiv]

shivji,
Sruthis and Smrithis have not been accessible to the 'common man'.The Itihaasas and Puraanas were available through qualified intermediaries.

This is being questioned in the modern age.Also whats the link between modern nationalism and age old smrithis?How does Apasthamba help to solve issues before SC? And is the SC itself dharmic by the standards of Smrithi?There are tough questions we are skirting.

Let me understand this. You are saying that the Shrutis and smritis were separate and there was no link betwen Shrutis and smritis on the one hand and the puranas on the other hand.

This of course is nonsense. Much of the puranas and itihaasas referred back to the older texts.

The fact that common man did not have access to shruti may be a modern day (or even ancient) complaint, but that does not mean the common man was not part of the overall structure and function of Indian society.

Of course - I don't mean to be hurtful - but you are telling a story that, according to me, was cooked by by racist Brits where Dravidians were "black heathendom" whose "corruptions" actually sullied the white Aryans and their oh so enlightened monotheistic brahmanas. If you believe that it is your prerogative, but I say that you have simply swallowed a racist story which has no genetic backing.

Didn't you say that the modern Indian is looking forward and would be happy to see what science tells him? Science, in the form of DNA studies, says that the Brit story is bullshit.

[member_20317]

ravi_g: Please clarify, if you are using the term "Hindu' as a geographical marker of a people with a cultural ethos, like Indian or Bhartiya or as a sectarian and community marker, distinct and separate from muslims and christians for example. Different posts are using that term alternatively and hence the observation. The RSS use of the word "Hindu" as a geographical marker is welcome, provided its deeds match the egalitarian nature of the term, and actions that promote a non-sectarian and non-hollow adherence to the term, "Hindu" - in its widest applicable usages of the term.

ShauryaT ji, my working presumption is that, all people in this world carry the whole baggage along all the time. Hindus are no different. Further I presume that this is also the right way to discharge the responsibilities at hand since that is how we are all enabled. Since Hindus never needed to cross over to some other side in any manner, hence they never fell into any confusion by way of large number of identifiers. This however does not imply that all the different words are indistinct. These words and concepts and differences were asked for by those claiming difference/distinction of some kind and then subsequently used by both sides for identifying those distinctions. But since these special cases were theirs to begin with hence they are the ones who will have to come define them for their specific needs. For our common needs I have as much a need to define/redefine it as they have. I basically cannot deny my own existence in all these categories. Thus from our POV we have full facility with these words. This is as much a right to equality taken over by us, as was take over by them (a standard feature of all societies based on rights instead of duties). Part of my existence that is still based on duties is responsible towards those still discharging towards the common duties. In time people earlier claiming distinctions may stop doing that and in those individual cases too, these distinctive identifier begin to become useless. These returning people too have a right to keep redefining. Moreover, the indistinct people themselves may begin to adopt the practices of the distinct. Again the distinctions begin to become useless.

The trouble is for those claiming special distinction still and only so long as they are not sure of the distinction but still attached to it. It is they who want to keep coming back and ask us if we are still faithful to the word, as if life has stood still for us since that time. But why should we and what kind of distinction is this that those who claim distinction have to keep coming back for confirmation from the indistinct. I hope you realize we did not say that we will bear the cross for them, we merely allowed them to bear it for themselves because they were so insistent. We also did agree that they will not have to bear our cross for us. That part of the common intent, should remain too.

Also, I did not bring in "Hindutva" into the picture. A term, popularized by Savarkar, who's communal bigotry is beyond dispute and in my books the person responsible for Gandhi's murder, even if not convicted. The above part does not take away his contribution for the nation against the British or even the services the Hindu Mahasabha provided to the beleaguered members of the hindu nation, at the time of partition. Savarkar's "History" and his specific usage of "Hindutva" is there for people to judge, if it served the Indian nation then or does today. How the other so called "Hindu" parties who venerate him use that term and how the courts and laws pin down the hateful messages that make "Hindu Nationalism" pejorative, while desperately trying to rescue the egalitarian usages of the term, is an exercise that one should read and observe.

The point is Hindu Nationalists may not be Hindutva proponents as propagated by Savarkar, but choose to use the term as defined by the Supreme Court, in 2002 - which the RSS welcomed!

Yes I think you did not bring in Hindutva. It does not need to figure in all this. The problem at hand is that some Hindus feel that they are in trouble because of Hindu Nationalism more specifically because of the deeds of Hindutva vaadis. Hindutva is the project of those who have subscribed to it and not of those who merely got boxed into it (say like shiv ji). People who merely accepted it like say myself retain the right to define/redefine/confine/abandon/work against it, the way we want to in order to serve our respective interests. These facilities are specifically tied to our respective existences.

I would actually claim that even Hindutva vaadis do not need to start learning Hindutva but they do need some exposure to a few basics of Hindu dharma. From whatever little I have read of Hindutva thought, I doubt if these guys have it in them to be radically different from the core of Hindu dharma. Hindu dharma is actually their power they will not relinquish it even if challenged to the task or fooled into it or forced to do it.

As many such term confusions exist, I choose to use the word Sanatan Dharma, to denote the cultural ethos and Aryas as people who embody that ethos and way of life and Bharat as a geography marker. But, Alas, our dear law makers have messed even that up, calling the Hindi Version of the pre-amble secular in our constitution as "Dharma Nirpekshata".

ShauryaT ji, like you I also prefer Sanatan Dharm but not because of any daarshnic reasons. Its just that my father when I was young, told me about Maharana Pratap and told me that our category is called Sanatani Hindu. Actually even Sanatani Hindu was to be understood in distinction from Arya Samaji Hindu. The distinction was not drawn because my father could spell out reasons for differences with Arya Samajis but because Arya Samajis had claimed that they have certain differences with whatever was there as Sanatan version. He was however very clear that he and thus I also, came before those claiming a different status. And that is why also Maharana was right and complete, in his stand per this understanding because he never claimed himself to be different. Whatever Maharana did was for the totality of the then existing people and so many of the later as have claimed from him.

Notice what this did between the father and his son. There is full freedom even within Hinduism and the attitude is the same as against the outsiders. He never told me that we should crush some person/group in particular but he was clear and so am I that we are here because our poorvajas were here and we wish our vanshajas to be here as well. While being here we tie our selves to Mahadev/Ram ji, and thus whatever comes our way it is because of them. My father was not too learned a man. I am not either. But our yog with our lineage is non-negotiable. If my ancestors were stupid then I carry a debit to that extent (willingly). If they were smart then I, their vanshajas benefited. Their smartness was also multiplied by those they chose to follow eg. concerned brahmins or what they then abjured from following (ie. let go of / tyaja diya) eg. Islamist rajas, Brits, Converts, Western theories. And these followerships and these tyagas did not take place in just one generation and without the involvement of a large population, for it to get so institutionalized in this manner.

[JE Menon]

Such language as "unity is a myth" etc. is pure propaganda, and aimed at subverting and destabilising entities. Look at it this way, even the "unity" of a single family is a myth. With the right approach, it can be destabilised, undermined and eventually split with the intention of weakening. Those who say such things about other countries views those countries in a predatory fashion. Our job is to recognise this and take measures to prevent it, while casting a predatory eye right back. Our unity will only be a myth if we are unable to safeguard our territorial and civilisational frontiers. This is true of others countries too.

[shiv]

Such language as "unity is a myth" etc. is pure propaganda, and aimed at subverting and destabilising entities. Look at it this way, even the "unity" of a single family is a myth. With the right approach, it can be destabilised, undermined and eventually split with the intention of weakening. Those who say such things about other countries views those countries in a predatory fashion. Our job is to recognise this and take measures to prevent it, while casting a predatory eye right back. Our unity will only be a myth if we are unable to safeguard our territorial and civilisational frontiers. This is true of others countries too.

JEM the disease of mental colonization that shows up from different aspects of what was instilled into Indians is deep and troubling. Once a particular belief is instilled in childhood - cognitive dissonance ensures that there can be no change of thinking without anger, and sometimes a fight.

There has never ever been unity in India and yet, there is a thread of unity. We are so colonized that we don't want to see that and tend to blurt out the cliches about Indians from the British days, which have carried over to an absorption of Western Universalism.

[vishvak]

This idea of unity also depends upon who is asking the question. Post barbaric colonial times, Indian subcontinent lost hundreds of thousands during partition riots, and the subcontinent was divided on basis of creating lands for benefit of Muslims. So who would ask such questions when they don't deserve to ask such questions. It is Indians who are responsible for unity of the country and also want to united PoJ&K, etc.

[ShauryaT]

LokeshCji,
There was no Indian nationalism at the beginning of 19th century and there was one at the end of 19th century(-RC Majumdar).Bankim Chandra wrote his Anand Math somewhere in between.

It would be wrong to believe that modern Indian nationalism is continuation of maratha sentiments just as it is wrong think there was no civilisational unity before Britshits.

This has to be viewed ONLY in context of the ideas of a nation-state, a byproduct of the treaty of westphalia in Europe in the 17th century. If It is the idea of a nation-state that is being propagated as the hallmark of unity, then the fact that the land mass of India "adapted" to this new concept like fish to water only and only because there was always an underlying unity amongst the peoples in this place called Bharat. The fact is the west is jealous for they could never achieve this unity in their land mass and we could!

[csaurabh]

Our Constitution says Panth-Nirpeksha (पंथनिरपेक्ष).

Thanks for the correction. I somehow thought the 42nd amendment added "dharma nirpekshata" and hence the BJP opposition, seems the actual translation is acceptable to all but for some reason a popular translation seems to be Dharma Nirpeksha and hence some opposition to the usage of the incorrect translation.

Also, increasingly words like Hindu Dharma, Mussalman Dharma, Isaai Dharm is used. The usage of Hindu dangerously associated with sectarian connotations, it will be a tragedy to loose the term Dharma also to the same forces.

There is a history behind that. The word 'secular' was first introduced in our constitution in the 42nd amendment ( Indira Gandhi Emergency time ) and was duly translated as "dharma nirpekshata". But one of the ministers in the IG govt protested against this as a govt without dharma is no govt. Thus, it got changed to "Panth-Nirpeksha". IIRC remember reading it in IG's biography.

[shiv]

It would be wrong to believe that modern Indian nationalism is continuation of maratha sentiments just as it is wrong think there was no civilisational unity before Britshits.

This has to be viewed ONLY in context of the ideas of a nation-state, a byproduct of the treaty of westphalia in Europe in the 17th century. If It is the idea of a nation-state that is being propagated as the hallmark of unity, then the fact that the land mass of India "adapted" to this new concept like fish to water only and only because there was always an underlying unity amongst the peoples in this place called Bharat. The fact is the west is jealous for they could never achieve this unity in their land mass and we could!

True.

This is yet another case of "projection" in which 'What doesn't work for me can't work for you". European nationhood was always based on language and ethnicity, and the diversity of Indian languages and ethnicity made the Brits think - these guys can't be united. And when they came - of course there was no "unity" as in a single monolithic nation state.

But it was "hindu-ism" and the sacred geography that attracted ownership by all Indians from across the land that was a cause of unity. It still is.

[member_20317]

But if Hinduism is a religion and if a religion with all its concomitant holy places and preferred languages and preferred legal systems can become a binding factor in India then why cannot it work in Muslim/Christian lands and Christian majority but secular democracies.

Even if all the Islam-parast people cannot join because of the intervention of outsiders surely the Christian majority universal civilizations can. If anything the later have an advantage in terms of their interventionist capabilities which is ably supported by their technological and scientific ascendancy.

Even if we grant that Christians cannot join because they too have sects but there are a lot of secular countries that can band together - America and China are both enlightened secular countries. France, Britain, Germany and Italy too.

Why cannot techological and scientific status become a common factor in nation building.

Hinduism is universally recognized today to be a religion whatever the prior claims by native Indians. So either we treat it as same level as other religions or at different. What is so different about this religion that it took up a different direction?

[ShauryaT]

>>ravi_g:
>>Hinduism is universally recognized today to be a religion whatever the prior claims by native Indians. So either we treat it as same level as other religions or at different. What is so different about this religion that it took up a different direction?

Hinduism is "universally" recognized as a religion, except by Indians and its supreme court! Think it will be worthwhile to spend some time, again to settle the question, is Hinduism a religion and universally recognized as such.

[shiv]

Hinduism is universally recognized today to be a religion whatever the prior claims by native Indians. So either we treat it as same level as other religions or at different. What is so different about this religion that it took up a different direction?

The question is more easily answered if you say Hindu-ism" is not a religion. It took a different direction because it is not a religion. Something that is claimed to be "universally recognized" is not necessarily true or universal.

[ShauryaT]

ravi_g: Read the following, it will shed some light.

Hinduism – At a Loss for Words!

The number of times it is claimed that Hinduism does not have a name for something is nothing less than striking.

Let us begin with the claim that Hinduism does not have a word for itself. A. L. Basham writes:

There are probably over 300 million Hindus in the world, most of them in India, but also many in other parts of Asia, and in Africa and the West Indies. Though they form one of the largest and most important groups of the world, their faith is indefinable in a few words. It is possible to define the Christian or Muslim as the man who attempts to follow what he believes to be the teachings of Christ or Muhammad respectively, but Hinduism had no such single founder. Some modern sociologists have defined Christians and Muslims as those who consider themselves as such, but a similar definition cannot be applied to Hindus, for probably most of them have never even heard the word Hindu, and have no name for their religion. It was once said that anyone might be considered a Hindu who respected the Brāhman and his cow, and maintained the rules of caste, but his definition would exclude many of the most earnest of modern Hindus, as well as a number of unorthodox Hindu groups of earlier times. We can perhaps best briefly describe a Hindu as a man who chiefly bases his beliefs and way of life on the complex system of faith and practice which has grown up organically in the Indian sub-continent over a period of at least three millennia.

Then comes the claim that the Hindu does not have a word for religion:

In classical India – again if we exclude personal religion, or religiousness, there is no word for our concept. In the threefold trivarga of mundane life, the realm of human behavior is classified into those actions that one does for the sheer enjoyment of them (kāma), those that are means to some end (artha), and those that are duties (dharma). The last of these, dharma, ranging in its reference from propriety to public law, from temple ritual to caste obligations, and much more, has on occasion been proffered by moderns as a term signifying systematic religion for Hindus. It does include a good deal of what the modern Western student regards so, as normative ideals and as sociological pattern; though it includes also a certain amount of matter that falls outside such a concept.[ii]

Next comes the claim that Hinduism does not have a word for caste:

The Hindus have not any name for the caste institution, which seems to them part of the order of nature. It is almost impossible for a Hindu to regard himself otherwise than as a member of some particular caste, or species of Hindu mankind. Everybody else who disregards Hindu dharma is an ‘outer barbarian’ (mlechchha) no matter how exalted his worldly rank or how vast his wealth may be. The proper Sanskrit and vernacular term for ‘a caste’ is jāti (jāt), ‘species’, although, as noted above, the members of a jāti are not necessarily descended from a common ancestor. Indeed, as a matter of fact, they are rarely, if ever, so descended. Their special caste rules make their community in effect a distinct species, whoever their ancestors may have been. [iii]

Finally we learn that Hinduism does not have a word for ‘conversion.’

The diffusion of Vaiṣṇavite and Śaivite ideas outside India is enough to show that Hinduism, too, was a missionary religion; at a very early date a Hinduist movement took root in the Hellenistic world and penetrated as far as Egypt. The decline of Hinduism after the Moselm period must not be allowed to obscure this fact. The old lawgivers say that to be a Hindu, or, more exactly, to belong to one of the three Āryan classes, means to have been born in a certain area of Hindustan, the Āryāvarta (or homeland of a the Āryas); but this assertion need not be taken literally. Hinduism long ago advanced beyond the limits assigned to it by the laws of Manu, by means of conquest or peaceful absorption, by marriage, and by adoption. Hinduism has not a word to express the process of conversion so frequently referred to in Buddhist and Jaina apologetics, books written by the converted for those to be converted; but passages can be cited from the Mahabharata which show that people of low caste, enemies and foreigners who were received into the Hindu fold. Many people wanted to raise their status and to be admitted to the Ārya society; others fell away from it through marriage outside its ranks and by transgressions and misfortunes. A passage of Patañjali attests that the Śakas and the Yavanas could perform sacrifices and accept food from an Ārya without contaminating it. The fact is that Hinduism is a way of life, a mode of thought, that becomes second nature. It is not so much its practices that are important, for they can be dispensed with; not is it the Church, since it has no priesthood, or at least no sacerdotal hierarchy. The important thing is to accept certain fundamental conceptions, to acknowledge a certain ‘spirituality’, a term much abused in current parlance. For many Hindus it would be quite legitimate to take Jesus as iṣṭadevatā, without even regarding him as an avatāra, so long as Indian tradition were acknowledged.[iv]

If we couple this with the fact that those who take to Hinduism in the West do not to admit to doing so, we have the spectacle of countless unacknowledging people converting people anonymously though a nameless process, to a religion which does not even have a name.

Hinduism?

[JE Menon]

>>JEM the disease of mental colonization that shows up from different aspects of what was instilled into Indians is deep and troubling. Once a particular belief is instilled in childhood - cognitive dissonance ensures that there can be no change of thinking without anger, and sometimes a fight.

Absolutely. My feeling, perhaps a simplistic one, is that it is to some extent because we care too much about others (non-Indians) opinions about ourselves. This is definitely a colonial residue in our minds, but we need increasingly to at least start viewing things from both perspectives (the one which cares about other opinions - uniformly whether European, American, Chinese, Russian, Japanese etc; and the one which does not).

A concern (not right now, but over time) is that we might go into the uncaring mode and then go too far down that road (sort of like the Europeans and Americans have).

First though we need to become little thicker skinned, and learn to look non-Indians in the face and tell them exactly what we think of some of the nonsense they are spouting.

Judging from the posts on the forum by a significant chunk of participants, this sort of confidence will take some time on a national level.

[member_20317]

ShauryaT ji, based on the write up you attach, would it be wrong to say that the non-religion spiritual Hinduism can get a lot of people to accept its premise worldwide
(exhibit - it got to proselytize even among the Egyptians in ancient times and a lot of the contemporary western world accepts the Hindu practices like Yoga oblivious of the fact that it is claimed under the religious Hinduism).
But then a bunch of determined Islamists can easily roll the party up.

Since Hindus have suffered under Brits and EJs too so I guess there should be no difficulty for them either, to wind up the spiritual Hinduism.

Now problem then becomes even more complex for me. Now I would need to understand why both Hindus and Abrahmics then claim that Hindus are a separate religion. I can understand your proposition getting applied to Hindus that they do not have a religion quotient and are only hoodwinked by western universalists into believing that they are a religion. But how can the Abrahmics and Seculars be convinced about this as a fact - that Hindus should not be hated/feared because they are not a religion. Should be presume that they do not understand this because they too are mislead into believing that. I hope we can use the word belief because if its merely a clash of opinions then any and all sides should be amenable to change of opinions. There being no point in losing lives for an opinion poll.


...................


Shiv ji,

See I know my position and preferences but I would like to understand how would you develop solutions for the various problems under your propositions.

I could get the following as your arguments or proposals (some actually mentioned some merely extrapolated). If I am wrong please feel free to edit to bring out your premise properly. You can edit or add to them even as we move forward to clarify things better.

1) Hindus are merely colonized into believing that they are a religion. Because Abrahmics claimed Hindus constitute a religion and kicked us around on the basis of that belief and as a reaction we Hindus ended up taking up a defensive position and ended up as a religion too, probably losing our essential spiritualism in the process.

2) Hinduism is essentially a spiritual experience implying that a political party should not claim to be representing the interests of Hindus as a religious group. Furthermore Hindus should not ideally be voting on the basis of such a proposition. Spiritual people should ideally take up resolution of their differences in formal mechanisms like courts, university departments and especially through ballot in favour of good candidates and not a suitable party. No place for any militarism except in the form of statutorily regulated facilities like NCC again ideally in mixed religious groups.

3) There are mechanisms in place to address the problems of Hindus if at all they are forced into a position where they have grievances that can be understood as having a religious dimension to it.

4) The spiritualism of Hinduism gets vitiated by taking up a position that brings out Hinduism as a religion.

5) Dharma and spiritualism are same and spiritualism is not religion hence Dharma cannot both be religion and spiritualism at the same time as that would amount to a contradiction.


Shiv ji, request you to just read the above and take your time to respond since both of us are in India and in no hurry. I may or may not be able to respond fast and you will have to grant me that much.