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

[RajeshA]

2. I say that the "organization" that colonized India was simply "organized religion, Islam or Christianity, or "top-down governed nation states" based on Christianity. These organizations found their way into India relatively easily. It was their military organization that was what ultimately turned the tables in India. It seems to me that religions like Islam and Christianity are good for organizing a top-down hierarchical set up which is good for armies. All top down hierarchies look like armies. If the RSS organizes itself in that way, it looks like an army
3. If we are to argue that organization in a top-down sense is good for power projection and we hold up the ability to project power as something to be admired, then we too should be looking at some form of hierarchical top-down organization.
4. Hindu dharma is not a top down hierarchical organization and its widespread presence among Indians explains the lack of organization that India had, which allowed colonization in the first place Hindu dharma is unsuitable as a system to organize a under a restricted bunch of "laws" that do not conform to dharma. Dharma (the cosmic law) comes first, human laws next. To that extent dharma is nothing like a top down religion.
5. However all monarchies are top down organizations and Hindus have consistently tolerated monarchies - with the best remembered ones being the ones where dharma was upheld
6. A top down system in India such as the Republic of India is tolerable if it is dharmic
7. But dharma typically does not call for war to be waged for blind conquest and looting. This is exactly how Indian democracy behaves.
8. If the "international order" that we face today is "loot or be looted", then it becomes imperative for us to reach choices that we feel are dharmic, given the pressures we face.
9. If there is nothing fundamentally wrong in stating a "Hindu view of the world" by saying things like "We believe in peace and cooperation", "We believe in settling disputes amicably by talks", "we believe in curtailing destructive forces" - which are all statements that arise from dharma, there should be no problem at all in equally being protective of our people by inflicting punishment on those who harm us and openly pointing out things said and done by other religions to hurt us.

Religion-based militantism is not necessarily a top-down organization. In fact, Islam is very much a multicellular organization, with a common DNA and some cell differentiation (sectarianism, fiqhs).

One can also see it as a network organization. And it is an aggressive organization. It is just that various missions of Jihad or Ghazwas allow Islamic nodes to coalesce easily temporarily.

[vishvak]

But it was the development of European navies that brought the Portuguese first and then the Brits.

Why did they develop good navies?
1. Reformation that overthrew the church
2. The printing press that allowed maps etc to be printed and shared
3. The magnetic compass - that came from China via Arabia I think that aided navigation
4. Gunpowder
5. Better ships meant more fishing. More fish needed to to be salted to stay fresh. Or spiced up to remain edible
6. The sea trade expanded European trading centers who needed to go further and further for goods to be traded while competing with other European nations.

The main reason for establishing navies in Europe was the Bank of St. George had established a de jure gold standard in Europe. And the need to get more gold was felt the most by the Spanish who over time had enough subjugation from the other European powers. Portugal is a nation state now. It however was just a part of Spain under Aragorn and Isabella.

Long ago I read that concept of budget itself was established in England for its humongous naval presence during times of the East India Company. Can't find link now. Point is sea trade is very important and Hindus had a very good handle till naval forces fell into disuse. So let's not get into what Europe did this or what Araps did that as something absolute. In fact, even now there are few giant trade ships from India going places - which should be very smooth (even around cape-of-good-hope, or about south pole to Brazil, or giant LNG ships from afar) considering this is post-industrialization times. Hindus have yet to have edge on the ocean waters completely, be it giant trade ships or lots of of submarines for defenses.

[Arjun]

Italy is the only exception - don't know for what reason.

Italy was not a unitary nation-state, until 19th century.

Yes, and also during the time period the other European powers were rapidly colonizing, Italy seems to have been ruled by Spain (1559-1714).

[RajeshA]

Hindutvavadi militantism has many different facets, with groups organized for fighting off attacks on many different facets of the Rāṣṭra.

Secular ideology often tries to portray certain attacks as not attacks but as harmless interaction and contrary to individual freedoms. Thus secular ideology tries to diffuse Hindutva's efforts to increase awareness of the attack, with the intention to mobilize Hindus for a unified resistance, as an attack.

Secular ideology does not wish the Hindu frog to jump out of the hot water on becoming aware that it is being slowly cooked.

The Seculars thus become alarmed by the new Hindutva effort on Social Media to raise the alarm, and so they attack the credentials of those raising the alarm. That is why "Hindu Nationalism" is spoken in pejorative sense, especially through the mainstream media and various other podiums!

Seculars want all to believe that various religions and native cultures can somehow live in a paradise of mutual respect and tolerance, by deleting all history which proves the contrary. Nothing can be further from the truth. A religion is by its very nature a monster out to prey on all others. One religion may outright use terror and the other may use bribery.

Disclaimer: Hindus don't have a religion. We have Sanskriti.

[shiv]

There was direct trade with Rome prior to the period you mention (500 AD). After the fall of Rome,

After the fall of the Roman Empire the economy of Europe collapsed for several centuries. Economies of the middle east prospered. Where was the incentive to go to Europe? On the other hand trade with the far east prospered and the Chola navy dominated the eastern oceans.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Bottoms-up organization is very durable but does have the draw-back of not being able to provide unified action quickly when it is necessary.

Hindu Nationalism can be viewed as one of the attempts to give the bottoms-up organizations of Hindus the unifying theme. It seeks to do so by going beyond the ancient sense of geography and culture, but by providing a history; and not just any history but an ideological one.

----
On an unrelated note, the nationalism of Subhas Chandra Bose is suspect:
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... iniscence/

[Pulikeshi]

The answers to why Indian kingdoms ceded the trade routes in the Ratnakara (Indian Ocean) is a fascinating one.
If anyone has good links would really appreciate it!

@A_Gutpa - your point on grass roots/bottoms-up orgs is very valid. However, the risk of Hindutva going astray is very high as well. In centralizing and encoding history of an ideological (is there any other) kind, it subjects the sub-continent to laws of Entropy that have escaped it for millinea. This point perhaps needs some deep thought and caution on the part of the Hindutva thinkers. On the other hand it is like asking a teenager to think about what happens when you retire

[RajeshA]

Hindu Nationalism can be viewed as one of the attempts to give the bottoms-up organizations of Hindus the unifying theme. It seeks to do so by going beyond the ancient sense of geography and culture, but by providing a history; and not just any history but an ideological one.

Itihas has always been not just history but a history with a Dharmic (ethical-philosophical) theme running through it, which one can interpret as an "ideological one".

You are however very correct in saying that Hindutva is an attempt to give the bottoms-up organizations of Hindus a unifying theme.

What does this theme constitute:

1. Instill pride among Hindus for our Sanskriti, Sabhyata, Rāṣṭra, Dharma.
2. Reveal the history of dedicated efforts by foreigners and traitors to undermine the above.
3. Explain current and future threats.
4. Deconstruct various inimical ideologies and their ideological attacks: Islam, Dhimmitude, Christianity, Macaulayism, Colonialism, Marxism, Western Universalism, Secularism, Suitcase-Hinduism
5. Construct a narrative for a righteous resistance against the above mentioned inimical ideologies and powers
6. Suggest appropriate strategy and tactics how to thwart programs and agendas of various forces and groups pledged to above inimical ideologies
7. Ensure political dispensations in India and various federal bodies facilitating this Hindutva program and Hindutvavadis
8. Return India to complete Ārya domination.
9. Return Akhand Bharat to complete Ārya domination.
10. Return Bharatvarsha to world's cultural leadership status.

[shiv]

Hindu Nationalism can be viewed as one of the attempts to give the bottoms-up organizations of Hindus the unifying theme. It seeks to do so by going beyond the ancient sense of geography and culture, but by providing a history; and not just any history but an ideological one.

That's a nice way of putting it. It also means that people have consistently recognized the lack of organization and "fascism-like-unity" that top-down systems foster.

But a sense of nationalism exists even without organizational attempts, and the attempt to organize is merely a way of getting together a pre-existing group of "like minds". Every time this organization has tried to borrow themes from the religions - it seems to have come up with resistance from among Hindus and there are some red lines.

For example a common flag is not opposed - flags are an accepted theme of unity in Hindu culture. A common uniform fosters unity, but "appearances" have multiple implications in Hindu culture. The first is that appearances do not matter - its the being inside the clothes that matters. Secondly, diversity in appearance is the hallmark of the freedom exists among Hindus and dharmic paths to have their own unique sub-identity. A common anthem for a "hindutva" group would have to be very carefully selected because there is so much to choose from. A common "book" would be an error, because Hindu memories extend before the time of writing. It would be a mistake to assume that some elite leader or priest knows this and that the people at ground level don't. Hindus have a better idea of unifying concepts of society and justice rather than the need to depend on a single reference book that knows it all.

Hindu "prayers" are a strange phenomenon which would invariably throw a person from a monotheistic-Abrahamic background completely off track. There is no "Hindu God" who is also not considered a manifestation of the same Brahman-Unity that Spinoza describes in words comprehensible to the western reader. As such there is no Hindu God who sets down laws. Gods at the top are simply names for the laws of the Universe. The Gods are the laws and they follow the laws. They are not outside the law and are unable to disobey the law. If you search for one law in the universe that the universe itself has to follow - that is God and that is also a universal law. Anything that follows from that law are manifestations of God. This makes diversity and freedom a fundamental Hindu theme. Altruism, philanthropy and sacrifice are added to human duties as part of human dharma, as opposed to the eternal "that which is" dharma of the universe.

All this also makes "militant Hindu-ism" only a sub-set of a broader Hindu base. Militant Hindu-ism cannot claim Hinduism for itself, but it cannot be rejected either. Hindutva has become associated with militant Hindu-ism. But Hindutva is definitely part and parcel of Hindu thought and cannot be rejected as a "fringe" and "non-Hindu". This is something that secularvadis will have to come to terms with even as militant Hindutva supporters need to understand that as a body, Hindus will not not tolerate mindless targeting of others who disagree in copy-cat acts that mimic Christian and Islamic intolerance. I suspect it is mental colonization among some Hindutva supporters that make them do and say absurd things like women should stay at home, wear saris, serve the husband and wear jasmine in their hair. This is an assumption that there is one set formula for Hindu behaviour. This is where some secularvadis score over these groups in having a better grip on Hindu culture.

What I am trying to suggest here is that "Hindutva" as a sense or an identity extends well outside the base of militant Hindutva-vadis and is a feeling that is experienced by many people whose day to day life does not revolve around Hindu militancy. Hindutva, is more than militant Hinduism. I think there has to be a common meeting ground and understanding that militancy is a normal reaction to assault and is in no way alien to Hinduism. But Hindu militancy needs to be cautious and dharmic, not stupid and adharmic. It is mental colonization that often leads to absurd reactions - and I think this needs further exploration. I suspect that the RSS has realized this - but I still think they need to change out of khaki shorts which are a cursed symbol of colonization.

[csaurabh]

I am not sure that a 'lawless' society is a great idea.
We have already seen what happened in Lallu's jungle-raaj 'lawless' Bihar of the 90's. Gangs like "Ranveer Sena", muslim dons, naxalites, dacoits, kidnapping industry, etc. had a free-for-all.
This was because of absence of law-and-order enforcement.

[Arjun]

After the fall of the Roman Empire the economy of Europe collapsed for several centuries. Economies of the middle east prospered. Where was the incentive to go to Europe? On the other hand trade with the far east prospered and the Chola navy dominated the eastern oceans.

When the Roman empire collapsed, Arabs replaced Romans as buyers of Indian spice, pearls and other goods. It could either mean that the Middle Eastern economy suddenly started prospering with enough end-buyers sprouting up within that region, or that Arabs had seen the opportunity to intermediate in the lucrative India-Rome trade by coming in as intermediaries. I suspect it is the latter.

Here is the wiki on 'Spice Trade' on the matter, though admittedly wiki may be guilty of eurocentrism:

From the 8th until the 15th century, the Republic of Venice and neighboring maritime republics held the monopoly of European trade with the Middle East. The silk and spice trade, involving spices, incense, herbs, drugs and opium, made these Mediterranean city-states phenomenally rich. Spices were among the most expensive and in-demand products of the Middle Ages, used in medicine. They were all imported from Asia and Africa. Venetian merchants distributed then the goods through Europe until the rise of the Ottoman Empire, that eventually led to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, barring Europeans from important combined land-sea routes

Even if we admit that India had a lot more to offer Europe than the other way around, which is why Europe was more incentivised to find a direct sea-route to India - that raises other questions. The ability to offer a lot to the world was surely bound to attract attention from all sorts - including the unwanted variety. There doesn't seem to have been much societal thinking on the prudence of granting the privilege of trading posts in India to Arabs and Europeans. China on the other hand, resisted granting Europeans any trading posts and privileges for centuries after they obtained the same quite easily in India.

Point being, one of the primary reasons for India's colonization was the failure of medieval Indian society to develop institutional thinking and anticipate the future consequences of key administrative decisions. Discussion is probably OT for this thread though.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Shiv, yes, getting rid of the pejorative around Hindu nationalism will require, among other things, reducing the level of absurdity.

[Pulikeshi]

A name given by colonizers ("Hindu") and a name suffering from European demons of World War II ("Nationalism")
No level of absurdity reduction will do anything... what needs to happen is to find new word(s) - Indian word(s) to define what it really means to those that hold it dear and near. One cannot win fixed negative matches!

[RajeshA]

^^^ Shiv, yes, getting rid of the pejorative around Hindu nationalism will require, among other things, reducing the level of absurdity.

True,

Different ideological standpoints have however different views on what constitutes absurdity and different recipes on how to diminish it.

even as militant Hindutva supporters need to understand that as a body, Hindus will not not tolerate mindless targeting of others who disagree in copy-cat acts that mimic Christian and Islamic intolerance.

Any "targeting" by militant Hindutva has to be more intense at the core of the "others" and much milder as we move to ideological periphery of the "others", where "targeting" takes more the form of education and gentle persuasion. However red lines need to be drawn around Hindu Samaj and any violations from outside would have to be responded to.

There is nothing "mindless" about this.

There is however a protracted campaign to paint militant Hindutva as simply a "copy" of (previous) Christian and (current) Islamic intolerance/Jihad, on the lines of there is no difference between RSS and LeT/Taliban. It is unfortunate that secularized Hindus lack the ability to differentiate.

[A_Gupta]

^^^

.....on the lines of there is no difference between RSS and LeT/Taliban...

...militant Hindutva as simply a "copy" of...

Rubbish.

I think you haven't understood one word of what has been written in this thread.

[RajeshA]

^^^

.....on the lines of there is no difference between RSS and LeT/Taliban...

...militant Hindutva as simply a "copy" of...

Rubbish.

I think you haven't understood one word of what has been written in this thread.

Well I have understood this much that intellectual noodles are being cooked to make the point that Hindutva too is simply a reflection of a "deeply, deeply so very deeply colonized minds", and as such Hindutva does not represent the native Asmita.

Current secular narrative is far more cruder.

But both views end up saying the same thing: "Hindus, beware, Hindutva does not represent you or your interests!"

[Karan M]

All the intellectual discussion would really matter if the non colonized minds could actually come up with a method to
a) counter thuggery by other religions, forced conversions, local domination
b) aggressive proselytization
c) constant demonization of hinduism and its concepts

Hindutva, as crude as it may be for SNB saar is still "on the ground" & facing the actual realities.

[csaurabh]

All the intellectual discussion would really matter if the non colonized minds could actually come up with a method to
a) counter thuggery by other religions, forced conversions, local domination
b) aggressive proselytization
c) constant demonization of hinduism and its concepts

Hindutva, as crude as it may be for SNB saar is still "on the ground" & facing the actual realities.

What I would say is that there are different forms of Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism.

Bajrang dal has it's purpose, Narendra modi has its purpose and internet Hindus have their purpose.

[panduranghari]

This is something that secularvadis will have to come to terms with even as militant Hindutva supporters need to understand that as a body, Hindus will not not tolerate mindless targeting of others who disagree in copy-cat acts that mimic Christian and Islamic intolerance.

लोहा लोहे को काटता है

What I am trying to suggest here is that "Hindutva" as a sense or an identity extends well outside the base of militant Hindutva-vadis and is a feeling that is experienced by many people whose day to day life does not revolve around Hindu militancy. Hindutva, is more than militant Hinduism. I think there has to be a common meeting ground and understanding that militancy is a normal reaction to assault and is in no way alien to Hinduism. But Hindu militancy needs to be cautious and dharmic, not stupid and adharmic. It is mental colonization that often leads to absurd reactions - and I think this needs further exploration. I suspect that the RSS has realized this - but I still think they need to change out of khaki shorts which are a cursed symbol of colonization.

What you wish of Hindutva is what Savarkar already stated about it. And he also includes that bit which you disagree with regards to what you believe modern Hindutva has come to represent.

[member_20317]

All this also makes "militant Hindu-ism" only a sub-set of a broader Hindu base. Militant Hindu-ism cannot claim Hinduism for itself, but it cannot be rejected either. Hindutva has become associated with militant Hindu-ism. But Hindutva is definitely part and parcel of Hindu thought and cannot be rejected as a "fringe" and "non-Hindu". This is something that secularvadis will have to come to terms with even as militant Hindutva supporters need to understand that as a body, Hindus will not not tolerate mindless targeting of others who disagree in copy-cat acts that mimic Christian and Islamic intolerance. I suspect it is mental colonization among some Hindutva supporters that make them do and say absurd things like women should stay at home, wear saris, serve the husband and wear jasmine in their hair. This is an assumption that there is one set formula for Hindu behaviour. This is where some secularvadis score over these groups in having a better grip on Hindu culture.

You seem to be struggling a lot with the militant side of Hindu existence. The problem that militancy constitutes is neither new nor have these requirements been felt only within India. Different cultures dealt with these requirements of controlling the militant kinds in different manners. From the POV of the militant kind it can be, equally easily, pointed out that the softie-softie, all equal-equal approach is a method to avoid the fair share of grunt work which in turn has already gotten us in trouble. It is not like the Buddhists and Gymnosophists and even the Hindus have not kept the doors of peaceful cooperation open forever. You are that Hindu who is meant for the peaceful route – Bhagwaan aapka saath de.

Since, unlike you, I want people to continue claiming under Hinduism (the Religion) too, so for the purpose of a reconciliation of our books of accounts, I would say there is no real way to control a militant Hindu simply because they are not holding themselves back, waiting for a better understanding of the theory that will enable them to be peaceful. The whole idea of waiting for them becomes a case of klesha (self doubt) or ahamkaar (egotistical belief that so many instances of violence in Hindu traditions can only be rationalized by a new pacifist making himself available for preaching to the militancy oriented).

The traditions have tried to handle the militancy oriented by reminding them that the only real militancy, is of the sanyaas kind (a one way street of sorts) or a phatka and 2 khands type (again one way), on the road to Moksha and Dharma. Unfortunately this will force you to recognize that the militant Hindus do exist, that they will band together and act per their understanding of the needs, all the while remaining within the Hindu existence.

And then you will have to open up to the possibility that they may actually end up far more successful than the non-militant kind of Hindus and the whole nine yards after that.

All this would invalidate the first part of the whole sentence, in bold above. The best you can ask for is that - 'Militant Hindu-ism cannot claim Hinduism for itself, exclusively, thus it cannot be rejected either'.

OTOneH you want to give direction to, negotiate with and probably even benefit from the militant Hindu mind and OTOH you don't even want to acknowledge that their path is within the traditional path. It is not like people of a more militant type have never come across the thought patterns you mention. Pacifists would never let a regular militant live in peace (TV, propaganda, MSM, schools, courthouses, constitution with its children and what have you). Militant Hindu is a minority because that is the nature of things. Same way the pacifists are also too few. Majority is of people who care a damn for what happens to the ‘other’ because it all starts from the self and ends with the self. So any theory that ignores the facts, quickly discredits itself – true for the militants, true for the pacifist. Only propaganda can reverse this rule and almost forever the money, resources, media has been in the hands of the pacifists.

[Pratyush]

But is the series of post answering the question asked when the thread was started. We are looking inward with the discussion. The look outwards in order to understand the way the outsiders are looking in. Is not taking place. We are just going round & round in circles as to what Hindutva is or if militancy is a part of Hindutva or not.

The point of the thread is not about what Hindutva is. It is how outsiders see it, and about their reaction to a small subset of the Hindutava behavior.

Unless people come back to deconstructing that view, the current discussion is meaning less. All the members are doing is, that, they are deconstructing Hindutva and putting their own interpretation on it.

Quite frankly, it is tiresome to see the same set of ideas re-expressed using different words. Over & over again.

It would be amusing to read the posts, if they were not indicative of insecurities about Hindutva amongst the members. While it is illuminating, to learn about the insecurities.

We are no where closer to answering the original question, that led to this thread.

PS:- Note to shiv ji. You can start a piskoligical experiment, abut the inability of the BRFits to stick to the topic

[shiv]

One of the things that keep coming back at me on this thread is the idea that Hindutva is mainly militant Hinduism.

I still haven't understood why the militant reactionary aspect of Hinduism alone should be Hindutva. There have been explanations in past pages that Hindutva itself is a reaction to the assaults faced by Hindus and this reaction arose towards the end of the Mughal regime and blossomed when the British were here. I can now see that this is a persistent meme.

it is not possible for me to try and define Hindutva as any feeling that existed before the assaults on Hindus - so as an an entity, Hindutva is relatively new.

Aside from this is the question of whether Hindutva should or should not be translated as Hindu nationalism. Unless I am grossly mistaken, Hindutva is generally translated (or mistranslated) as "Hindu nationalism". If Hindutva is Hindu nationalism, then Hindu nationalism, like Hindutva, did not exist in the remote past. if you take the Hindu past as 5000 years old, Hindu nationalism has not existed for 4500 years or so and the sparks of nationalism arose perhaps 500 years ago - or even more recently depending on when one defines the origin of "Hindutva"

If this conclusion is right, we cannot look for Hindutva in our itihaasa. In fact no matter what Wendy Doniger writes, as long as she is writing about Hindus more than 1000 years ago she is right in pointing out that Hinduvta did not exist.

I have heard the argument that Hinduism is evolving and changing all the time depending on circumstances. I find this argument difficult to buy. If Hinduism is evolving and changing I need to know what has evolved and changed. A rhetorical question would be - "Can we evolve Hinduism to slot seamlessly into the modern day where we, for example, declare "Vishnu/Krishna as the supreme Godhead and the Gita as a holy book". This question strikes below the belt - because Krishna's liaisons with Gopis would instantly disqualify a lot of Hindutva-vadi groups who are agitating against boys and girls mixing. Also it would outlaw the bottom up system of panchayat self rule. Khaps and their panchayats would be knocked out summarily.

I don't think this sort of evolution of Hindu-ism is likely, because it restricts rather than frees up. Someone said that Militant Hindutva is a reaction to the times and that it will vanish when the stresses disappear. In fact the stresses are not showing any signs of disappearing soon. They are hitting back and hitting back hard - I can expand on this in so many ways but will hold back for now.

I don't think Hindutva can, as a concept, legitimately describe itself solely as a militant reaction of Hindus and yet expect to be welcomed with open arms if every militant Hindu is taken as an ally - and that includes groups who are seeking to stop the mixing of men and women, and everyone who expresses some objection to be declared the enemy.

Am I seeing that happen on here? If I am mistaken, please tell me how.

[RajeshA]

I don't think Hindutva can, as a concept, legitimately describe itself solely as a militant reaction of Hindus and yet expect to be welcomed with open arms if every militant Hindu is taken as an ally - and that includes groups who are seeking to stop the mixing of men and women, and everyone who expresses some objection to be declared the enemy.

Am I seeing that happen on here? If I am mistaken, please tell me how.

Something I mentioned earlier.

5. Construct a narrative for a righteous resistance against the above mentioned inimical ideologies and powers

6. Suggest appropriate strategy and tactics how to thwart programs and agendas of various forces and groups pledged to above inimical ideologies

There are two angles from which scorn is being poured on Hindu groups like Ram Sena, etc. who have indulged in Valentine's Day vandalism, and done moral policing.

1) The Western Liberal perspective, that what these "Hindu orgs" are doing is against human rights and free choice.

2) The ordinary Hindu perspective, who is aghast that "Hindu girls" may have been abused for intermingling with boys which in itself is not against Dharma, at least to many Hindus.

For many Hindus who take to strong-arm tactics on this issue, it is a case of frustration, that they cannot reach the Hindu youth and teach them a different way of seeing the world, a way rooted in our traditions. This has again to do with the decay of traditional Hindu knowledge transmission channels, a sphere which anglophone public schools and secular govt. schools have taken over, or Hindus have started sourcing their values from Western cultural junk and Bollywood.

If somebody wants to criticize their tactics, then they have to provide alternate suggestions of how to deal with Hindu youths alienation from their traditional values.

[vishvak]

From what is discussed here, one can state clearly that Macaulay himself was Protestant and wrote history of others. Before Macaulay, history of others would have been written by Britishers as they ruled the seas. And before that, Mughals who were mostly tyrants and invading war mongrels.

Hence, as an independent country, we don't need to rely upon others and declare that history writing of others is unethical since that is practice of invaders and colonizing barbarians, pillagers, war mongrels.

[shiv]

Unfortunately this will force you to recognize that the militant Hindus do exist, that they will band together and act per their understanding of the needs, all the while remaining within the Hindu existence.

And then you will have to open up to the possibility that they may actually end up far more successful than the non-militant kind of Hindus and the whole nine yards after that.
<snip>
OTOH you don't even want to acknowledge that their path is within the traditional path.

This is wrong. I can see that I seem to cause irritation and anger enough to invite fake counter accusations when I talk about militant Hinduism. That fascinates me.

As I see it - Hindu nationalism is being portrayed in a pejorative sense because it is being accused of being militant and "not really Hindu". I have said in my post above and in other posts that this is not correct, and that it is unfair - but I am simply getting a knee jerk from you claiming that I have said things that I have not said - so we have not moved any further in my view.

I will keep pushing the envelope..

[A_Gupta]

Complaints about Hindu nationalists culled from the web (in no particular order, via google searcheson Hindu nationalism)

1. Anti-scientific, unscientific, promote superstition.
2. Consign Muslims & Christians to second-class citizenship status.
3. Start riots.
4. Use state apparatus to support Hindu rioters.
5. Construct Hinduism as a mirror-image of militant Islam or Christianity.
6. Bring religion into politics.
7. Act as moral police in public, going after Valentines & birthday cakes.
8. Try to prove all inventions took place in India.
9. Anti-intellectual
10. Suspicion that they want to re-institute a caste hierarchy.
11. Lack of creativity.
12. Do not know how to identify and work with potential allies.
13. Too many are ill-mannered, lack self-control, turn off sympathizers.
14. Superficial knowledge of Hinduism.
15. Superficial knowledge of the west, Islam, Christianity, etc.
16. Nurse grievances, inferiority complex.

"Nationalism" has a bad odor to it anyway in the Anglosphere (it is e.g., associated with the root causes of World War 2).

[shiv]

For many Hindus who take to strong-arm tactics on this issue, it is a case of frustration, that they cannot reach the Hindu youth and teach them a different way of seeing the world, a way rooted in our traditions. This has again to do with the decay of traditional Hindu knowledge transmission channels, a sphere which anglophone public schools and secular govt. schools have taken over, or Hindus have started sourcing their values from Western cultural junk and Bollywood.

If somebody wants to criticize their tactics, then they have to provide alternate suggestions of how to deal with Hindu youths alienation from their traditional values.

Absolutely. It is frustration. I called it impotent anger but people did not like that - so maybe frustration is a better word?

I agree about the need for alternate suggestions - and I have a lot of thoughts that I would like to put down - but one problem I can see is the failure to consider BRF only as a discussion board where positions can be discussed and that they need not be rigid.

I would like to discuss why strong arm tactics are being criticized. After all dying for Islam and becoming a martyr for Christianity are admired as being great. There is something different and I am trying to understand the difference. I am deliberately pushing and pushing hard if possible.

One difference I can point out right now - and in fact it was in response to one of your posts above that you seem to have edited out after some thought. This is about the "equal-equal" being done between militant Hindus and Taliban/LeT. I cannot speak for the Congress party or its minions who equate Hindu militant orgainizations with LeT-Taliban.

But let me explain this accusation: When a sickular accuses Hindutva of being like "LeT/Taliban" what he is saying in effect is "Militant Hindus are like LeT/Taliban. But we secular Hindus are like the general mass of Muslims and Christians"

But what if some militant Hindus behave like the "General mass of Muslims" - like Hindu groups and Muslim groups being united in opposing socialization of men and women and calling for modesty in female dress? I may be totally wrong here but this sort of restriction is not characteristic of Hindus. OK we might say that Hindus are variable and some allow more freedom for intersex mixing and some feel different. But militant Hindus fighting to impose that difference on other Hindus is definitely odd. And yet these groups count themselves as Hindutva vadis and I am seeing some effort to justify their behaviour on here simply because they call themselves Hindu and are militant. In which variety of Hinduism do Hindus form militant groups to oppose other Hindus?

[RajeshA]

But what if some militant Hindus behave like the "General mass of Muslims" - like Hindu groups and Muslim groups being united in opposing socialization of men and women and calling for modesty in female dress? I may be totally wrong here but this sort of restriction is not characteristic of Hindus. OK we might say that Hindus are variable and some allow more freedom for intersex mixing and some feel different. But militant Hindus fighting to impose that difference on other Hindus is definitely odd. And yet these groups count themselves as Hindutva vadis and I am seeing some effort to justify their behaviour on here simply because they call themselves Hindu and are militant. In which variety of Hinduism do Hindus form militant groups to oppose other Hindus?

Honestly, I don't think that these Ram Sena type Hindu orgs really have something against intermixing of men and women. All sorts of Indian gatherings have such intermixing, unlike say Islam, in which even in the mosque or a wedding, women have a separate section.

Their gripe is over what they feel is an adoption of Western "immorality" (boozing, dancing, rubbing, kissing, ...) in the name of individual freedoms. Even all that activity would be acceptable to these orgs if there would have been some Indian tradition of such indulgence. What they find unacceptable is not the acts as such but the presumed Western influence on them which cause the youth to act this way!

[shiv]

"Nationalism" has a bad odor to it anyway in the Anglosphere (it is e.g., associated with the root causes of World War 2).

This in fact is definitely one issue. In fact "nationalism" was blamed for the Kosovo crisis and the Balkanization of Yugoslavia is being blamed on that.

But regarding the accusations:

1. Anti-scientific, unscientific, promote superstition.

This is a hangover from colonialism - especially the "superstition" bit. Anti-scientific and "unscientific" are accusations that are made even by educated Indians, but in this instance Balu is spot on. Education is always western and we see India through western eyes. Unless we develop a large body of academic work that rips open western notions of what is so great about "science" we wil find it difficult to live down these notions. We have bought into western science fully and I see angry reactions if I question the benefits of western science and I can see only opposition when I point out that the population explosion and rampant obesity and environmental degradation are effects of science and we want to throw more science at it because what our past tells us is only superstition.

2. Consign Muslims & Christians to second-class citizenship status.

Muslims and Christians feel second class by definition when surrounded by pagans/kafirs. this will not go away unless we completely discard hinduism

3. Start riots.

Don't we all?

4. Use state apparatus to support Hindu rioters.

What? You mean during the last decade of secular rule?

5. Construct Hinduism as a mirror-image of militant Islam or Christianity.

Is this a totally false accusation?

6. Bring religion into politics.

Which religion?

7. Act as moral police in public, going after Valentines & birthday cakes.

This accusation IMO covers up the more important one of judging pre marital female behavior by a set of standards that are claimed to be Hindu values. I am genuinely interested in the origins of these Hindu values. We seem to have no academic work in this regard. We have to depend on the hated foeigners and their universities to tell us things that we don't like

8. Try to prove all inventions took place in India.

This is an unfair accusation. Many did happen in India.

9. Anti-intellectual

pah

10. Suspicion that they want to re-institute a caste hierarchy.

This was a South Indian (mainly Tamil nadu) accusation against the BJP. There is definitely a degree of colonizations of minds here - both in seeing the Hindi North as "Aryans" trying to dictate on Dravidians

11. Lack of creativity.

LOL

12. Do not know how to identify and work with potential allies.

I would like to debate this

13. Too many are ill-mannered, lack self-control, turn off sympathizers.

Unfair

14. Superficial knowledge of Hinduism.

IMO no one in India today seems to have a grip on Hinduism. It is an alien term to describe us. We need to describe us first

15. Superficial knowledge of the west, Islam, Christianity, etc.

Very true. Need to dig in deeper and suss out their deep biases. We seem to find that difficult because we have accpeted and internalized so much of the west, especially western science, which to most of us is above question, like Bible

16. Nurse grievances, inferiority complex.

Nursing grievances is characteristic of the monotheistic religions. We could do with some of that. Inferiority - yes. And the West has ensured that non West continually know their inferiority

[shiv]

Their gripe is over what they feel is an adoption of Western "immorality" (boozing, dancing, rubbing, kissing, ...) in the name of individual freedoms. Even all that activity would be acceptable to these orgs if there would have been some Indian tradition of such indulgence. What they find unacceptable is not the acts as such but the presumed Western influence on them which cause the youth to act this way!

Rajesh I agree with you here.

But do you see that the problem cannot be elucidated in its right context unless we understand what the west is doing to us. Hindutva vadis who do thse things need intellectual leaders who understand how "western liberalism" is being foisted on Hindu culture and what the history of that liberalism is, so that Hindus can take more nuanced line while tearing down the west.

In India we accept western norms of "liberalism" without question. I have got into many an argument by asking about the Indian norms for homosexuality. What are they? Is the west invariably right? Are "rights" to be imposed from above, by "law'.

We seem to believe that Hindus were always liberal in a western sense. I think that is wrong. Hindu liberalism was never something that emerged out of conservatism. It was liberalism that was moderated by Hindu social laws. It was not initial religious control of behaviour followed by "release" when the religions were defeated and sidelined and replaced by "reason" and "rationality" . I use English words that can be misused by saying that Hindus represent "Unreason" and "Irrationality" if they refuse western norms. But these are rhetorical arguments, in fact sophistry, that we need to sort out intellectually - by separating rhetoric from facts

[member_20317]

Re. Shiv Post subject: Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative senUnread postPosted: 12 Dec 2014 17:50

Saar I am satisfied by the mere fact that I am not on your most ignored list.

Aside - I just need one confirmation though - you are not doing a ghanti bajao just to see how many times it rings. Or are you? Because as shararati children we used to do that. The dumb wanna be, Bai-Kaam graduates in us, were fascinated by the divine truth - bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring. But then again you are a senior professional doctor of repute and cannot be expected to be like us dumb Kamerce graduates.

[shiv]

But then again you are a senior professional doctor of repute and cannot be expected to be like us dumb Kamerce graduates.

I think the most difficult thing we might have to face is that we are all dumb.

While Europe was dumbing us down and teaching us what was right - European intellectuals were writing hundreds of thousands of pages about India - in translations and commentaries - reaching opinions about us and then teaching us about that.

As part of the "OIT" discussion I downloaded several volumes from Archive.org (I paid them too - out of gratitutde).

Each volume is no less than 500 pages.

Eg:
Elements of comparative grammar of Indo-European Languages: - 640 pages
Vedic Index of names - Volumes 1 and 2 - over 500 pages each
Shatapatha Brahmana (various authors, edited by Max Muller) 548 pages
Living Races of man - 2 volumes 400 plus pages each

And so the list goes on and on.

Hindu works are no less voluminous. We don't know them AT ALL. We don't know Sanskrit. What we know of those works is via the European translators. There is no one, no secular or Hindutva vadi who knows both English and Sanskrit who has studied the Indian texts in sanskrit and looked at the Western translations and who can write a commentary on the differences.

The academic work we require will need 1,000 academics a decade or two before we scratch the surface. And 1,000 PhD theses.

The Donigers are unconstrained by the Hindu context. They simply work off the translations and the commentaries and academin paers and thesis written in Western Universities based on those translations.

I think the least we can do is accept that there is a problem. It may not be impotent anger, but frustration instead? Word play.

[vishvak]

and who can write a commentary on the differences.

The academic work we require will need 1,000 academics a decade or two before we scratch the surface. And 1,000 PhD theses.

Sorry to disagree, but why should Indians spend anything on such an effort? It will serve no purpose for Indians other than usual Inglis translation is better since no one knows Samskrit onlee. In fact, it is better to keep Indian knowledge within India in Indian languages and not have 'translations' to confuse the whole world about which translation is (more ) accurate and, therefore, native languages are no better.

[shiv]

and who can write a commentary on the differences.

The academic work we require will need 1,000 academics a decade or two before we scratch the surface. And 1,000 PhD theses.

Sorry to disagree, but why should Indians spend anything on such an effort? It will serve no purpose for Indians other than usual Inglis translation is better since no one knows Samskrit onlee. In fact, it is better to keep Indian knowledge within India in Indian languages and not have 'translations' to confuse the whole world about which translation is (more ) accurate and, therefore, native languages are no better.

It is difficult to make a credible argument against what you say. Anything I say can be rejected. But the arguments I am making are not my own. They are borrowed from observations of non western academics based in the west, who have spent their lives looking at these issues, Balu and Edward Said.

Edward Said in particular makes the case that the entire western superstructure of putting the east in an inferior position comes form deep knowledge of everything in the east and ready made references and arguments against anything anyone in the east might say to indicate how they (the west) are superior on moral, intellectual, social, scientific and economic grounds.

The problem is not just of India but the entire turd world. The only hope for India would be to lead intellectually. By turning inwards as you suggest - we are simply heading back into our cocoon as a response to challenges that we have not faced with ease.

All our education and intellectualism arises from western work and the more we are exposed to that the more our people get convinced of the uselessness of our past and the rich and overflowing superiority of the west. It would be perfectly possible to live on accepting Western superiority if we were not uncomfortable about it - but once we are uncomfortable we need to work to sort it out. Not easy IMO.

[member_20317]

Shiv ji,

1) Anger is surely there. Whether it is impotent or not or whether it is leading to frustration or not is for time to tell. Personally I feel I have a duty not to pull others into this anger. BRF is another matter, for people here are far far more angry then I can ever get.

Moving on about impotence of the rage, I know a few things around our own culture and I just know (as in unwilling to change views) that there are several things still unsaid. Unsaid not because they do not exist but because the relevant people have only just come in or are yet to come in. And whether the anger gets properly directed or not will be assessed only after these new people come into the picture. Shiv ji you must have noticed it - till almost the dying moments of Brit raj we had scientists (logically follows engineers and daktari backgroud also) that had the capacity to win a nobel. Suddenly afterwards the nobels by Indians started coming in only from the apravasi bharatiyas. The people with scientific background got their freedom in 47. But for Bekaam types the downturn kept going on in absolute sense till 70s and almost till the 90s. Socio-economic freedom is the bases on which, in apaadkaal the dharma rests (ref. chanakya). For people working in sociological theory the freedom is yet to come. So the potency or otherwise will not get decided just yet.

2) Re. Further research work - Yes there is a beeeg need to study ourselves and only a little lesser need to study the outsiders. And the cumulative work hours required are huge. No two ways about that. Till we reverse these trends we will never be able to do justice to the multitude that met their unfair end and that constitute our collective ancestors.

3) I also use archive dot org. I dont even pay them. I dont feel any gratitude. I have formed the opinion that these guys are doing this only to subvert India eventually and so anything taken from them is only a counter, not an unjustified action. I bet I know lesser Sanskrit than you but still I feel more confident defining our understanding. Probably because I merely use the english versions for a ctrl+F usage. I tend to read Hindi version and feel satisfied because there is no way these foreigners will ever write in Hindi - for fear of contradiction. And further there is no way a Hindi version will lie because there is no political need to. I am sure even the so called non-aryan south Indian languages (that I don't know at all) would fare far far honest compared to the woolly headed foreign versions. Off course this is not to dissuade you from your research (I am also waiting for your work on Avesta-Sanskrit history that you had promised during OIT bahas). This is actually meant to suggest a way for forward to you to simplify your own efforts.

[shiv]

(I am also waiting for your work on Avesta-Sanskrit history that you had promised during OIT bahas). This is actually meant to suggest a way for forward to you to simplify your own efforts.

Ravi I wrote 140 pages of what i thought was well researched and clear until I suddenly realized that it is useless to join the Lungi Dance that seeks to put meanings into the Rig Veda like cow releasing water.

It is about "sounds" and the sounds don't seem to have the meanings that they are attributed to have. Two books really screwed my fun - "The Garland of Letters" and that "Secrets of the Vedas" book by Aurobindo.

Both books point towards the conclusion that the Vedas - esp Rig veda may really be older than 10,000 years old - dating from the beginnings of human language. In modern terms this would be difficult to prove. So if I write abook in which there are 10 chapters of logical and researched stuff and then suddenly i start saying things like I wrote above about Rig Veda - the whole purpose of the book - that is to clarify something, loses itself. I need to have a better understanding of what Indians have said about Rig Veda before I can get the courage to step out.

One of the biggest problem is that the "sound" of the Rig Veda, when chanted by properly initiated minds, can actually have psychological effects on humans that are currently unexplainable by science. It is said that some of these things were developed into "spells/incantations" that appeared in the Atharva Veda. The power of mantra that we all know about but rarely feel is something that needs some elucidation. If you look at Hindu rituals - there is often a mass of ritual, possibly from the Shatapatha Brahmana and suddenly the priests burst into passages directly from the Rig Veda.These have special significance. These passages are the "movers" that are supposed to cause success of the ceremony.

There is a huge gulf between the Indian past and the Western present and we are inside that gulf.

Anyhow - my thrust on this thread is to see if there can be any valid reasons to narrow the gulf between sickular and Hindutva - I believe that can go a long way towards a common goal. If you dig into this question - what causes the gulf is something that has been introduced by western intervention in India. There is no way of bridging the Gulf without understanding the nature of the western intervention because the sickular Hindutva divide is a recent one

[Atri]

One of the things that keep coming back at me on this thread is the idea that Hindutva is mainly militant Hinduism.

I still haven't understood why the militant reactionary aspect of Hinduism alone should be Hindutva. There have been explanations in past pages that Hindutva itself is a reaction to the assaults faced by Hindus and this reaction arose towards the end of the Mughal regime and blossomed when the British were here. I can now see that this is a persistent meme.

Am I seeing that happen on here? If I am mistaken, please tell me how.

Yes, shiv ji.. Because without this dharmaarthik adaptation (socio-politico-economic) which includes organized Militant response for survival, there will be only Dharma or nothing. Organized response to Abrahmics is "Hindu", its evolution into organized response to tackle nation-state is "hindutva". Subtract these two, and you have maanava-dharma.

[shiv]

One of the things that keep coming back at me on this thread is the idea that Hindutva is mainly militant Hinduism.

I still haven't understood why the militant reactionary aspect of Hinduism alone should be Hindutva. There have been explanations in past pages that Hindutva itself is a reaction to the assaults faced by Hindus and this reaction arose towards the end of the Mughal regime and blossomed when the British were here. I can now see that this is a persistent meme.

Am I seeing that happen on here? If I am mistaken, please tell me how.

Yes, shiv ji.. Because without this dharmaarthik adaptation (socio-politico-economic) which includes organized Militant response for survival, there will be only Dharma or nothing. Organized response to Abrahmics is "Hindu", its evolution into organized response to tackle nation-state is "hindutva". Subtract these two, and you have maanava-dharma.

Part 2 of my question was, is Hindu nationalism = Hindutva?

iF Hindutva is an organized response by Hindus to tackle nation-state - it is a new response. Therefore there was no Hindu nationalism before the Muslim and British invasions. It is then true that the British created the Indian nation because there is no Hindu concept of nationalism that pre-dates that.

I am unhappy with this conclusion because I do believe there was a sense of nation that goes back centuries. if Hindutva is telling me that a sense of nation was actually non existent till the Abrahamics came, I suspect they are wrong.

[member_20317]

shiv Post subject: Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative senPostPosted: 12 Dec 2014 20:44

Well if that is your thrust then I beseech you to reconsider. Hindutva vaadis like seculars are also fattus . After a long long discussion you will still end up dry and without any blood in anybodies hands and no fire no warmth.

My take TIFWIW – both sides are enacting a drama expanding their respective envelopes always tentative, where exactly they would fall apart as a mission. Only difference is one sides uses (multiple reasons but primarily innate nature), militancy as primary tool to understand the world around while the other side uses (again multiple reasons and again primarily innate nature), peace as the primary tool to describe things.

Seculars are useless till they actually display an ability to sacrifice their own selves. Likewise militant kinds (Hindutva vaadis) cannot justifiably claim militancy till they have put something to a bali (ideally enemies). All this is just a grand drama, that simply cannot be beyond the control of Mahadev.

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

Not to pull you aside - but w.r.t. your research, does it mean that you suspect even the scientifically inclined (including engineers and doctors who have for long tried to provide insight). cannot justifiably be as confident as they sound. That probably they to have been only partially successful in doing justice to the hoary traditions. Probably even, dare I say, speaking up before they should have about subsequent and dependent traditions .

[shiv]

My take TIFWIW – both sides are enacting a drama expanding their respective envelopes always tentative, where exactly they would fall apart as a mission. Only difference is one sides uses (multiple reasons but primarily innate nature), militancy as primary tool to understand the world around while the other side uses (again multiple reasons and again primarily innate nature), peace as the primary tool to describe things.

And I am the gas floating in the space between them..

Anyhow - I earlier compared colonized minds to neurotics and psychotics. There is another joke in that regard

Neurotics build castles in the air
Psychotics live in them
..and psychiatrists collect the rent