Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

[brihaspati]

S,
my contention was that USA may not have any option. It may just be forced to. Fingers crossed!

[brihaspati]

Leading from "war over Tibet" thread ----

The communists typically always have had a strange phenomenon of right-left factionalism. This happens because when they come to absolute state power, they do not allow the normal democratic competitions. So personal fights for power and dominance takes the form of polemical battles and intense rhetorical battles within party fora. Liu-shao-qi, although discredited thoroughly by Mao due exactly to sucha personal power struggle, however, uncannily like Bukharin was once a leading and favourite party theoretician and ideologue. and one of his primary concerns about the practical processes of the party was about "factionalism". The CCP had long struggled with "factionalism" right from the days of Li-ta-chao.

So, one faction will push for a war with India as a national focusing solution to ethnic separatism and reduced growth in the backdrop of weakened justification for "communism" given the "success" of capitalistic strategies. This is the faction likely to be represented more strongly in the PLA and the current government dominators. Under the circumstances described above, and given the jitters of Tiananmen, the PLA and the "militarist" faction is likely to have gained more say in governance and the CCP leadership will also beecome more dependent on the PLA.

However those this faction has sidelined from key positions of power, will be the slightly weaker opposition still waiting for their time. The danger for the "pro-war" faction is of course, if they do not have a quick victory. To justify the redirection of national focus they need a protracted struggle - and the strategic dilemma is here. If they do not have a quick clear and decisive victory, the other faction could utilize this to try an overthrow the current post-holders - with the PLA joining in the fray and with a potentially dangerous situation where the whole CCP setup gets washed away by popular uprisings (the other faction may decide to become champions of "pro-democracy" reforms). This would be the fear from the other spectacular precedent of reversal in AFG and rise of Yeltsin.

PRC should no longer be taken as one homogeneous uniform militarist whole. India should have a much more nuanced policy towards China. It should seek actively to encourage pro-democratic reforms, and multi-party democracies as a model for all the nations in Asia. China officially allows some sort of "multi-party" representation, but these are not based on truly democratic procedures. Those among the Chinese who seek a more open, democratic, and truly plural society for the future shoul be able to feel that India will support them. On the other hand, India has to make it clear that any aggression by the PLA around India, even by proxy, will make that country eligible for invasion and being taken over or its current CCP-phile leadership replaced.

It is the CCP which is the strategic target now, not the Chinese people.

[brihaspati]

We need to be careful in giving in to the hysteria that appears to be whipped up, with confusing signals being given out from the GOI side about a prospective Indo-China war. The toning down of the rhetoric about TSP, and the initial reactions to the PM's S-e-S statement could have scared the political core of the Congress. But if they are already committed to certain outcomes about TSP and its demands as mediated by US/UK etc., they may need to shift national and critical attention towards a different theatre.

The Indo-China rhetroric could cover as yet undeclared understandings and commitments towards partially meeting TSP demands as innocently and innocuously as possible. Once again they might genuinely have convinceed themselves or allowed others to convince them that "peace" can be "bought" with TSP. But then again...would we ever really know?

[RajeshA]

Continuing the discussion from TIRP Thread.

Subject: Muslim Population Explosion in South Asia.

Earlier Post:

You cannot base your planning for the future on some world wars, famines etc. If you don't have a vision for what is unravelling in 2080 without a WW/ plague/ unknown..then there is no strategic way you can plan for tomorrow.

1. Move from Oil to some other energy fuel.
2. Stop migration of Muslims into rest of the world, through strict immigration laws and water-tight borders.
3. Increase the level of Tafrikiat and violence, discouraging technological innovation, good medical care.
4. Use biological agents to finish off poppy crops.
5. Encourage Gulf countries to throw out Pakistanis and others for reasons of security, thereby decreasing remittances.
6. Give financial encouragement to IMs and European Muslims to leave Islam completely or convert to a revolutionary reformist and liberal Islam-variation.
7. Give no financial support to parents in Europe, if they do not work (aka Pakistanis in Norway)...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rajesh/ Shravan, don't blame me for stating the obvious, but it seems you are relying on really radical worst case scenarios. Whereas liberalism has done away with our stomach to see suffering in such a large scale. Even the worst effected countries in WW2 like Russia lost around 20 million. total losses i guess over 6 years would be around maximum 45 million people. Here we are talking hundreds of billions..the better less violent/ virulent solution is the conversion of the rest to Islam (thats what liberal thought will jump to)

harbans ji,

I am not worried about Indian Muslims. Religious convictions (as in Islam) are not inviolable and permanent. Unlike West Asia or even South East Asia, where the Muslims do have a majority, in India Muslims are a minority. This minority did not migrate from elsewhere as is the case of Europe and USA.

When privilege comes to be associated by being either Indic or Indic-near, when funds from abroad dry up, when the Indics start using sophisticated tactics of reconversion and missionary work, when being Indian becomes a matter of pride and 'civilizational superiority' in the world, when it becomes abundantly clear to the IMs that there is no white hope of Islam taking over the world, being a backward society, when Muslim girls start getting married off to Indics for a better future, then the Indian Muslims would be coming back in droves.

If Bangladeshis start getting deported from India unless they can prove that they are a prosecuted minority in India, then the Bangladeshis here will also start converting to Hinduism.

The Muslims also have human minds and human minds are malleable and impressionable. It is social engineering.

[harbans]

Rajesh ji, i do like your optimism, but i don't know why i don't share it. However i think why i don't share it is that there is no precedent anywhere in history of Islam going away by mere 'denial of privileges'. India has been itself home to many radical schools of Islam. Liberal lobbies in India are too well enrenched and the conservative right wing too short sighted.

When privilege comes to be associated by being either Indic or Indic-near,

This is where i differ. The way Muslim think of themselves as Indic differs from what we think as Indic. Pakistan is a typical example. Look how they are whitewashing history, culture, roots. They are not Genghis Khan or Alexander/ Babur ki aulad (that wold constitute a few million maximum all over the subcontinent). They were very much the same genetic make as us all (until inbreeding screwed it up and not Genghis/ Alexander/ Arabs/ Perisans or other TFTA hordes as they proudly claim). Yet the one example shows that Islam is willing to let ancestral roots and kinship fall by the wayside in favor of more radicalization. Same in Bangladesh. They are not TFTA and don't claim descendancy from Genghis Khans night flings like Paki's, but they hate us. It's because we are still in significant majority that things are 'calm'. In a few decades time, it's going to be the other way round as you say..

Privilege will come to those who are Islam centric and not Indic centric. It's already started..what is dhimmitude? And if as you say we are thinking social engineering, i never seen even one article about it. All i see are articles deciding on social engineering the other way around..that is more likely.

[RajeshA]

harbans ji,

I don't know about optimism, but here is one example. It is an example about a Pakistani girl, who converted to Christianity, simply because she had an excuse and opportunity, and she took it.

Just imagine, what happens if India starts giving Muslim girls a good secular education in mixed-faith schools, with some financial or food assistance for parents who send their girls for education. These girls can be given some additional martial arts training.

Now if these girls get a college education, even become bread-winners of the Muslim family by getting a well-paid job, would the Muslim family want to imprison the girl again within the four-walls or in the veil. In any case, by that time, the Muslim family would start losing control over the girl and her future plans. These girls would possibly decide to marry educated Indics if they can assure these girls of a well-off future. In any case, if the Muslim men have no future to offer these girls, they will not be getting any girls at all.

Also all those usual 'conditions' of boys needing to change their religion to Islam before getting the hand of the girl, would be falling by the way side as confident Indic boys can afford to say no, and may be willing to pay the parents of the girl some money to buy themselves respite from such conditionalities.

It involves empowering of Muslim women, and making them challenge the strictures of Muslim society from within.

This is just scenario-gaming. I am simply trying to say, that all these things lie in the realm of the possible.

Muslim society has its weaknesses.
1. Sources of Funding
2. Status of Women
3. Minority Status
4. Poverty
5. Sectarian pulls

[harbans]

I don't know about optimism, but here is one example. It is an example about a Pakistani girl, who converted to Christianity, simply because she had an excuse and opportunity, and she took it.

I know about that case, and yes it's true that given the opportunity many would take it. What the numbers are is anyone's guess. But these (given opportunities) are exactly what Islam supresses/ nips right in the bud, very effectively. Even in the relatively liberal West there are few in number on which such stories can be written. Austria itself is being swamped. Look at Denmark. Look at Holland. An awakening on Womens rights in Islam is met at times with murder. Taslima is again coming back to India, lets see what will happen. Again any compromise will be nipped in the bud. They've already got a resolution passed in the UN making it 'criminal' to 'insult' a religion. Liberals have not seen the dangger in that. I think India passed that one too.

Now if these girls get a college education, even become bread-winners of the Muslim family by getting a well-paid job, would the Muslim family want to imprison the girl again within the four-walls or in the veil

What do you think happened in Iran/ Afghanistan? Educated, well groomed women literally went behind the Burkha overnight. Why? Because there was a Fatwa from the highest clerics that was being implemented in earnest. India is way down in opposing clerics. Some of the statements made on open murder by Maulanas, MLAs after the Danish cartoons were just ignored. No one wants to act on them. It's too sensitive even at this stae when Muslims are a minority. How and why do you think when they are 40% they will go by this?

Pakistan is on the edge, they will beg shamelessly and bite the very hand that feeds them. So while we may have exceptions, Islamic society will always tend to harden up in the long term. To keep it in 'liberal' mode one needs a dictator like Ataturk or Mubarak. But once there is no US to please, do you think Pakistan will care a damn?

Sources of funding for Islamic society have never been a problem. What did Ghazni do repeatedly when there was no wealth in his coffers? He looted. Read Chapter 8 of the K. In any case women in Islamic societies are in control of their families. Even in US and UK/ France they are not really able to break the logjam.

Think about it, presently it's more likely that the tables will be turned the other way round than the way you vision it.

[brihaspati]

RajeshAji,
you are working on the fundamental premise that there is a rashtra which is determined to do all social engineering necessary to liquidate Islamism as a practised faith. This cannot happen in India as long as Islam remains useful as a bargaining tool in the hands of those non-Muslims who otherwise would not be in power.

Amy major faith anywhere in history was wiped out only if it failed to protect its followers physically. In Europe the Celticss were physcially targeted by the Romans untile their druids were killed off. The Christian emperors carried out systematic extermination campaigns to root out pagan-resistance. In Egypt, the Pharaonic religions were only wiped out when facing physical annihilation and loss of political and military power in a series of invasions starting in the first millenium BCE. Zoroastrianism won by physically waging war against the Mages. It itself in turn was wiped out in Persia by Arab armies. (Yes pockets of most of these survive - but they really have no impact).

Especially the Abrahamic has only retreated (not necessarily liquidated) before determined genocidal aggression. Even then, the theologians typically separate themselves from the political leadership at the last brink, and transfer all "blame" on to the political, so that the faith itself does not come under attack. (Just as some Jews had sided with the Romans like Josephus, and early Pauline Christians never have anything negative to say about the Romans in the New Testament).

In current conditions, where faiths can no longer be questioned and challenged, theologians of Islam will quickly dissociate themselves and their faith from whatever atrocities have actually been inspired by the faith itself. Thereby saving the "faith" for a time when it can grow back to its murderous, looting, raping theology.

It is crucial to invert this attack on the follower of the faith for their supposed "aberrations" from the "peaceful message" into an attack on the fundamental ideology itself. The debate has to come round to recognize that no faith or ideology can seek immunity from verbal dissection and debate. Any faith that does it and reacts intolerantly or viciously to stifle such debate -should be declared openly as the real carriers of Fascist ideologies in the current period and therfore to be crushed out of practice.

[harbans]

The debate has to come round to recognize that no faith or ideology can seek immunity from verbal dissection and debate.

Exactly!! The battle for our survival 80 or 100 years hence is not going to be dependent on WWs or Plagues. It has to be an ideological one. Only in it does redemption lie. And if we don't come around to verbal dissection and debae on faith, we're leaving our future generations in murderous jeopardy. This is the need of the hour. This is what Islamists seek to prevent in the UN or with regards to Taslima or Rushdie wherever.

[shravan]

It has already started. The way things are going are good for India's Future. Pakistanis are trying change there comes the clash within themselves. We should not disturb them because it is going to help India in the future internally and externally.

They themselves have to find the truth and they have to decide what they want.

[brihaspati]

Educated or upper class or elite women in Islamic societies should not be relied on for being a flag-bearer of "reform" and a viable force against its theologians. Education can do strange tricks. We fail to realize this double-edged nature of education - even when we talk so much about DIE. Education can actually confirm or reinforce submission to aggressive ideological and faith authorities. Intelligence and practising "intelligence" can actually provide much stronger self-rationalizations to justify such submission. The effects are plain to see in the extreme masochism in Indian Marxists and Congress aligned intellectuals. Sometimes it appears even in people who we do not expect it from- who by their background we would expect to be more logical, for example going ga ga over the myths of "Sufism", etc. (What is it that shuts off the thinking mind? What is it that shuts off critical analysis? What shuts off looking out for alternatives to official education system's propganda myths? Too much eagerness at getting quick solutions in politics - perhaps!).

Educated Islamic women, unless strongly influenced by non-Muslim Indic culture are actually more devoted to Islam where it matters - ensuring that Islam increases in number, be it convincing and manipulating the potential non-Muslim husband to convert, to bringing up children as Muslims.

There is also a certain attraction, it appears for the "upper class" Islamic womans' life among certain types of non-Muslim women. A large section of non-Muslim women appear to crave the opportunity for "submission", the "protection" of the hijab and the harem from prying eyes and unwanted male attention - and think of this lifestyle as more feminine and appropriate. The trend started with a few "harem literature" from European women authors (mostly men with a few genetic females), romanticization of the Ottoman Harem, and continues into the present with women ariting favourably about it from time to time. Some even perhaps take the obsessive possession and protectiona s a sign of "love" etc.

My experience suggests that the working class Muslim woman, with little or no property or education or land of her own, is the best element to break up the hold of the Ulema. But they will need the unhesitating support and rashtryia ruthlessness in tackling and neutralizing the vicious aggression that will surely come from the Ulema.

[satya]

Why the hell are we afraid of Muslim population rise in India specially ? People from NCR know of Gurgaon & its adjoining area IE Mewat where majority population is Muslim & they have a faster population growth but here's the problem they can't get out of Mewat , simple reason they don't have money to live in Gurgaon or any skill to earn money there , those who have come & settle there & like other people in Gurgaon end up having 2 kid family . Gone are the days when numbers meant u have your way , now it doesn't work specially in a 'consumer driven society' . Pls do remember this same middle class if at one time can force GoI to toe GOTUS line , also brings in armed guards to guard both their work & residential areas. So long Muslims don't get financial power which they never will for interest rate is haraam in their religion , they are screwed forever . So let them multiply & u will see the effects that currently seen Gurgaon here Muslims say namaste to clients in shops & wish to earn & have a honest living like rest of people & here's the icing of all , top muslim politicos consult hindu astrologers & follow whatever they are told . Besides inbreeding long term not sustainable. Europeans are already wary of them , know of cases of illegal immigrants from Netherlands where Indian ones were let off but citizens of TSP are ensured to be put in next flight back home & courts doing their part fully.

[RajeshA]

RajeshAji,
you are working on the fundamental premise that there is a rashtra which is determined to do all social engineering necessary to liquidate Islamism as a practised faith. This cannot happen in India as long as Islam remains useful as a bargaining tool in the hands of those non-Muslims who otherwise would not be in power.

brihaspati ji,

My fundamental premise rests on certain codified fundamentals according to which Indian State and society has to behave. I believe the Indian Constitution should lay down these fundamentals. As of now, these fundamentals are too undefined, too vague, too abstract, too hidden in spirit rather than explicit in words.

The Constitution should lay down fundamentals -
o how religion can be practiced in India,
o what should be considered the Indian ethos,
o the State's duty to encourage reform in all religious practice to conform to this Indian ethos.
o ban on religious preachers regarding espousing of violence
o clear definition of blasphemy
o balance between right of speech and justice on blasphemy
o ... and much more

Indian Laws should specify -
o full bookkeeping and accounting obligations of religious institutions and charities
o declaration of all donations
o routing of all donations through a bank account under observation of state
o ban on all foreign donations to deny influence to foreign institutions
o ... and much more

The State should then be required by Constitution and Law to follow these fundamentals.

There is no need for anything to be anti-Muslim, but rather pro-Ethos. This ethos needs to be drilled into each and every child, Muslim or non-Muslim.

How does one go about it? Well first of all we need Parliamentarians who would support this agenda. For that such Parliamentarians would have to elected first. So I would suggest

1. one should create a non-profit organization whose task is
2. to first formulate all these fundamentals.
3. This can be an interactive process through the Internet.
4. Then we have to win over some of the groups who stand behind our media.
5. We need the help of the media to publicize this agenda.
6. Then we tell the people, that they should support only those candidates in elections who accept this agenda in their manifesto.
7. Then when they get elected, this non-profit group should hold their feet to the fire.

The Indian System needs a stronger skeleton than we have now as our Constitution. We need a lot more steel in this skeleton.

The other way is if we get the Supreme Court to refer these inquiries to the Parliament : -

For example the Supreme Court can demand from Parliament to define blasphemy in a way that the right to speech and the general right of scientific analysis and criticism is preserved. There are other things that an activist Supreme Court can get the ball rolling for.

Or one can use both tacks.

Once we have the fundamentals defined in the Constitution, then one can open a steady front to take on the religious fanatics, both Evanjihadis and Islamists. Then one can tell these people to either to put up or to get out.

The Indian politician is a slippery fish. He would follow his own interests and vote-bank politics and do appeasement. He doesn't care whether the law is followed. So the only way to trap him, is to force him to build his own cage, in the form of an enhanced Constitution.

[Masaru]

RajeshAji,

My fundamental premise rests on certain codified fundamentals according to which Indian State and society has to behave. I believe the Indian Constitution should lay down these fundamentals. As of now, these fundamentals are too undefined, too vague, too abstract, too hidden in spirit rather than explicit in words.


The Constitution should lay down fundamentals -
o how religion can be practiced in India,
o what should be considered the Indian ethos,
o the State's duty to encourage reform in all religious practice to conform to this Indian ethos.
o ban on religious preachers regarding espousing of violence
o clear definition of blasphemy
o balance between right of speech and justice on blasphemy
o ... and much more

And, how well has it worked so far? We can start with uniform civil code (which is among the directive principles), shah-bano case and article 370. When push comes to shove even the so called 'loh purush', 'bhishma pitamaha' s of the Indian 'right wing' start singing paeans of lahori brotherhood and seeing saintly qualities in Jinna. The rest of the tribe are not even worth commenting. This just shows how much hopeful one can be of the creation of your constitutional safeguards; forget about their implementation on the ground.


The Indian System needs a stronger skeleton than we have now as our Constitution. We need a lot more steel in this skeleton.

And exactly this system itself could be subverted according to the scenario harbans is pointing out. Right now, more than 40% of the MPs are elected with less than 25% of the votes. Once the moslems reach a certain inflexion point in population %age, and hence get the required majority to subvert the so called 'secular' constitution; rest assured that the 6th century laws dear to them will be back in full force, and eternal dhimmitude (given the lack of will to fight and equally stronger propensity to self destruct which LKA, ABV, MMS and JS are showing in abundance) would be the fate of the rest. There will be no need for any WWs; they will defeat us by the values we hold dear to our chest liberal democracy and rule by parliament.

The Indian politician is a slippery fish. He would follow his own interests and vote-bank politics and do appeasement. He doesn't care whether the law is followed. So the only way to trap him, is to force him to build his own cage, in the form of an enhanced Constitution.

Here you have outlined the crux of the problem and, eternal optimism is not a solution out of this morass.

[Yogi_G]

However i think why i don't share it is that there is no precedent anywhere in history of Islam going away by mere 'denial of privileges'. India has been itself home to many radical schools of Islam. Liberal lobbies in India are too well enrenched and the cons

This bring to my mind the mass voluntary conversions in Indonesia to Hinduism when the the glories of the Majapahit empire was popularized. I believe coming up with the Indian history with a strong Hindutva substrate will ensure that reverting to the "mother" religion will become attractive all over again. If Bangla language served strong enough an identity to secede I am sure past memories of greatness can as well.

For your reference,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Indonesia

[RajeshA]

And, how well has it worked so far? We can start with uniform civil code (which is among the directive principles), shah-bano case and article 370. When push comes to shove even the so called 'loh purush', 'bhishma pitamaha' s of the Indian 'right wing' start singing paeans of lahori brotherhood and seeing saintly qualities in Jinna. The rest of the tribe are not even worth commenting. This just shows how much hopeful one can be of the creation of your constitutional safeguards; forget about their implementation on the ground.

Olorin ji,
There is a very old pattern of discussions here on BRF. One party proposes something constructive, and the other party retorts with a whine. A whine is of no great help. It helps neither in solution-analysis nor adds anything to the body of knowledge on the current situation. The weakness of the current crop of Indian 'leaders' is generally well-known here on BRF. They do not play any role anyway in my suggestion for a solution. So I will not take you up on the whine part.

You do point to some interesting Constitutional issues however. This is how I would characterize them -

• Uniform Civil Code - victim to identity politics
• Article 370 - ossified in history, becoming an article of faith for many concerned
• Shah Bano Case - highly emotionally charged legal case

My suggestion dealt explicitly about discussing Constitutional fundamentals irrespective of a particular religion - working from abstract fundamentals to specific fundamentals in a deliberate and gradual way. One goes to the next level, when the more abstracter fundamentals have been accepted and they have 'taken root'.

This is a mechanism of conducting a national debate on fundamentals of social interaction, but not going home after scoring some argumentative point but rather putting it down into the Indian Constitution.

Often it is easy to agree on some religion-neutral higher-order fundamentals than on concrete proposals, simply because no community feels that much under attack, as say when some Indian Govt. says "well you, Muslims, you will have to throw out certain passages from the Qu'ran!"

The Indian System needs a stronger skeleton than we have now as our Constitution. We need a lot more steel in this skeleton.

And exactly this system itself could be subverted according to the scenario harbans is pointing out. Right now, more than 40% of the MPs are elected with less than 25% of the votes. Once the moslems reach a certain inflexion point in population %age, and hence get the required majority to subvert the so called 'secular' constitution; rest assured that the 6th century laws dear to them will be back in full force, and eternal dhimmitude (given the lack of will to fight and equally stronger propensity to self destruct which LKA, ABV, MMS and JS are showing in abundance) would be the fate of the rest. There will be no need for any WWs; they will defeat us by the values we hold dear to our chest liberal democracy and rule by parliament.

I am not demanding a 'liberal democracy', which stresses the rights of the citizen. I am demanding 'a code of belief and conduct for the society' which the State is obliged to promote - either through affirmative intervention or through crime legislation.

The former gives the Islamists free reign to do as they please, the second 'forces' them to do as the Constitution demands.

I have spoken earlier on some reforms in our election system, on how we should modify it to require a candidate to win over 50% of votes polled, in the absence of which, there is a runoff election.

Assuming the demography changes as you fear, if the requirement for Constitutional changes is two thirds of the House, then it is best to push for such Constitutional Amendments before the Muslims reach a stage, where they can dictate more than 50% of the seats. If the agenda is codified in the Constitution itself, they will need far more Parliamentary strength to revert or subvert those Amendments.

The Agenda for the Constitutional Codification of Indian Ethos is in itself meant to avert the demographic change you allude to, and to curb its effects if it does happen.

The Indian politician is a slippery fish. He would follow his own interests and vote-bank politics and do appeasement. He doesn't care whether the law is followed. So the only way to trap him, is to force him to build his own cage, in the form of an enhanced Constitution.

Here you have outlined the crux of the problem and, eternal optimism is not a solution out of this morass.

I did not propose eternal optimism. I proposed an agenda. I wonder if 'eternal whining' is a solution out of this morass!

[harbans]

This bring to my mind the mass voluntary conversions in Indonesia to Hinduism when the the glories of the Majapahit empire was popularized. I believe coming up with the Indian history with a strong Hindutva substrate will ensure that reverting to the "mother" religion will become attractive all over again. If Bangla language served strong enough an identity to secede I am sure past memories of greatness can as well.

That conversion was not from Islam to Hinduism. Read about Cambodia, SE Asia, East Asia, India influenced a lot of nations in a similar manner mostly through soft power.

The Constitution should lay down fundamentals -
o how religion can be practiced in India,
o what should be considered the Indian ethos,
o the State's duty to encourage reform in all religious practice to conform to this Indian ethos.
o ban on religious preachers regarding espousing of violence
o clear definition of blasphemy
o balance between right of speech and justice on blasphemy

Rajesh ji, all well thought out points, but just take the first point: It negates ALL what India stands for. Point 2 'what should we consider he Indian ethos' again we are stopped dead in the tracks..who debates it? Pakistani's for example consider Indian ethos as Islamic. Look at the way they treat their pre-Islamic roots. Wh do you think Imam Bukhari and his followers will not be on the streets demanding a separate nation once o start even coming close to defining the first 2? I think the people who start publicly developing opinion on these 2 will be killed. You can read up on Saraswati Dayanands what he tried to do 140 years ago. The points you mentioned above exactly to the dot. Though he did get some succes, overall he was unsuccesful..

Also yes Europe is going to face a similar but lesser demographic deluge than us. We must understand one fundamental premise: That we will have no example in US and Europe to deal with this demographic swing once it happens. They will be looking at us for the model on how to reverse/ preserve the demographics.

[brihaspati]

I was always in favour of constitutional reform. All of RajeshAji's proposals are very do-able, and some of these I have also discussed long ago in this thread. Only problem, is that to my mind, it will be a chicken-egg situation. Constitutional reform that curtails the power of Abrahamics, and thereby cuts down on foreign penetration, can only be undertaken when there is no way out for the Abrahamic to preserve itself unless it surrenders all claims of separate identity. This can only happen, if it is physically and militarily defeated - or realizes that if it intensifies its demands it will face physical and structural liquidation of its theologian networks.

All of these proposals can only be undertaken in the backdrop of two things
(a) there is a complete consolidation of the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists, and Jains into a single front in complete agreement on the agenda about the Abrahamic, so that no breakaway faction plays magnanimous and reconstructs or paints the Abrahamic in peaceful terms for political ends
(b) Pakistan is on the point of liquidation as a rashtra

It would have been nice to have a force beyond or above commitment to any particular faith, to bring about these changes. But the reality of any major societal trasnition or transformation, is that we need an agent of change. This is the age old problem of searching for a potential support base, or constituency, which has sufficient inner motivation or potential for motivation to act as the power behind the proposed changes.

This is why I feel, that the most likely force behind such changes, can only be a consolidation of the non-Abrahamic around a Bharatyia national agenda, that clearly recognizes no future role for the Abrahamic - at least not as far as any role in the construction of the nation is concerned. This will inevitably bring the Abrahamic to covert or overt military and physical confrontation - and hence, I think the process can only take place under the final military defeat of TSP and its potential liquidation as a rashtra and incorporation under Bharat.

[RajeshA]

I was always in favour of constitutional reform. All of RajeshAji's proposals are very do-able, and some of these I have also discussed long ago in this thread. Only problem, is that to my mind, it will be a chicken-egg situation. Constitutional reform that curtails the power of Abrahamics, and thereby cuts down on foreign penetration, can only be undertaken when there is no way out for the Abrahamic to preserve itself unless it surrenders all claims of separate identity. This can only happen, if it is physically and militarily defeated - or realizes that if it intensifies its demands it will face physical and structural liquidation of its theologian networks.

All of these proposals can only be undertaken in the backdrop of two things
(a) there is a complete consolidation of the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists, and Jains into a single front in complete agreement on the agenda about the Abrahamic, so that no breakaway faction plays magnanimous and reconstructs or paints the Abrahamic in peaceful terms for political ends
(b) Pakistan is on the point of liquidation as a rashtra

It would have been nice to have a force beyond or above commitment to any particular faith, to bring about these changes. But the reality of any major societal transition or transformation, is that we need an agent of change. This is the age old problem of searching for a potential support base, or constituency, which has sufficient inner motivation or potential for motivation to act as the power behind the proposed changes.

This is why I feel, that the most likely force behind such changes, can only be a consolidation of the non-Abrahamic around a Bharatyia national agenda, that clearly recognizes no future role for the Abrahamic - at least not as far as any role in the construction of the nation is concerned. This will inevitably bring the Abrahamic to covert or overt military and physical confrontation - and hence, I think the process can only take place under the final military defeat of TSP and its potential liquidation as a rashtra and incorporation under Bharat.

A google-cached version of something I wrote on BRF, but which no longer exists on BRF

India: Constitutional Federation with a Pluralistic Secular Democracy, Rule of Law, Free Market (albeit with proper controls), underpinned by a patriotic population, which believes in the Indian ethos of diversity, preservation of culture, mutual respect, individual pursuit of spirituality, scientific enquiry along with newer attributes like equality and individual rights.

Ummahized Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent: BORG* WITH A 'BETTER-BORG-COMPLEX'**!

* BORG --- WE ARE THE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
** BETTER-BORG-COMPLEX --- WE ARE THE BETTER BORG. EITHER YOU BORG BECOME LIKE US, OR YOU WILL BE ELIMINATED.

Neither has India reached her destination, nor have the Ummahized Muslims reached theirs, but both are on their respective roads. These roads do not cross, even though individuals can leave one road and take the other.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

brihaspati ji,

The reason I suggest such a path is to create a mirror for the Abrahamics. Right now, the Indian Constitution plays a very traditional role as the skeleton for the Indian State. But it does not play the role as the steely framework for the Indian Nation. Religion in India is as widespread as air we breathe, and has not been as yet pushed to the fringes of society. This very important aspect of Indian Society needs to have some guidance on the dos and don'ts.

The Constitution has deemed it unnecessary to lay down these guidelines, as one equated the religions. Religions can influence different aspects of an individuals and a community's life. The Indic religions, unlike Abrahamic religions tend to shy away from

• dictating the laws of the land
• being impervious to reform
• requiring theocratic rule
• prohibiting the questioning of its tenets and belief system
• denying the individual the right to explore his spirituality through other faiths and paths
• demanding unquestioning loyalty to it over and above that to the individuals country or tribe
• directing violence against certain other community (Jihad, crusades)
• destroying the belief systems of the natives before their conversion (Hindus believe in fusion, Islam believes in assimilation)

and

• respects diversity of its various sects
• acknowledges the right of other religions to exist
• respects the paths to salvation offered by other religions
• encourages scientific inquiry

The Constitution allows this dangerous leeway to all religions in India, a leeway that Indic religions do not need. As such it would do Indic religions no harm if the Constitution takes away this leeway from religions in general. Indics will not be affected, but the Abrahamic religions would have to look themselves in the mirror. Either the Abrahamics would emigrate to further retain this leeway, or they will have to reform, or they will protest.

It will be a discussion of fundamentals. Can Islam get into a debate over fundamentals? No, because the backwardness of Islam's principles would then become clear to all.

A move to codify the Indian Ethos into the Constitution would provoke such a debate, and the Abrahamics will not be able to duck. Whenever there is some critical article or book, the Muslims take to the streets, because that is a specific attack, but will they take to the streets if there is a fundamental attack on their belief system?

This situation helps the rationalists. They are not attacking any community or any religion. They are proposing a positive agenda. It would be the Abrahamics who interpret it as an attack on them, so it is the Abrahamics who will be forced to explain why it is an attack on them. A philosophical debate will ensue, a debate they are bound to lose.

Such a debate can serve as the catalyst to split Indian Muslims into a group which sticks to its 7th century moorings, and a group which is willing to reform their religion by creating a new sect, which is in consonance with Indian Ethos. For the reformed sect, a new Ulema will rise, which will not be bound to Mecca or Medina or Najaf or Karbala or Qom or Al Quds. It can possibly give birth to an Indic Islam.

It is better to break the system from within, than having to fight it head-on, especially if the system is an ideology, a religion.

Two things need to be codified - the Indian Ethos and Secularism!

[brihaspati]

The major dilemma before the Muslim-Indian leader are at two levels.

First is the obvious and superficial one : Islamic centre of the world is not on the subcontinent, and Islamic fundamentals as laid out in the Quran and the Hadiths have no Indian context by association or reference (except in the context of Jihad against Indians). This creates immense socio-psychological problems. Primarily, one of the funniest and tragic of such issues is the desperate attempt to claim descent from Arab or Persian origins, with the consequent dilemma of losing out on claims to be Bhumiputras on the other.

Second, and more fundamental in nature is the philosophical conflict between the Islamic and Bharatyia systems. In Islam there is no place for anything that came before Muhammad unless it happened in the Middle East and approved by Muhammad. As such, the entire gamut of Bharatyia culture and philosophy have no natural slot within the Islamic doctrine except as target for erasure and/or enslavement.

Those among the Indian Muslims who have resolved this dilemma, have done it only by adopting one of these two as superior to or more preferable than the other. Syncretic traditions have been highlighted with a lot of fanfare - but we will see that Sufism, pays lip-service exactly on those memes or motifs from the Bharatyia that can confirm or support or bolster the Islamic claims as laid out in the Quran. Mainly such superficialities as "single supreme being", etc. But where the Sufis remain vague are the issues of implementation of the political and social part of Islam - an integral part of the theology and in fact its main obsession.

The claims that Sufis converted the bulk out of pure "peaceful" preaching, is a pure propaganda. As the most successful and prolific ones are also associated with violent takeovers of non-Muslim sites, abduction of non-Muslim women for "marriage", and sometimes outright battles. Inevitably, they always seem to be not very far geographically in their "domain" of activity from centres of Islamic military power - from the famous Chisti at Ajmer to Sheikh Jalaluddin in Sylhet.

Sufis are still not a dominant force within Indian Islam, officially, although they have recently been "activated" to campaign against "terorrism".

The real power of any created or artificial identity is seen in how it affects the electoral politics. Just as with the mythical "caste" we see no effect on elections of the mythical "Sufi" factor. Caste was never a recignized and dominant political identity - which forced the creation of the artificial category of "Dalit" which is an abstract term not indicating any specific caste. Those who created the category knew fully well that focusing on caste will be self-defeatist - for there are hierarchies and antagonisms even within the so-called "lower castes" and which will be most disruptive for political ambitions.

If Sufism was really such a driving force of Indian Islam, and with the hypothesis that the majority of "hardliners" migrated to Pakistan, we should have seen the Sufi element getting political stronger by the year. No such evidence - but we rather see the natural growth of the influence of Sunni political Islam, what we would expect from the basic process of Islamization in India - by violence, Jihad, and military coercion.

[brihaspati]

RajeshAji,
political Islam's theologians are no fools - they are after all out for political and coercive power. You will not even reach the stage of discussing fundamentals. There is no "positive rationalist" approach for the theologians. For their main power is based on the claim that "all answers have already been given in the Quran". For the theologian there can be no alternative, no rethinking. Long before such discussions even start, the Islamics and their dhimmis in rashtryia power will quickly move, to not only block the moves in parliament and Supreme Court, but also pre-empt by targeting and liquidating as much as possible the proponents of the idea and their potential support base.

[RajeshA]

brihaspati ji,

When I say "Indic Islam", I am talking about a fully artificial belief system, that throws everything in Islam and Qu'ran that goes against the Indian Ethos out of the plane, and explains all the omissions away as either irrelevant in the Indian Context, irrelevant to the Modern Age, as vestiges of pre-Islamic Arab culture, as misinterpreted from old Arabic, or as accidentally modified through the oral-tradition of Qu'ran recitation in the earlier years. In spite of these differences with traditonal Islam, this sect should still vehemently call itself Islam and its followers Muslims. It need not even get into a debate with the traditional Ulema either in India or abroad. All this group needs is to collect Indian Muslims through all means possible. With time, they can introduce their abridged version of Indic Qu'ran. In another 20 years they can start using the Hindi translation of it.

If there is sufficient financial support and state protection for such a new sect, it could take over most of the Muslims in India, and with time in the Indian Subcontinent.

The uncooperative Ulema in India can be strangled off through a ban on foreign donations, and by forcibly transferring the management of the mosques to the new sect under one pretext or another.

The main thing is that such a project needs to have a very solid financial backing and a muscular approach if needed.

[RajeshA]

RajeshAji,
political Islam's theologians are no fools - they are after all out for political and coercive power. You will not even reach the stage of discussing fundamentals. There is no "positive rationalist" approach for the theologians. For their main power is based on the claim that "all answers have already been given in the Quran". For the theologian there can be no alternative, no rethinking. Long before such discussions even start, the Islamics and their dhimmis in rashtryia power will quickly move, to not only block the moves in parliament and Supreme Court, but also pre-empt by targeting and liquidating as much as possible the proponents of the idea and their potential support base.

The theologians need not be from current pool. There is always scope for some Manchurian candidates.

brihaspati ji,
I believe you are hardly the one to accept that our political system has absolutely no room left for the emergence of a nationalist power-group.

[brihaspati]

RajeshAji,
chicken and egg. I am sure you realize that "massive financial support" and "muscular power" if necessary, can only be provided by a group that has already established itself in rashtryia dominance. That very process of obtaining rashtryia power is what I am concerned about. I think between ourselves, we have long ago agreed on most the proposals you are giving. I am quite positive, that there will be a pool of brillinat minds like yourself and RM to figure out the details of the constitutional "drafts".

I want the programme for that first step to be developed. That is what I would be more concerned about personally now. Time pressure is on civilizationally.

[RajeshA]

that there will be a pool of brilliant minds like yourself and RM to figure out the details of the constitutional "drafts".

We are ideologically too far apart from each other! Besides 'brilliance of mind' would be a tad unjustified in my case, saar!

I want the programme for that first step to be developed. That is what I would be more concerned about personally now. Time pressure is on civilizationally.

I concur.

There is a need for a group of individuals to come together, who are nationalist to the core, have been enlightened moderately on BRF , are great organizers, can network well in the Indian political system, and have the capacity to raise billions and billions of dollars for such national projects. Some of the work should be done discreetly.

[Sanku]

that there will be a pool of brilliant minds like yourself and RM to figure out the details of the constitutional "drafts".

We are ideologically too far apart from each other! Besides 'brilliance of mind' would be a tad unjustified in my case, saar!

Especially if used in the same sentence as RM

[RamaY]

I want the programme for that first step to be developed. That is what I would be more concerned about personally now. Time pressure is on civilizationally.

Brihaspati-ji,

Could you please elaborate this statement? If not in this forum, in GDF.

I agree with your timeline of 2020-2037. For that civilizational seeds have to be planted now. And I think that should be the first step. I am curious to know what your thoughts on "How" this could be done in a manner that is independent at local level but are well-coordinated at Rashtra level. And how to bring in the soft-aspect of Rashtriyata into the network from time/place pov.

thanks in advance.

[brihaspati]

RajeshAji, sorry if I have offended you in anyway. In fact I should probably be careful about that, as I myself had expressed doubts about ever being friends with our BRF's very own redoubtable army commander.

I have just this fond hope, that if MKG had turned his attention to making the two completely opposite characters - of Sardar and Subhasji, but whose basic aims as far as keeping the nation together, were the same, work together, silently kicking off JLN, where would we be now!

I hope you got my line. I can see great potential in RamaYji's future as FM. If you and RM can work together perhaps in some sense we may even have the hazy beginnings of a shadow cabinet for the future!

[brihaspati]

RamaYji,
give me a bit more time to organize my thoughts on this. Maybe it should go into GDF.

[harbans]

Primarily, one of the funniest and tragic of such issues is the desperate attempt to claim descent from Arab or Persian origins, with the consequent dilemma of losing out on claims to be Bhumiputras on the other.

From Arab to Persian to Central Asian to Aryan, the TFTA fad is getting over. Latest is the Mongol race are the ancestry of our Western neighbours.. get your facts straight Mr Brihaspati ji..

[RajeshA]

brihaspati ji,

No garu, you have not offended me in any way! Patriotism may have been there from the word 'born' but I am still relatively new to learning about India's past, a couple of years at the most. That is why I said, I don't see myself worthy of the kind words of confidence you had for me. May be in the years to come, I'll have a better grip of the issues and their history.

[ramana]

Well the supposed claims are due to the dominance and pwoer wielded by such claims. In Malayasia etc., the political power is with the native born as the rulers converted enmasse and retained their power.

In India its not so and in the pecking order that is Indian Islam- Ashraf and Ajlaf since the Slave dynasty has emphasised this foreign origins formula. Even in the Ashrafs there is a pecking order- Syeds (Prophet's family), Sheikhs, Turco-Afghan-Iranian, Mongol. And among the Syeds a finer pecking order among Quraishis and others.
So if political power is obtained regardless of Ajlaf status then this will die away.

[brihaspati]

harbansji,
I primarily had the IM in mind and context. They still hold on to the claims of Arabic or Persian origin. Supposed TFTA's of TSP of course in a never ending search for a desirable identity - for they lost the confidence to assume one, when they submitted to the Islamic to save their TA.

[harbans]

Brihispatiji and Rajeshji this is an excellent exposition on Dharma, very concisely stated: Read the contexts..this is where we should be taking ideological debates to. Politically and Spiritually..Constitutionally we must allow the extreme exceptions and no faith should decree against it..

Posted By: cpgmm @ 08/18/2009 11:07:41 AM

Context 1:
Western concept of liberty as a political system: e.g. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It's a very broad framework. It does not go into the minutia or stipulate what it is that would make you happy etc.. Does it mean, that you can bring in a rigid system of communism or fascism ideology under that framework of "LLPH"? Obviously not since those political ideologies would violate the basic framework of liberty in the political context. However, you can still have socialism as normative values within the frame work of "LLPH".

Now apply the same concept when it comes to Hindu religion vs a vis other religions. There is no set ideology that Hindus should adhere, to be a Hindu.. Hinduism is freedom of spiritual quest for an individual as long as the framework is not violated. if you insist that your belief or ideology is the only true one and every other faith is in violation, then you are violating the basic freedom of spiritual quest and most Hindus would not accept that as being Hindu.

Context 2:

Another illustration is how western liberal ideology is pilloried by some conservative society of the world by pointing out to the worst in western civilization as an excuse for they not adopting a free society. They often point to p-orno-graphy in the west as failure of a free society They conveniently do not realize that westerners do not necessarily celebrate p-orno-graphy instead consider that a price they have to pay for living in a free society.

Let me apply that to Hinduism. Because there is no rigid rules, you would find some odd and strange practices within Hinduism including some bizarre Tantric rituals. Missionaries and religious supremacists often illustrate these sects to point to the failure of Hinduism just like countries that have a tyrannical political system who point to p-orno-graphy as the central tenet of free society. Hindus would tolerate these bizzare tantric practices (within the context of a law and order) and not necessarily celebrate them as Hindu customs.


Context 3.

Process of scientific quest: Scientists and the process of scientific quest is about the pursuit of that never reaching wall of knowledge. Its the pursuit and not about finding all the answers there is to know. Its about the constant debate. Yet, you would find some individuals (Creationists) who would use this as a weakness to deride scientists and what they do.

In Hinduism, its not about a set of revealed set of truth given to 1 or 2 individual that has adjudicated all questions and that subsequent generation would just have to accept this "adjudicated revealed truth" hence forth and that they would be punished if they challenge these "truths". Instead, Hindu beliefs are really musings of individuals (sears) over a period of time and these musings still continue and will never end just like scientific musings are a never ending pursuit.

Hope that helps

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155/output/comments

[harbans]

In context of the above it is clear that Hindutva ideology tries to limit the 'spiritual' extremes by narrowing/ stifling Hinduism almost along similar lines to Abrahmic faiths..something that gets little or limited appeal within India and the liberal problem is that they try and ensconse in fold philosophies that are not witin the framework of LLPH politcally or spiritually.

The real future strateggic scenario of India MUST be avoiding both these ideological problems at the root of Hindutva parties and the Psec liberal ones.

[RajeshA]

Hinduism is freedom of spiritual quest for an individual as long as the framework is not violated. if you insist that your belief or ideology is the only true one and every other faith is in violation, then you are violating the basic freedom of spiritual quest and most Hindus would not accept that as being Hindu.

"Basic Freedom of Spiritual Quest" - an excellent way to describe the issue.

What organizations like USCIRF seem to demand is exactly that - Basic Freedom of Spiritual Quest. However they demand this in physical terms. Everybody should be free to pursue his spiritual quest. Nobody should be allowed to physically obstruct him, including through law. There is nothing here to criticize.

However this is often applied to people who are external to the ideological context in which the individual resides. It happens where strong and aggressive religious groups physically obstruct minority and/or weaker religious groups from exercising their 'spiritual quest'.

It is also applied to when the State undertakes measures to subdue the 'spiritual quest' through law, law enforcement agencies, paramilitary groups, vigilante groups enjoying the protection of those in power, etc.

What most organizations active for religious freedom fail to condemn is when the system internal to the ideological context in which the individual resides obstructs an individual's freedom for 'spiritual quest'. That is, the religion to which the individual belongs is in itself an impediment to this 'spiritual quest'.

Let us see in what way some Abrahamic faiths would fall in the category of obstructing freedom of spiritual quest -

• Dictate the laws of the land - Islam says Sharia ought to be the law of the land. Having a state religion in itself imposes restrictions on the fundamental freedom of spiritual quest. In Sharia discrimination between the Muslims and the non-Muslims is institutionalized.
• Require theocratic rule - Islam favors the Khilāfa, and in case of Iran the Velāyat-e Faqīh. This system reinforces the previous point. In this case religious minorities are completely sidelined from politics of the country.
• Be impervious to reform - A Muslim cannot go on a 'spiritual quest' as a quest may take him outside the ideological straitjacket of the religion. Venturing out of the boundaries set by Islam, he will officially not be able to relate to his community. He is also denied the freedom to carry his community along with him on his spiritual quest through dialogue and debate. So he is either given the choice between remaining a Muslim or leaving Islam and his community. (Even that choice is actually not available as is mentioned further down)
• Prohibit the questioning of its tenets and belief system - How can 'spiritual quest' exist in a religious community when questioning its basics is totally prohibited. Some questioning borders on blasphemy and is severely punished.
• Deny the individual the right to explore his spirituality through other faiths and paths - Changing of religion from Islam can be punished by death! So much for freedom of spiritual quest.
• Demand unquestioning loyalty to it over and above that to the individual's country or tribe - This is both to prevent an individual to be approachable by those closest to him, to deny them the opportunity to inspire the individual to explore other avenues of spiritual quest, as well as to plant active agents who thwart all those in an ethnic community who may be open to spiritual quest.
• Direct violence against certain other community (Jihad, crusades) - Any excuse is looked for to fight the Kufr. How is 'spiritual quest' possible when a Damocles sword is always hanging on you that at the slightest excuse, the Muslims would declare war and bump you and your family off.
• Destroy the belief systems of the natives before their conversion (Hindus believe in fusion, Islam believes in assimilation) - All those resources that an individual can use for his 'spiritual quest' are systematically destroyed. The whole world is aware of how the native Americans were treated by the Christian Conquistadores. We in India know how many Temples were destroyed and plundered by the Muslim Invaders in India.
• Thwart diversity of its various sects - Even the various more liberal sects in religion are constantly threatened, coerced and attacked to bring them in line with the most aggressive uncompromising dogmatic sect. Nothing captures the intolerance for 'freedom of spiritual quest' than this attitude.
• Rejects the justification for other religions to exist - Both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions. Both show predatory tendencies. Both want to occupy as much as possible of the mind-space of the individual and push others out.
• Reject the paths to salvation offered by other religions - Both Christianity and Islam are exclusivist. Both say their way to salvation is the only way. They reject that a spiritual quest is justified. The world is familiar with the Inquisitions and the Burning of Witches. How Hindus were massacred by the Muslim Invaders is also well known.
• Discourage scientific inquiry - For a long time, Christianity was against science. Islam claims that the Qu'ran is comprehensive and one need not learn anything more. Theory of Evolution is rejected out of hand. Not only spiritual quest, but all mental quests are discouraged.

Organizations like USCIRF should not only study whether a religious group is allowed religious freedom by the State or by other aggressive majority religious groups, but should rather focus on the individual and whether the individual is given the freedom of spiritual quest, in which case the villains will not only be the State, or other religious groups but also the individual's own religion and religious community.

These organizations will soon find out how much freedom the Indic religions truly provide to individuals, both to those who belong to the given religious community and to individuals who belong to other faiths.

The Western world has made the passage to 'individualism' and the rights of the individual are considered sacred. As such the focus of these organizations on 'freedom of spiritual quest for an individual' would gel well with the 'rights of the individual' in the West. The dogma and practices of the various religions should come under the purvey of these organizations.

[harbans]

Rajeshji, you've got the import of that essay bang on! While much of the free world has earned political freedom and rights, these political liberties will be misused and ultimately undermined if we don't get our charter of spiritual rights and liberties correct. That is what political Islam seeks to do and that is what Evanjihadi's attempt. Destruction of the spiritual charter of freedom that Dharma espouses on us.

[svinayak]

Rajeshji, you've got the import of that essay bang on! While much of the free world has earned political freedom and rights, these political liberties will be misused and ultimately undermined if we don't get our charter of spiritual rights and liberties correct. That is what political Islam seeks to do and that is what Evanjihadi's attempt. Destruction of the spiritual charter of freedom that Dharma espouses on us.

Bothe Islam and Christianity have political doctrine as part of the religion and hence cannot be compared to Hindu Dharma

[RajeshA]

Rajeshji, you've got the import of that essay bang on! While much of the free world has earned political freedom and rights, these political liberties will be misused and ultimately undermined if we don't get our charter of spiritual rights and liberties correct. That is what political Islam seeks to do and that is what Evanjihadi's attempt. Destruction of the spiritual charter of freedom that Dharma espouses on us.

Bo the Islam and Christianity have political doctrine as part of the religion and hence cannot be compared to Hindu Dharma

Acharya garu,

The purpose is not to compare Islam and Christianity.

The point is all religions in India are treated as equal (theoretically). Christianity and Islam however occupy far more of society's free space, for example, wrt politics, etc, as you just stated. There is no need to allow this free space, this leeway in the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution allows this dangerous leeway to all religions in India, a leeway that Indic religions do not need. As such it would do Indic religions no harm if the Constitution takes away this leeway from religions in general. Indics will not be affected, but the Abrahamic religions would have to look themselves in the mirror. Either the Abrahamics would emigrate to further retain this leeway, or they will have to reform, or they will protest.

[harbans]

RajeshAji, your thoughts if Hinduism can be thought in terms of a 'Religious/ spiritual Consitutional Charter' much like the principles of Liberty, egalie, fraternite were laid out for political purposes.

So people who define themselves as Hindu, automatically except different paths to God, different pursuits to God, different approaches, and different ways of trying those approaches in the future. A 'Hindu' constitution would allow all that. Thus technically those who follow Christ and don't evangelize come automatically under the 'Hindu' fold. To interpret Hinduism in that manner and table it as such stop all the bogus, cliched nonsense of 'way of life' and stuff. It also solves the problems of how people try and explain Hinduism and it's multitude of experiences and concepts. Excluvism in spiritual tradition should be shunned..