Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 4

[Pulikeshi]

I make the extreme argument about HB vs. CSN not to compare who is better endowed, but to pick the simplest models that reflect Dharmic and Adharmic sytems – Shiv correctly alluded to this backdrop. All that said - I am completely aware that a mix of these models exists in reality.

Further, let me point out that the processes at play require more than a formalization of networks and their structures. To attempt a more comprehensive explanation several other mechanisms require an expounding. However, that will have to wait for another day beyond what is written in this thread or any write up on network structures of religions systems. The key point I want to get across is let us try to discuss religions based on their organization, rather than focusing on faith or belief which is personal and in my mind outside the purview of the state.

The dismantling of HB was even swifter than its creation, that hindu societies fell back to CSN quickly. The result was weakness of Hindu society with smug satisfaction of pyrhic victories. The inability to understand that when adversaries have exclusively HB structure, that Hindu societies also have to maintain HB structure for a prolonged time even after victory for hystersis to set in.

Good points JwalaMukhi, your idea has merit, but I would rephrase what you said subtly. CSN’s have clumps of HB characteristics. In Hindu society, when HBs or Hierarchical Clusters arise, they are not networked with other clusters in any meaningful way. What I mean by that is, it is not just the supply of HB nodes lagged HB demand to meet the external challenges, it is more so the case that collaboration and cooperation did not occur between these Hierarchical nodes in the CSN. How many examples can we rattle off from history – Vijayanagar Empire, Shivaji, Sikhs, etc. Today, the same is occurring in the business realm as well – but again a topic of discussion outside scope here.

Essentially, hindu society viewed CSN as the natural state and HB as occasional but necessary evil.

My take again is via an extreme argument:
Actually, it would be very easy (I wish I had the time and resources to do more research) to show that when Buddhism replaced Hinduism as the flavor of some of the HB node in the CSN cluster, the overall network succumbed to the onslaught of Islam quicker. Again the idea here is perhaps that the interconnects between the HB nodes got disrupted when critical pathways were cut off due to heterogeneity in the network.

[Rye]

The advantage of a CSN structure over a HB structure is the ability to regenerate the network if any specific part of the network is destroyed -- HB networks can only survive as long as the top of the hierarchy does not suffer damage (or if the top is taken out, many "mini HBs" form. The resilience of the CSN arises from the lack of a specific structure than can be taken out in a targeted manner (There was a post here that stated a similar sentiment in malayalam (paraphrasing) "The reason you cannot kill hinduism is that you cannot catch it").

This may explain the apparent contradiction spelt out by RM earlier, as to how HB "won" and CSN "lost" -- such a view places no value on the resilience of a network to external events that can potentially damage the network in arbitrary ways.

[Rahul Mehta]

The advantage of a CSN structure over a HB structure is the ability to regenerate the network if any specific part of the network is destroyed -- HB networks can only survive as long as the top of the hierarchy does not suffer damage (or if the top is taken out, many "mini HBs" form. The resilience of the CSN arises from the lack of a specific structure than can be taken out in a targeted manner (There was a post here that stated a similar sentiment in malayalam (paraphrasing) The reason you cannot kill hinduism is that you cannot catch it").

This may explain the apparent contradiction spelt out by RM earlier, as to how HB "won" and CSN "lost" -- such a view places no value on the resilience of a network to external events that can potentially damage the network in arbitrary ways.

Right in Kerala, Christianists and Islamists of non-violent type, with not much backing from and weapons, have taken over some 50% of ex-Hindus. Once should imagine what the ones with organization, monetary backing and weapons will be able to achieve.

In past 1200 years, Hinduism lost some 65% of area and some 50% of people. And in India, in North East, parts of Orissa, parts of AP, Nepal etc Christianists are advancing and Hinduism is receding as we type these posts.

All in all,

1.Hinduism is CSN, Islamist/Christianist are HB
2. CSN > HB

If both are correct, Hinduism should have spread to Mecca and Vatican. What we have seen in past 1000 years and even in past 50 years is just opposite. Hence, one of the two above assertions are incorrect.

[/url]

[Shankk]

Both Christianity and Islam are very very well organized religions. Pan Islam movements and similar Christian coalitions are not a new phenomena. One of the reason these people stick to each other is indoctrination but that can take these religions only so far. One of the real reasons is the teaching these religions give to their followers about compassion, help to each other. Of course I am ignoring clashes of interests between them when they dominate the land.

From a common man's point of view such bonding is a great source of power. They know they can count on their fellow religion member in time of need. Islam has institutionalized such help in the form of Zakat. I am sure Christianity too has something similar. Many BRFites living in the west must have heard in-numerous advertisements and requests for help from religious organizations. A lot of that money goes into helping conversion by helping poor people. In fact one the foremost selling technique of evanjehadis is some of these characteristics of Christianity.

Where is such a thing in Hinduism? Lets not count individual efforts as they can never match organized efforts by these religions. Why should a Hindu feel secure when there is no such promise or visible efforts? Where are the efforts to play on such insecurities to foster bonding? Where are the required institutions?

This feeling of somebody is out there to help them just because they are same religions is a major factor for people to convert or become preachers after conversion. There are of course plenty of reasons for the spread of these religions but this aspect of religion is one of the many reasons why new converts or by birth these people feel superiority which gives them strength and moral backing to spread their religion to others. With my limited knowledge of Hinduism I do not see any such promises or efforts by Hinduism.

[Pulikeshi]

Let us not stray too far from the intent of this thread.
Any understanding of systems and their organization is best done within the ambit of tackling Islamic Extremism.

[shiv]

Aside : People might want to see following links to get some idea current status of Christianist vs Islamists vs Hinduism clashes.
.
[/url]

These links have nothing to do with the topic of the thread and i am going to remove them.

[shiv]

A random article written for another board by me (edited somewhat)

Liberal, secular Hindus balk at the thought of being critical of other faiths. Hindu "secularism" or "Liberalism" is based on the oft quoted Hindu concept of "Sarva devo namaskara Kehavam Pratigachati" which means that you can follow one of many divine paths but every path gets you into the same goal or "sarva dharma samabhav"

You find liberal Hindus attacking other Hindus for not appearing liberal enough. It is a curious paradox that "secular" Hindu liberals attack Hindu fundamentalists  ("Right wing") by the overapplication of a Hindu belief and by accusing the Hindu rightwing of underuse or misuse of the "sarva dharma samabhav"  belief.

"Secular" Hindus are liberal only when it comes to Hinduism. That is what they imagine is their "fairness" - their dharmic justness. The biggest difference between Hindu fundamentalists and secular Hindus is that the fundoos choose to point out (rightly in my view) that neither Christianity nor Islam are in the least bit secular.

Those of us who are educated and aware need to be able to step back and see issues in a detached manner - pinning blame on all sides if necessary. The minute we put the blame on one side only, and let the other side go scot free we are joining the fight ourselves and become partisan. The worst possible thing in my view is being partisan and claiming to be secular and equidistant. This is the big failing of the educated Hindu liberal.

By definition, no religion is secular. People are not secular by nature. Even the self proclaimed Indian seculars do not understand the meaning of the word secular and are actually both non secular and partisan. The Indian constitution is biased towards not questioning any lack of secularism among the religions Christianity and Islam by not taking cognizance of non secular political activity by these religions.

These are ongoing problems in India society that are leading up to violence. Like I said Hindus on the ground are neither secular nor non violent and there will be violence. Anyone who is concerned about this needs first of all to be fair and unbiased about what is happening. Among Hindus, being fair and unbiased may require a self examination of the values that we falsely imagine to be secularism in our own views.

Hindu liberal and "secular" views revolve around "sarva dharma samabhav" - all faiths are equalequal or "Sarva devo namaskara Kehavam Pratigachati" . This is decidedly NOT secularism. The closest English word to describe this attitude is "pluralism". Secularism means no religion is allowed in a particular context. Pluralism as well as "sarva dharma samabhav" mean that ALL religions are allowed equal presence.

The liberal Hindu following the "pluralist" path often does not understand that Islam and Christianity do not allow pluralism. Individual Christians and Muslims may be either pluralist or secular, but once Islamic or Christian religious organizations get involved, neither secularism, nor pluralism can exist and there is constitutional sanction for this. However, pluralism comes easily and naturally for Hindus, although secularism is alien.

These nuances lead to issues that form a genuine Hindu lament in India. Lack of understanding of these finer points and a singular lack of any serious attempt to bridge the divide are leading to violence. Islamists of course are phenomenal self-goal scorers. They endorse violence. What better excuse than that for Hindus to resort to tit for tat violence? The Church is a much more subtle organization. But that does not exempt them from violence, and any counter violence will be sure to add to the existing sense of Hindu grievance and "justify" revenge in a "Hindu nation".

Calling for non violence is not going to work, Gandhi, and Gandhigiri are dead. Banging ones head against the brick wall of "secularism" is pointless when the people are not secular and cannot cast religion aside. Add this the the fact that Hinduism on the one hand, and Islam and Christianity on the other hand deal with other religions in a different way you get an absolutely unique situation in India that cannot blindly copy the model that is used in other nations. Christianity and Islam are both openly non secular and non pluralist and confrontational.  Hindus will accept pluralism, but are not secular, and they are equally confrontational when it comes to the crunch. Gandhi somehow kept Hindu confrontationalism in check, but that historic trick is not valid any more.

Secular forces have spent decades since independence trying to keep Hindu confrontationalism in check by asking Hindus to be secular and worrying that asking Muslims to be secular might make them want to go to Pakistan or riot.

We need to get this right. The state must be secular. The people are not secular. But for coexistence people must give each other a "secular space" where religion does not intrude on another religion, or a "pluralist space" where all religious beliefs are tolerated without sniping and gandmasti to say that one is better than the other. Unfortunately both pluralism and secularism are alien to fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. This fact needs to come out clearly when we speak of solutions.

[Rahul Mehta]

----pls delete this post (I cant as someone seems to have pressed 'quote' button) ---

[shiv]

Or is that board's url a top secret?

.

It is a totally private alumni board.

[JE Menon]

Poor Rahul. Come on guys. Go easy on the dude.

He is harmless, and in some ways a fixture on BR. Sort of like a piece of furniture you know you shouldn't have in ur drawing room, but you can't throw out, because well, its been there for a while and it isn't totally useless or broken. He irritates the hair off everyone, but inexplicably as an admin I feel it will be sort of "unfair" somehow to throw him out...

Dude is a phenomenon of sorts. Even he thinks so.

Giving him the url is another matter altogether and the good doc will certainly not want to inflict him on another forum where sooner or later all wise men will have to think alike...

Added later: Ah, looks like the matter has been cleared up

[Sanku]

Dhimmitude of Nth order anyone

Patil said that it was the duty of any government to protect the minorities so that the country remains united.

and of course they can be only protected by appeasing them.

Govt favours reservation for minorities

Sorry boys turn the lights off and go home. Shiv can add another bullet point in how India is a mildly Islamic state.

[shiv]

Since I seem to be "in the mood", let me write an FAQ even at the risk of repeating some stuff.

1) Who is a Hindu fundamentalist?

A Hindu fundamentalist is a person who is accused of hating Islam and Muslims, as well as Christians and Christianity. He is often, but not invariably critical of both faiths and groups.

The Hindu fundamentalist is accused of violence, riots and murder. Anyone who can be accused of Hindu fundamentalism has the following labels or characteristics attached to him even if he does not have any connection with those labels. The labels are "Right Wing; BJP; RSS; Hindutva; RSS; Bajrang Dal; High Caste; Murderer of Graham Staines; Murderer of Muslims in Gujarat"

The minute a person is declared a Hindu fundamentalist he is a hater of all Muslims and Christians and is accused of wanting to set up a Hindu state in India. Denial of this is no use. Once he gets that label - that is it.

1) Who is a Secular Hindu?

A secular Hindu worries that Hindu fundamentalists are out to kill or banish his Muslim and Christian brothers. He feels that the future of India is dependent on ensuring that Muslims and Christians are protected from Murderous Hindu fundamentalists. If a Muslim or a Christian is upset by something that can be attributed to a Hindu fundamentalist, the secular Hindu worries that the "secular fabric" of the nation is being torn apart by Hindu fundamentalists. The idea that a Hindu might ever get upset by Muslim or Christian action is horrifying to the secular Indian.

The secular Indian believes that all Hindus are (supposed to be) secular, tolerant and non violent. He believes that upsetting a Muslim or a Christian is a bad idea because they already tolerate Hindus and asking them to tolerate more may be intolerable

However, if you ask any Muslim or Christian group that has faced a Hindu mob if Hindus are secular, tolerant and non violent, they are unlikely to agree.

So who is right, the secular Hindu or the Muslim/Christian? Since we must not upset our Muslim and Christian brothers by accusing them of lying, we must accept that they are telling the truth about Hindus.

This sad fact makes the secular Hindu very upset. He demands that all Hindus be secular, tolerant and non violent like he is. And those who are not are the fundamentalist right-wing Hindutva group!

3)Why are all Hindus not like the secular Hindu?
This is a trick question.

The problem is in this silly language "English". It has all these words with strange meanings that Indians cannot understand. The secular Hindu does not understand that the word "secular" means "absence of religion". No religion. "NO" means "absent", "nahin", "illa", "illai", "nako" "ledu" "na" "nathi" "nyet", "non" etc. depending on the language.

The secular Hindu forgets that he is himelf religious. He celebrates Hindu festivals and gives sweets to his Muslim neighbor to share goodwill. He celebrates Christmas with a tree, cake and lights and says "Merry Christmas". He attends Iftar parties and says "Id Mubarak". He even sometimes goes to the extent of saying "Muharram mubarak" as was spotted in a sign in Bangalore in 2008.

The secular Hindu thinks this behavior is secularism". He fails to understand that this behavior is NOT secularism, which means "No religion". It means "pluralism" - which allows ALL religions.

So, in reply to the question as to why fundamentalist Hindus are not secular, the answer is that Hindus are not secular. They are pluralist.

4) But what about violence? Can Hindus be violent?

Unfortunately yes. Hindus can be perfectly violent. We already know that from what our Muslims and Christian brothers have told us.

5) OK, what of "tolerance" then. Shouldn't Hindus be tolerant?

The question should be "tolerant of what?"

Hindus are human and tolerate some things and are intolerant of other things. There are some Hindus who do not tolerate the idea that the Gods that are holy to Hindus can be declared as "false" or the idea that the idols they worship are something that is wrong.

Who says Hindu Gods are false? Who says Idol worship is bad?

Well mostly nobody says that, but there is small group of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians who insist that this is so. It is this group that some Hindus are not tolerant about.

6) But our nation calls for secularism. Secularism is our life blood isn't it?

Yes of course. Our constitution swears by secularism, and religion is not supposed to play any role in politics.

But the people are not secular. And the people are not living with politicians. They are living with each other. The people living together are Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

The vast majority of these people are not secular. They are pluralist. They celebrate their festivals in public and share their festivals with everyone else, either in the form of food, lights, decorations or loud chanting, noise or music.

Secularism is totally absent. It is mostly pluralism. But in this plural society there are some unsatisfied Hindus who feel that some people are not plural enough.

In a society such as Indian society, it is OK if nobody is secular as long as everyone is a pluralist and allows every religion to exist equally.

Unfortunately a small minority of Muslims and a smaller number of Christians believe that pluralism is also wrong. They have a certain idea of "God" and feel that only that idea is correct. This upsets some Hindus. Maybe the latter would not mind if these ideas were kept within the comunity of Muslims or Christians. but they get angry when these ideas are spread among Hindus. They feel that this idea is offensive to Hindu belief.

The assertion that there is only one God and that it is wrong to worship idols is very irritating to some Hindus. At the same time the assertion that there can be more than one God, or that idols can be worshipped is very irritating to some Muslims and Christians.

When people get irritated they fight, and fights sometimes get dirty. And there are a lot more Hindus than Muslims or Christians so when a fight gets dirty. it becomes a one-sided fight.

The father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi recognized that such fights would be one sided fights, and he managed to convince Hindus that they should not fight. As long as he was alive, his word worked, often by the use of threat of slow suicide by fasting. But Gandhiji is now no more.

In the meantime, some Muslims of India too recognised that fights would be one-way fights in a Hindu dominated India. They felt that creating pockets of pure Muslims would prevent one sided Hindu-Muslim fights. But that is another story.

The question is, what kind of compromise can be reached that satisfies everyone and does not upset anyone's religious sensitivities?

Is it necessary at all to reach any compromise?

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

Can you banish religion from among the people and become a "secular" society as opposed to a pluralist society?

[JwalaMukhi]

The question is, what kind of compromise can be reached that satisfies everyone and does not upset anyone's religious sensitivities?

Is it necessary at all to reach any compromise?

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

Can you banish religion from among the people and become a "secular" society as opposed to a pluralist society?

Great posts as always. Good questions.

Can you banish religion from among the people and become a "secular" society as opposed to a pluralist society?

The so called secular society is a myth if it means no religion. Taking some examples of "so called first secular soceities" and let us see what is actually being done. In these "secular societies" there are two dimensions to religion, one purely about the question of belief and secondly the political power. The design of the non-dharmic religions is extremely offensive to non-beleivers. This was acceptable since most of the people belong to within the group loosely, hence no offence is seen. However some enlightened ones, identified the problem with the belief system and created an option that competing equally offensive competing religion can also be given space. So secularism meant tolerance of mutually offensive belief system to co-exist, along with the thought that rejects belief. However, even the most die-hard atheists or agnotists or whatever else they may want to label themselves, are clear about the benefits one reaps from identifying and being within the political dimension of the religion. There is no or very little tolerance for mutually competing relgions to co-exist in politcal dimensions within such secular societies. In Islamic societies, the two dimensions of the belief and politcal are rolled into one. Hence no tolerance for competing religions to co-exist period. With such a track record of the so called "secular" societies, the implications of grafting such a solution to a society with additional dharmic religion in the mix, can be guessed. So in effect, if this route is chosen, it should clearly mean that India should provide ample opportunity for competing religions to coexist only in the dimension of belief. The corollary means that only Hindu religion and no competing religion should be provided space in the political dimension of the society.

The question is, what kind of compromise can be reached that satisfies everyone and does not upset anyone's religious sensitivities?

This is a trick question, the sensibility of religions vary. For some relgions the very fact some non-believer exists, itself is very offensive. This sensibility cannot be addressed. For non-dharmic religions by design as amply recorded in their operating manuals, compromise is not an option. The compromise can be only within the boundaries of laws, where freedom is provided to upset every relgions sensibilities equally.

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

So, given the way non-dharmic religions have tended to operate, the outcome where majority religion rules political dimension, while all religions are equally provided space in belief realm, would be construed as bending to the will of majority.

[svinayak]

The so called secular society is a myth if it means no religion.

All societies are communal. India with a long traditions is communal.

[ShauryaT]

We need to get this right. The state must be secular. The people are not secular. But for coexistence people must give each other a "secular space" where religion does not intrude on another religion, or a "pluralist space" where all religious beliefs are tolerated without sniping and gandmasti to say that one is better than the other. Unfortunately both pluralism and secularism are alien to fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. This fact needs to come out clearly when we speak of solutions.

Secularism is fine with most christians, especially the kind practiced in the US or France. We should not be afraid to ask the question, If secularism applies to India at all, given our history and experiences, which are different from the west.

Pluralism is not an issue with the Dharmic way of life, Secularism is. If the exclusive religions have an issue with pluralism - tough luck. Majority rules. The question is do the Hindu leaders have the guts to tap into this will of the majority and do what needs to be done?

[ShauryaT]

The question is, what kind of compromise can be reached that satisfies everyone and does not upset anyone's religious sensitivities?

Is it necessary at all to reach any compromise?

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

Can you banish religion from among the people and become a "secular" society as opposed to a pluralist society?

Why not do just that and see how "cruel" can the Hindus really get. For once, I would like to see the theological fascist face of the Hindus.

[pradeepe]

For once, I would like to see the theological fascist face of the Hindus.

IMHO there is none, and its known, which is why they keep peddling that line knowing fully well it will never materialize. The closest that they can come is to hide the offense event from a defensive enagagement like in Godhra and then twist it.

I wonder if there a situation which could get that bluff called out? First sign will be the tooth and nail fight which will preempt the emergence of such a situation. Cos' that would expose a whole bunch of nonsense for what it is by a few very powerful organizations.

[ShauryaT]

The question is, what kind of compromise can be reached that satisfies everyone and does not upset anyone's religious sensitivities?

Is it necessary at all to reach any compromise?

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

Can you banish religion from among the people and become a "secular" society as opposed to a pluralist society?

The compromise is the current state of the Republic of India.

When you are dealing with an entity, whose aim is not to co-exist with you but to eventually seek your annihilation, how prudent is it to look for a compromise?

Is the current compromise working?

Are compromises lasting solutions? Is a lasting compromise possible?

Is not a compromise akin to the same mistakes made by Prithviraj Chauhan (and almost every other Hindu ruler) in the 13th century?

Will the amendment to articles 29/30 and implementation of UCC, being touted by the BJP, solve the issues?

Have we learnt anything in the Islamism threads to suggest a compromise? (Shiv - not directed at you)

[vsudhir]

ShauryaT

Like some wiseguy said ...

Israel's present is the free world's future

I fear the inability to make any compromise last will ultimately result in a second (third? Nth?) partition. This time, hopefully, we yindoos would've learnt our lesson and would explicitly *ban* adharmic minorities from residing in what moth-eaten territory we will manage to retain after the partition event.

JMTs etc.

[shiv]

Secularism is fine with most christians, especially the kind practiced in the US or France. We should not be afraid to ask the question, If secularism applies to India at all, given our history and experiences, which are different from the west.

Shaurya - I think Jwalamukhi had said it just right. I quote him below. I have introduced paragraphs for clarity where Jwalamukhi refused to do that.

In these "secular societies" there are two dimensions to religion, one purely about the question of belief and secondly the political power. < snip > This was acceptable since most of the people belong to within the group loosely, hence no offence is seen.

However some enlightened ones, identified the problem with the belief system and created an option that competing equally offensive competing religion can also be given space. So secularism meant tolerance of mutually offensive belief system to co-exist, along with the thought that rejects belief.

However, even the most die-hard atheists or agnotists or whatever else they may want to label themselves, are clear about the benefits one reaps from identifying and being within the political dimension of the religion. There is no or very little tolerance for mutually competing relgions to co-exist in politcal dimensions within such secular societies.

In Islamic societies, the two dimensions of the belief and politcal are rolled into one. Hence no tolerance for competing religions to co-exist period. With such a track record of the so called "secular" societies, the implications of grafting such a solution to a society with additional dharmic religion in the mix, can be guessed.

I would just like to add that the US/UK/France allow secularism in a basically Christian societal framework as SN Balagangadhara has eloquently described.

When everyone was Christian, some people (the political leaders) agreed to set aside religion if their workplace, because the religion was alive and healthy at home when they went home after work in the evening.

But whenever islamic and Christian societies mixed - one invariably ended up dominating or eliminating the other. This is especially true of Islam, but that may only be because "secularism" was invented some centuries ago in Chrsitian societies.

I wonder if it is possible at all that Islam would eventually have converted/eliminated all Hindus and covered all of India had the British not come in?

Forum opinion on this issue is ambiguous. On the one hand people insist that Islamic rulers were a spent force by the time the British came in because of the Sikhs and Marathas. On the other hand Islam is seen as continuously spreading by demography even today. We have both forum opinions posted on this board, but both cannot be correct.

If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now - it means that the old Sikh and Maratha victories were a temporary aberration.

Was the entry of the British an interlude in which both Hindus and Muslims were suppressed and made to shut up by a unique "Secularism in a Christian framework" imposed by the British Raj.

But the end of that British Raj marked the end of that "Secularism in a Christian framework" and the division of India into Muslim Pakistan and a (largely) Hindu India.

I use use the words (largely) Hindu India deliberately. It is only a groups of Hindus who call themselves secular who insist that India should NOT be seen as "largely) Hindu India". All media references in the world and all world opinions tend to see India as "largely Hindu India".

Why do Indians insist on not seeing India like the rest of the world as a "largely Hindu India". I propose that this is confusion NOT ONLY among secular Hindus, but all Hindus at large about their own identity and status in this world.

When the entire outside world has been describing India as "Hindu", Indian Hindus have been insisting "We are not Hindu. We are Sanatana Dharmis". We are not a religion. We are a dharma"

And almost as an extension of that when the entire goddam world looks at India as "Largely Hindu" - we insist that we are not Hindu in character.

Hindus fight Hindus here. just look at the folly of Hindus

1) "Right wing" Hindus insist that India is not Hindu but "Sanatana Dharma" By doing this they may be telling the truth, but they are eroding the identity by which India is recognised in the world

2) "secular" Hindus resist the description of India as "Largely Hindu" and say "we are a mix of all religions" By doing that secular Hindus erode the identity by which India is recognised in the world.

But secular Hindus and Right wing Hindus hate each other. Seculars are called "Sickular" or "pseudosecular" right on this very forum. "Right wing Hindus" were called "murderers and bigots" right on this very forum.

But both groups do whatever they can to erode Hindu identity by refusing to accept the others view as a variant of Hindu opinion.

Is it any wonder that Hinduism can be eaten away at the edges when all Hindus are jokers of one variety or other?

[svinayak]

But secular Hindus and Right wing Hindus hate each other. Seculars are called "Sickular" or "pseudosecular" right on this very forum. "Right wing Hindus" were called "murderers and bigots" right on this very forum.

But both groups do whatever they can to erode Hindu identity by refusing to accept the others view as a variant of Hindu opinion.

Is it possible that this kind of social identity competition has been introduced inside India and some groups are watching this.

This manufactured competition using media and education could have been deliberately forced inside the national debate and confusing the masses with the nonsense

[ShauryaT]

ShauryaT

Like some wiseguy said ...

Israel's present is the free world's future

I fear the inability to make any compromise last will ultimately result in a second (third? Nth?) partition. This time, hopefully, we yindoos would've learnt our lesson and would explicitly *ban* adharmic minorities from residing in what moth-eaten territory we will manage to retain after the partition event.

JMTs etc.

vsudhir: No offense, but to me, that is a loser's mentality. Win the battle first, and then compromise. Compromise from a position of strength, not weakness. Do not even think about another partition. Compromises based on a false sense of security, which do not address the underlying issues - will not last. This is not some gung ho talk, it is a fundamental attitude that needs to be maintained. The only thing is this attitude of aggression, needs to be based on rock solid facts and to be applied only against an Adharmic enemy.

Also, that moth-eaten territory - that final bit of "pure" land we aim for without the adharmics will never happen. Just look at the district wise distribution of data by communities throughout the land mass. They are muslims alright, but they are also, tamilians, keralites, Maharashtrians and so on. It is their sacred land too.

Come what may, Hindus will have to take a solemn pledge, not to EVER partition this land again. Sorry for being emotional on the matter.

[ShauryaT]

Forum opinion on this issue is ambiguous. On the one hand people insist that Islamic rulers were a spent force by the time the British came in because of the Sikhs and Marathas. On the other hand Islam is seen as continuously spreading by demography even today. We have both forum opinions posted on this board, but both cannot be correct.

If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now - it means that the old Sikh and Maratha victories were a temporary aberration.

People who say the latter are presuming certain things, which are not true.

- It is a fact that, Islam has spread through the sword and state patronage, in India. It has to logically flow from there that if the sword has been defeated and the Islamic state has disappeared, where is the question of Islam spreading?
- Was there a single province, which was Muslim majority in 1707?
- It can be seen in numerous instances that the state was instrumental in determining the faith of its subjects. Does it not logically flow from there that in Hindu kingdoms, Muslims would be marginalized and encouraged to revert back to Hinduism?

Was the entry of the British an interlude in which both Hindus and Muslims were suppressed and made to shut up by a unique "Secularism in a Christian framework" imposed by the British Raj.

Yes but the effect was, it gave a reprieve to the Muslims, and an ability to multiply demographically and get to a majority province status in the east and west. This was possible only due to the "secular" umbrella provided by the British and the defeat of the Hindu kingdoms.

1) "Right wing" Hindus insist that India is not Hindu but "Sanatana Dharma" By doing this they may be telling the truth, but they are eroding the identity by which India is recognised in the world.....

Is it any wonder that Hinduism can be eaten away at the edges when all Hindus are jokers of one variety or other?

What are you suggesting Shiv. Should the Hindus not stick to their view of what they believe to be true and compromise because the rest of the monotheist world is not able to grasp, that the narrow prism of religion cannot hold the definition of Dharma. Should the Dharmics, down grade to the monotheist understanding of religion to please their sensibilities? When the west calls it a largely Hindu India, that is a fact. If the people give up the identity of Hindu and call themselves Sanatanis, it is not that big a deal. Anyways, do not want to get into a termiology debate all over again.

The rest of the world will follow, whatever India decides to call herself (in terminology). I never thought, people in the west will start calling Bombay, by its new name Mumbai. I am happily surprised to be wrong.

The jokers here are the secularists, who are lying to themselves and the nation that a compromise with exclusive, violent and totalitarian doctrines, which claim to be complete and completed, is possible. Either the doctrine lives or Sanatan Dharma. It is a binary.

[shiv]

Which is older?

Sanatana Dharma or the Vedas?

The dharma is older, the Vedas came later.

The essence of Sanatana Dharma is that of a distributed network with common skeins running through it.

Sanatana Dharma did not prescribe one single God. Sanatana Dharma did not prohibit any variety of worship - be it in the form of idols, symbols or even no worship. All these systems have a place in Sanatana Dharma. This is the religious crux of the dharma, although the system itself extends far beyond religions.

It is this religious crux of Sanatana Dharma that has come into conflict with "One God" religions. All across India this religious crux of Sanatana Dharma was accepted. Any God would do, and a person who accepted that would be allowed into the fold of Snatana Dharma. The Vedas and other knowledge, both good and wonky were added later. All Indians who followed their various Gods and live together in Harmony were Sanatana Dharmis.

Sanatana Dharma has resisted the restriction to "One God" in the exact opposite manner that Islam protected its belief system. Islam punished those who leave and promises (often falsely) rewards for those who enter.

Sanatana Dharma neither punishes those who leave nor does it promise rewards for entering. The biggest reward for entering is the freedom leave at will and re enter at will at any later date.

The weakness in this system is that a person who enters Islam from Sanatana Dharma is trapped in a prison of Islam that does not allow that person to leave at will. It is easy to put a man in prison and say "My prisoner is happy" especially if you are free to punish your prisoner for disagreeing with you. He will admit happiness because it is less painful to remain in prison that to face punishment or death for leaving.

This goes against the spirit of Sanatan Dharma and it must be protested. Oh yes the thought is anti-Islamic but Islam is anti Sanatana Dharma. The IS conflict of interest.

Can we avoid conflict of interest by become "secular" and keeping religion out of the public sphere?

What is the public sphere? As I indicated earlier, people live together and their religion is everywhere. "Public space" or the "Public sphere" in India is not secular.

If these religions must live together they will be in conflict.

It is to the credit of Islamic scholars who created Pakistan that they recognised it first. We laugh at the creators of Pakistan for being wrong in naively believing that Islam is THE solution. But we must give them credit for being honest and pointing out a conflict of interest between Sanatana Dharma and Islam.

It is the freedom to follow any God that Sanatana Dharma gives you that avoids conflict and creates the misnamed "secular" Hindus. He is actually a pluralist Hindu, but he is also a Sanatana Dharmi in giving that freeodom to follow any God. Anything less than the freedom to follow any God is to be resisted. And any resistance to change from one faith to the other is also unacceptable. Any resistance to reconversion or furher conversion must be disallowed. The rules for conversion and reconversion must be free and without coercion. The rules for what you believe in should be free from coercion and the act of changing should be free from threat.

India currently allows conversion, but does not stop the fear and threat that people face if they wish to convert out of Islam. This is neither secular, nor fair, nor just, nor dharmic. It is sharia.

India has laws to punish a man if he promises marriage and then tries to wriggle out after sex. But India does not have laws to punish people who use the freedom afforeded by Sanatana Dharma to convert by making false promises and then not living up to those promises.

[alokgupt]

Again Kolkata...

url

KOLKATA/HOWRAH: Two suspected ISI agents of Bangladesh origin were arrested in Howrah on Wednesday. Defence-related documents and two gelatin sticks were recovered from their possession, said sleuths.

Acting on a tip-off, the CID sleuths trapped the duo near Shalimar Gate in Howrah on Wednesday. Alamgir Seikh and Shamim Akhter, from Bangladesh, allegedly sneaked into India without valid documents. According to sources, the duo was in Kolkata to recruit ex-servicemen to gather information on defence matters.

The sources said Alamgir used his in-laws' house in Howrah to tap Arobindo Ghosh, an ex-CISF jawan living in the area. Alamgir promised Ghosh a hefty compensation for joining a Bangladeshi private security agency. He, however, became suspicious when Alamgir and Shamim asked him about defence matters, the sources said, adding Ghosh informed CID through one of his friends.

Following preliminary interrogation of the duo, a CID team raided several hidehouts and recovered vital documents on Army bases in North India, including the Army headquarters in Delhi, photographs of Army base camps in Northeast and two Bangladeshi SIM cards.

Also two CDs, one containing footage of a suicide attack and another of military movements in northeast, have also been recovered from them, the sources said.

[shiv]

What are you suggesting Shiv. Should the Hindus not stick to their view of what they believe to be true and compromise because the rest of the monotheist world is not able to grasp, that the narrow prism of religion cannot hold the definition of Dharma. Should the Dharmics, down grade to the monotheist understanding of religion to please their sensibilities? When the west calls it a largely Hindu India, that is a fact. If the people give up the identity of Hindu and call themselves Sanatanis, it is not that big a deal. Anyways, do not want to get into a termiology debate all over again.

No I ask that we recognise the various means in which our tradition is attacked and do not behave in a "left hand does not know what right hand is doing" manner.

Let me explain.

it is all very well (and true) to describe our religion.way of life as "Sanatan Dharma", but what has happened is that "Right wing fundamentalist Hindus" who identify with Sanatan Dharma have already scored a historic own goal. In their effort to explain the dharma, they have linked it to the Vedas and other written Hindu literature. That may be fine except for the worst kabab mein haddi ever. India's first sociology manual (perhaps the world's first sociology manual) "Manu dharma shastra" is among the worst things ever to have hit Hindus after the "One God coercive religions" came in.

Tying the dharma with book knowledge gelled in exactly with the requirements of the One God coercive faiths. Once Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) could be linked to any book, it was linked to Manu. That was the lever used to split open Hindu society. That same lever is being used today to say that Indian tribals are not Hindus, or that scheduled castes are not Hindus.

Hinduism then became a "Vedic religion" as opposed to the earlier "Sanatana Dharma" from which the Vedas arose. Hinduism therefore became like the One God coercive religions in following a book, as opposed to preceding the book.

When we say Sanatana Dharma, we must say that it preceded the books and it need not be tied down to those books. When Hindus voluntarily tie themselves down to unchanging books they are themselves making equalequal with Islam and Christianity. And when that happens Hindus and Hinduism can be picked off and roasted alive piecemeal just as we can roast Muslims alive on the statements that they tie themselves to in the Quran.

That was why I asked if the Dharma came first or the Vedas first.

[Harish]

What are you suggesting Shiv. Should the Hindus not stick to their view of what they believe to be true and compromise because the rest of the monotheist world is not able to grasp, that the narrow prism of religion cannot hold the definition of Dharma. Should the Dharmics, down grade to the monotheist understanding of religion to please their sensibilities? When the west calls it a largely Hindu India, that is a fact. If the people give up the identity of Hindu and call themselves Sanatanis, it is not that big a deal. Anyways, do not want to get into a termiology debate all over again.

No I ask that we recognise the various means in which our tradition is attacked and do not behave in a "left hand does not know what right hand is doing" manner.

Let me explain.

it is all very well (and true) to describe our religion.way of life as "Sanatan Dharma", but what has happened is that "Right wing fundamentalist Hindus" who identify with Sanatan Dharma have already scored a historic own goal. In their effort to explain the dharma, they have linked it to the Vedas and other written Hindu literature. That may be fine except for the worst kabab mein haddi ever. India's first sociology manual (perhaps the world's first sociology manual) "Manu dharma shastra" is among the worst things ever to have hit Hindus after the "One God coercive religions" came in.

Tying the dharma with book knowledge gelled in exactly with the requirements of the One God coercive faiths. Once Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) could be linked to any book, it was linked to Manu. That was the lever used to split open Hindu society. That same lever is being used today to say that Indian tribals are not Hindus, or that scheduled castes are not Hindus.

Hinduism then became a "Vedic religion" as opposed to the earlier "Sanatana Dharma" from which the Vedas arose. Hinduism therefore became like the One God coercive religions in following a book, as opposed to preceding the book.

When we say Sanatana Dharma, we must say that it preceded the books and it need not be tied down to those books. When Hindus voluntarily tie themselves down to unchanging books they are themselves making equalequal with Islam and Christianity. And when that happens Hindus and Hinduism can be picked off and roasted alive piecemeal just as we can roast Muslims alive on the statements that they tie themselves to in the Quran.

That was why I asked if the Dharma came first or the Vedas first.

Shiv, attempting to de-link Hinduism nee Sanatana Dharma from the Vedic roots is pointless, besides being an act of sacrilege. The Vedas form the very bedrock of Hinduism, though ofcourse Hindu scriptures run into millions and not all of these acknowledge the supremacy/authority of the Vedas. Having said that, how sensible is it to ordain that henceforth, "as a grand strategy to counter fundoo Abduls and Johns, we shall not utter a word about the Vedas when discussing Sanatana Dharma, indeed we shall actively protest it?"

The Vedas inform, directly or indirectly, just about anything that mainstream/traditional Hindus do as part of ritual or liturgy. Everything is connected to the Vedas and derive authority and power from them. This is not to say there are not significant schools that decline the authority of the Vedas - some even militate against it (and yet are proudly and admittedly Hindu) - but the vast majority of Sanatana Dharmis, across millenia, have accepted its divinity and authority. To delink the Vedas from Sanatana Dharma would be to kill its soul.

Remember that the Vedas are not a book of rules and regulations, they are Sruti (Revealed). The sterling achievement of the civilization whose denizens received the Revelations (over centuries I assume) was to codify them, transmit them verbally (for millenia?), write them down (much later) and comment upon their interpretation and usage. Once that was in place (several thousands of years ago, unless you believe Romila Thapar and her ilk), society evolved into many distinct schools and institutions that begin to resemble Hindu society of today. No Vedas, no Sanatana Dharma, period.

Even then, remember that whatever organization we have in Sanatana Dharma today was largely due to the efforts of the great Sri Adi Shankara. He formalized and codified the rules for worship of the Shanmata Sampradayas - what existed before his time was presumably even less organized.

In other words, we cannot meaningfully go back to the time Vedas were still being written and claim this is our Sanatana Dharma. Such a society will be difficult to visualize, much less identify with.

All of this does not make us another "people of the book." We have a million scriptures besides the Vedas and several hundred million Gods and Goddesses - we are a people of which Book and a worshipper of which God? How on earth is anyone going to make these silly charges stick against us? We only have to watch and laugh as worshippers of bad-tempered gods make an ass of themselves trying to fit the ocean into a pipe.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rahul Mehta : Shiv, can you mention that board? Or is that board's url a top secret?

shiv: It is a totally private alumni board.

Is read access also for members only? If non-members are allowed to read the articles posted, pls post the url. Otherwise, forget it. There are many fine things in life I live without --- one more in that endless list.

Thanks anyway.

--------

Poor Rahul. Come on guys. Go easy on the dude.

He is harmless, and in some ways a fixture on BR. Sort of like a piece of furniture you know you shouldn't have in ur drawing room, but you can't throw out, because well, its been there for a while and it isn't totally useless or broken. He irritates the hair off everyone, but inexplicably as an admin I feel it will be sort of "unfair" somehow to throw him out...

Dude is a phenomenon of sorts. Even he thinks so.

Giving him the url is another matter altogether and the good doc will certainly not want to inflict him on another forum where sooner or later all wise men will have to think alike...

Added later: Ah, looks like the matter has been cleared up

.

[Murugan]

Harish-bhai,

well said!
very well Said!!

[Murugan]

1) "Right wing" Hindus insist that India is not Hindu but "Sanatana Dharma" By doing this they may be telling the truth, but they are eroding the identity by which India is recognised in the world.....

Is it any wonder that Hinduism can be eaten away at the edges when all Hindus are jokers of one variety or other?

still feeling inferior to others in the world? still not ok with yourself?

how long you want yourself need to be validated by those 'others' in the world? how long you want to be recognized in the world? in what way?

if hindus are jokers then my question is - in whose eyes they are jokers? the westerners? the evangelics? the muslims? who? whose?

(i am asking these questions to myself...)

[Murugan]

If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now - it means that the old Sikh and Maratha victories were a temporary aberration.

even victory of charles martel on ummayids looks like an aberration if we look at the things happening in french areas

[Rudranathh]

JE Menonji ko mere vimannar jawab.

Aap galat insaan par daya dikha rahe hai. RM toh ek 'beccha ka desh' ka bandar hai. Woh hindi nahi padh saktha hai isleye main hindi main likh raha hun.

[Murugan]

I use use the words (largely) Hindu India deliberately. It is only a groups of Hindus who call themselves secular who insist that India should NOT be seen as "largely) Hindu India". All media references in the world and all world opinions tend to see India as "largely Hindu India".

I have been meeting people around in rural and town dwelling indians who are very well aware about being purely HINDU and India of HINDUS and are proud of it.

I dont know about enlightened cities like bangalore and kolkata, but 70% mumbai-ites think that this is hindu india, hindus' india. Many cities of maharashtra have the same feeling IMVHO and as i have encountered.

the world, at least through Will Durant, usded to see India as Hindus' India. (not even largely but purely)

i recommend going thru' The Case for India' by Will Durant.

***

Forum opinion on this issue is ambiguous. On the one hand people insist that Islamic rulers were a spent force by the time the British came in because of the Sikhs and Marathas. On the other hand Islam is seen as continuously spreading by demography even today. We have both forum opinions posted on this board, but both cannot be correct

Many forum members are aware too that India was not totally subjugated by 'islamist' rulers. Many forum members know that Alexander did not invade india and Porus at least was not a ruler of India as a whole.

After the decline of sultanates because of Rajputs and later because of Akbar - who also owed much to rajput to become a king of India - with a very vast political boundaries after at least 1000 years - hindus were bye and large were involved in administration and defence and or were in alliance with Mughals - the tribal invaders who later embraced islam.

Like a Hindu party affiliated with RSS hoisted a muslim as supreme commander of the armed forces, the rajputs of amber might have done the same thing when they accepted and came into relationship with Akbar - who was not an islamist, iirc.

For that matter, many of the sultans of sultanates in India were fresh converts from Rajput. For instance, Waji-ul-mulk was a rajput before he became first sultan of Gujarat. Now his relatives were still hindus. You just cant call the first sultan an islamist.

Understanding hindu psyche is difficult. When akbar was supported by powerful hindus of the time, his sons and grandsons adopted policies contrary to akbar's. Hindu forces - what one may with ignorance call an aberration - rose in defiance to the policies of those rulers whom we know as islamists.

I would personally call those 'islamists' opportunists, who switched their loyalties to khalifas and sunni and shia rulers of middle east almost alternatively.

I Propose there was no real islamic ruler othern than Aurangzeb of large Hindu India with vast political boundaries - whose policies and clan and descendants were decimated by abrasive hindus.

The adminstration and defence during the time after akbar upto aurangzeb were primarily - the responsibilities of Jahangir and Shahjan's Rajput Mamalog and other relatives, IMHO.

***

as far as tackling islamic terrorism is concerned, and tackling the same in India is concerned, please leave it to Islamophobic/pseudo islamic govt.

[Rahul Mehta]

Are Hindus secular? Is India secular?

---

Instead of answering this tough question, I would state and answer an easy question : of following countries US, UK, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Saudi, Pakistan, India, BD, Indonesia, Japan, Australia [add any country] arrange them in descending order by secularism of their people and their govts separately.

Or take any two countries in that list, say US and India, and answer following two questions

a)Which country has more secular govt
b)Which country has more secular people

---

Now I will answer this question.

Consider US and India. How secular are people of US? If Bobby Jindal had accepted Islam, would Americans had voted him a Governor? Bobby, as we all now know, had developed ambition of becoming Gov at early age of 10 (kids become career aware fast these days). He must have realized that unless he becomes Christian, he stands no chance of becoming a Governor. Which is why he became Christian at the age of 14 years. My allegation is that Americans have high tendency to vote for Christians only. They might vote a non-Christian as Senator or Assemblymen, as 99% Senators or Assemblymen will be Christians, and so risk is minimal. But most Americans AFAIK will not vote a non-Christian into position of President or Governor. Hence Americans are NOT secular people.

How secular are Indian people? Well, will people of Gujarat elect a Muslim CM? Sometimes, a muslim may manage to become Cm due to caste and factions playing on side. But if there are direct PM/CM election, that would be non-question.

So both Indian and American are people unsecular enough that "who is more secular question" becomes academic=useless.

Now given that citizenry is quite unsecular, why is "state" or "polity" secular despite being democratic?

One reason is that US is over 98% Christian. Europe too became secular only after the Christianists eradicated islam from Europe. Will American insist on secular state if say 15% of its population were devout Muslims? To answer this hypothetical question, I request all to look at how whites in US treat blacks, and to know how whites treat blacks, I request them to look at US prisons and imprisonment polices. And based on this, I conclude that if muslims were 15% of US population, the remaining 85% would have dumped 'secular state' concept long back.

So I think US is secular state only because it is over 98% uni-religious state.

Now questions comes --- in a TRUE democratic framework, can a poly-religious society be secular? We don't have any actual eamples.

Many BRFites living in the west must have heard in-numerous advertisements and requests for help from religious organizations.

Shankk,

Since admins are hostile to discussion on Christianists, I would not eloberate. But Christianists have drastically changes their structure of welfare activities and mode in which they are spreading all over the world.
.

[Murugan]

I have always wondered, why there are very few books on hindu kingdoms during sultanate times. why, in the books only sultans' raids and plunders are highlighted.

why the victories of hindu kings over sultans are not publicised and not even known to vast majority of the people.

A scandal is for sure being run to highlight only sultans and so called islamists' victories in hindu india.

Nowadays, more and more coins of Medieval hindu kings are coming in the market and more and more we know about the kings and rulers whose name we never read in our history books. many of them were so celebrated, powerful and just worth mentioning in the students history books.

But only sultans and mughals are highlighted in the name of secularism!

Ack Thoo!!!

[Rahul Mehta]

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

To make minorities bend, the elite of the majority will have to strengthen the members of its majority community. Is Hindu elite willing to strengthen Hindu commons by providing them weapons, law education etc. IMO, NO.

And also, the cost is too huge. It may work, or may boomrang. In the process of cleansing, the society may become weak to the extent that other society will devor it. If majority tries to crush minority, the minority will join other countries. eg Hitler tried to kill all Jews and Jews started supporting US and USSR, and this strengthened US and USSR.

Further, when cleansing is done, it often happens that community splits into two and cleansing starts again. eg Muslim countries don't have other religions. But then there, they kill in the name of Shia Sunni.

So if Hindus force every muslim to flee or accept Hinduism, this need not mean that fist fights would end.



.

[Murugan]

If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now - it means that the old Sikh and Maratha victories were a temporary aberration.

even victory of charles martel on ummayids looks like an aberration if we look at the things happening in french areas

If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now in Europe - it means that old Charlse Martel and Reconquista victories were too a temporary aberration.

[vsudhir]

vsudhir: No offense, but to me, that is a loser's mentality. Win the battle first, and then compromise. Compromise from a position of strength, not weakness.

Well, sir, if you win the battle, then why compromise at all? Be sure they won't if they win. Its this lack of killer or finishing isntinct which will do us in yet again. Learnt nothing from Prithviraj and Ghazni (or was it Ghouri?) of the 17th attempt fame, have we? IMVVHO of course.

Do not even think about another partition. Compromises based on a false sense of security, which do not address the underlying issues - will not last.

Now we are talking. I mean REALLY!

Me thought the biggest insight coming out of all this discussion was that accomodation with fundamentally adharmic ideologies is always a false hope and is always proved wrong. No?

Either you believe the threat to ages old sanatan dharma is existential and real or it is not. If you believe it is, how far will you go to 'secure' it against a foe that will wipe it off the map when it eventually wins?

I know ... even I don't like where that thought leads to. And no, I don't believe we will ever be as ruthless as required to wipe the threat off existence, ever. We simply may not have it in us. Which is why I can only nod at gentle reminders that say 'you have a loser attitude', etc. I can't think of the last time the dhsrmics did an ethnic or religious cleansing of a people, any people. Not since Asoka's time, anyhow.

This is not some gung ho talk, it is a fundamental attitude that needs to be maintained. The only thing is this attitude of aggression, needs to be based on rock solid facts and to be applied only against an Adharmic enemy.

I hear you. I'm pretty much confident in a flat-out 'do or die' war, we (i.e. free-minded people of the world) will win. It'll be long and bloody but we'll win alright. But that requires we first ID the enemy. Am less optimistic it'll ever come to a stage where we ID the enemy. Less optimistic doesn't mean, I wont fight. Like Aragon says standing at the gates of Minas Morgul
Its ours to fight today, with hope or without it.

Also, that moth-eaten territory - that final bit of "pure" land we aim for without the adharmics will never happen. Just look at the district wise distribution of data by communities throughout the land mass. They are muslims alright, but they are also, tamilians, keralites, Maharashtrians and so on. It is their sacred land too.

Sure.
Appreciate the sentiment, I do.

You seem to contradict yourself in definitional terms. Why believe that we cannot coexist with folk of whatever faith who hold India to be their sacred land, eh? It is precisely the fact that izlam permits no other 'sacred' object than poobah and his one true gawd that is at the root of this existential crisis for us and ours.

So on the one hand we've folk saying thank gawd partition happened and 'gangerene' got cutoff and OTOH we've folk saying we have no choice but to keep a bit of that tumor within coz it was born here, no?

Come what may, Hindus will have to take a solemn pledge, not to EVER partition this land again. Sorry for being emotional on the matter.

Why be sorry? Pls take the pledge onlee.

Point is, unless we show some chini style mercy and accomodation (like swamping Tibet and Sinkiang with Hans), we're not exactly speeding on the path to peace, prosperity, harmony and territorial integrity.

The demographic warfare continues unabated, meanwhile. I expect there to be izlamic secessionist movements in Assam soon. After lower Assam is already muzlim majority and has driven out everybody else. Who knows maybe Azamgarh and Rampur will be next, not to even mention Malappuram.

But hang on. Crisis will first reach boiling point in Europe because of their acute demographic straits. I expect full blown civil war there and a de facto partition of territory into free and no-go areas. EU's response will illuminate the way on how acceptable it is to deal with jihad (both active and passive) with how much of a loving hand.

Maybe I'm wrong, but IMO I'm being realistic.

Std disclaimers hold. No offense meant etc. Just my dui taka.
/Have a nice day.

[shiv]

Shiv, attempting to de-link Hinduism nee Sanatana Dharma from the Vedic roots is pointless, besides being an act of sacrilege.

No that is not my intention. But let me take the following two posts together for a comment and a question.

All of this does not make us another "people of the book." We have a million scriptures besides the Vedas and several hundred million Gods and Goddesses - we are a people of which Book and a worshipper of which God? How on earth is anyone going to make these silly charges stick against us? We only have to watch and laugh as worshippers of bad-tempered gods make an ass of themselves trying to fit the ocean into a pipe.

still feeling inferior to others in the world? still not ok with yourself?

how long you want yourself need to be validated by those 'others' in the world? how long you want to be recognized in the world? in what way?

1) What would make anyone think that a member of some particularly backward groups of SC/ST is a Sanatana Dharmi, particularly if he was out to prove otherwise?

2) If a sufficiently "benevolent" external entity spoke to such a person and pointed out to him the appropriate passages from selected Indian texts, and told him that he has nothing in common with Sanatan Dharma, what reply would that Indian be be able to give.

Conversions occur with rhetoric of this type and more.

Is being snooty and self confident all that we can do when the above can and does actually happen?

[shiv]

If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now in Europe - it means that old Charlse Martel and Reconquista victories were too a temporary aberration.

Correct.