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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 09:13

LokeshC wrote:
It is immaterial whether the initial suppression of Hindus by the elites was done by coercion by the Brishits or it was due to their own volition. What matters now is that their children are the ones making the decisions for the rest of us.

The above is what I used to believe. I still do to some extent. However I now think that there are many hidden agendas that is missing from this picture. A multi-generational transmission of shame, inferiority and self-hate that persisted in our elites for this long is a very potent thing. If you have no good intentions towards India, this self-hatred can be used to create problems in India, and we now know to the extent which it has corrupted us.

Absolutely.

Indians, with over a century of self hate behind them are now comfortable in agreement with the idea that "Hindu nationalism" is not desirable. But they are unable to say why.

The people who answer my questions on this usually club Hindu nationalism with murder, but are unable to say how every nationalist Hindu who is proud of his culture and loyal to his land should be dubbed a murderous bigot. Even on this thread I have got answers that simply rationalize and accept, and provide alternate reasons as to why people may not be "Hindu nationalist" but have found some other excuse for nationalism. But no one explains why Hindu nationalism is a pejorative term.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_22733 » 12 Nov 2014 09:36

Modi seems to have an interesting answer to it that stumped many people:
1) I am Hindu.
2) I am a Nationalist
3) Therefore: I am a Hindu Nationalist. :D :D

You are right about projection psychology, it is apt in this case. Abrahamic religions and their "secular" children (comooonism/sikularism/democrazy etc) have done unspeakable harm on humanity. The Abrahamics have also boxed the "others" into "religions", whether the others cared to put themselves in that box called religion or not.

Macaulayputras are reflecting the same fear of their masters, in fact the fear is "exact" in its details and reasoning. They are doing a "cargo cult" version of western secularism. Despite being born Hindu, the make the mistake of placing Hinduism in the same box as Abrahamic beliefs and then believing that Hinduism is capable of the same tyranny of an Abrahamic one. They make the same mistake their masters make. It is not surprising since they are intellectual "cargo-culters" they are unable to see things from a different perspective than the one of their masters. One can excuse their masters for being ignorant, this phenomena gives an idea of how deeply a Macaulayputra has been uprooted from his or her culture.

I have a few more questions to these people
1) What is your reason to box Hinduism with Abrahamism?
2) If you agree that the box is a fallacy, then what evidence or facts can one rely on to prove that every nationalist Hindu will end up being a Nazi or a Spanish Inquisitor or a Brishit colonizer or a Stalin or a GW Bush. Countless examples on the non-Indian side? Where are the Indian Hindus who committed a crime of an order or magnitude lesser than these worthies that I have outlined above.
Last edited by member_22733 on 12 Nov 2014 09:41, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8218
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Pratyush » 12 Nov 2014 09:40

Doc,

I have been thinking about the question that you have raised, since the day you started this thread. All explanations that I have read from the other posters make no sense to me.

The question is why?

Perhaps the answer is that, those who use HN in a pejorative sense are those who are actually projecting, their own worst impulse on a majority H population. That this is what we would have done if we were enjoying such a majority that the H enjoy in any population. They are also a group who are in the business of saving souls. Curiously, it is they who are in a minority in this country. So they are seeking to take us on a guilt trip, in order to makes sure that the H don't act in a manner that they would have if they were enjoying such a majority. They feel that it is the best if the H was defensive about HN.

In this regard, I feel that your efforts to have a serious conversation on this topic are misplaced. The pejorative description needs to be ridiculed and thrown back at those who are seeking to trap the H in guilt by projecting their own behavior. In order to free HN.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8218
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Pratyush » 12 Nov 2014 09:49

svenkat wrote:I repeat again.Hindu nationalism is criticised by Hindus themselves.Let us consider them one by one.
1)The sikularists-We can ignore them with contempt.
2)The leftists-serious criticism.The Hindu revivalist brahmins romanticise the past ignoring class based 'exploitation' of peasants in the past and ignore modern capitalist/trader interests to homogenise hindus.
3)The tamils-Hindu nationalism is essentially North Indian narrative ignoring tamizh indviduality.Such a hindu nationalism ignores a sacred geography which is essentially TN based but takes into account the great centres of North India-Ayodhya,Mathura,dwaraka,Kashi but has little interest in say MH or Assam or Bengal.Its great literary traditin-the Sangam poetry is essential secular not religious.
4)The dravidian argument-say KAs lingayat tradition which is essentially limited to KA and adjoining areas of MH,AP.Yeddyurappa with his 'limited' worldview would belong to this tradition.
5)The 'dispersed' shaiva and shaaktha traditions throughout India.
6)Sikhism seen primarily as a shaiva panth of punjab with its top leadership of gurus as vaishnava essentially a punjabi sampradaya.
7)The arrogant vaishnava(not so well disguised) in this very thread, contemptuous of Hinduism.
8)The soft vaishnava completely lost in an 'amorphous' world of Hinduism.
9)The smartha orthodoxy which looks down on non vedic sampradayas
10)The Advaita 'orthodoxy' which has deep suspicions about every other siddhanta as political.
11)The dalits whose only geography in the recent past was the 'impure' cheri/basti.
12)The rajput/maratha/mudaliar/thevar/kamma/jutt sikh landlord geography of being the 'lord of his domains'.And Hindu worldview respects the kshatriya as the defender of the land if he 'rules' within a 'dharmic framework'

No thinking hindu cares about the muslim/christian 'worldview'.These are just mleccha franchisees.


I read this post multiple times and have questions for the people who are more knowledgeable then I am on this matter.

Just how many of the 12 point raised in the post above are on account of real historical facts and not manufactured social engineering?

Comer
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Comer » 12 Nov 2014 10:28

Wondering if there is a Hindu civilisational memory which has been denied or forgotten by the regular folks but the comrade historians understand, where the idea of Hindu nationalism/kingdom was backed by potent force which was unleashed on the others? It would need a mass hypnotism to make the masses forget such events.
Otherwise the original question stumps me.
The closest I could think of is this. Forgive the crude drawings ( actually the art and the meme is pretty good. Check polandball on reddit)
http://i.imgur.com/s8tDEml.png

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Arjun » 12 Nov 2014 10:44

shiv wrote:I don't think we need to give up the term. We need to reclaim the term. That is what this thread is about - recognizing how the term "Hindu Nationalism" has been made "toxic" (an appropriate word) and then detoxifying it and grabbing it. Hindu nationalists are not bigots. And there is a "Hindu" nationalism that stems from ancient traditions, literature and history that has nothing to do with hatred of minorities. It is love and loyalty to the geography and all the tradition and history that our sacred geography is associated with. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not "against" anyone. No one should be offended by it. Certainly not enough to call people bigots and extremists.

Why would you need to reclaim the term, Shiv ? What is the end goal you hope to achieve by reclaiming "Hindu nationalist" and why do you think there is no alternative terminology that serves to achieve these same goals?

If the goal is to protect India's ancient traditions and honor the memory and spirit of the ancestors of this land - it seems to me that is automatically achieved through allegiance to the concept of Dharma alone. Dharma is nothing but belief in a moral code that among other things implies that diversity of traditions and culture indigenous to a place should be preserved; and the memory of our ancestors needs to be respected.

Dharmic meta-ethics alone would militate against the concept of exclusivist and predatory faiths rooting out indigenous traditions. The Hindu in Bali only needs to understand Dharmic principles in order to understand why he needs to ensure that Bali's ancestral traditions are protected. The sacred geography of India is irrelevant to his decisioning process. And frankly, the same applies as much for Hindus in India.

I don't see why 'Hindu Nationalism' needs to be viewed as a necessary condition or terminology in order to achieve the balance in social and community relationships that we seek to achieve as our end goal. 'Dharmic Nationalism' or simply Dharmartha principles should be enough to lead one to the same conclusions.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 11:14

Heh, given the khujli the term Hindu nationalist arouses, including in some places where the self proclaimed elite dwell, its a term which should be embraced and made into a positive one. The toxicity is entirely because of the self hate Hindus carry & the hate other groups have for Hinduism, those pesky pagans. Become a proud, powerful country and see how perceptions change.

(not replying/to anyone in the post above - making general points)
Last edited by Karan M on 12 Nov 2014 11:18, edited 1 time in total.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby JE Menon » 12 Nov 2014 11:18

Why should we let Hindu nationalism be defined by people who are subscribing primarily to ideologies that are not born in India, which is undeniably the fountainhead of Hinduism?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 11:19

JEM, exactly. The term was coined and popularized by turds like Rahul Bedi to envenom the image of the BJP to their masters abroad. These jerks want to act like the interpreters of India to those abroad.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby johneeG » 12 Nov 2014 11:23

I think one should start with basic questions:
What is 'Hindhuism'? Who are 'Hindhus'?
What is 'nationalism'? Who are 'nationalists'?
What is 'Hindhu nationalism'? Who are 'Hindhu nationalists'?
Are there other religious nationalisms also?

SwamyG wrote:A very good topic that is very relevant in today's world. There are scores of articles in the last couple of years that have been written largely written on the lines of mothers rationalizing (or threatening) their little children with dire consequences if they did not eat their dinners (like in tamil moms used to say: Seekaram saapidu, ilaina poochandi piddichandu poyyduvan - eat quickly else 'pooochandi' will take you away). The word poochandi itself is a loaded word quite germane to these discussions: http://gcmouli.com/blog/tag/poochandi/ But I digress.

I like to expand a little more on my thoughts a little later. But at a high level, Hindu Nationalism has the baggage from the 1920s and during the late freedom struggle in India. Hindu Nationalism was born in those days when Communism, Nationalism and Fascism were seen by the Western powers as the next evil. By the time the West, had imagined, that it had reformed Christianity of all its evil, and Islam was buried. Petroleum was yet to be found, and Arabia was just a land occupied by weird people who practiced Islam.

The European Invaders, like their predecessors the Islamic Invaders, saw Hinduism with all its warts and pimples. Because that is the first thing that anyone notices of another person - their ugliness. Unless one is extremely handsome or beautify (or perfect), people notice the flaws in others first before discovering the inner beauty. So the Christian Europe wrote tomes on the Hindu ugliness (there were some good books on Hinduism as well but far few), and Hindus became the brown people living in India worshiping all evil and false gods.

With the rise of nationalism, and the association of some the Hindu political leaders with the Germans, Japanese and other non-English countries, the West (the victors of WWI and WIII) shaped the conversation about Hindu Nationalism.

Hinduism when robbed of all its glory, was seen as an entity suppressing its own people primarily using caste equations. As Hindu Reformers rose, there was a section of Hindu reformers who saw these warts as things that stopped Hinduism and India from growing larger in the global arena. Some of them began to detest anything Hindu, just like the atheist in West hated anything related to Christianity. While others detested the homogenizing qualities of this new ideological movement, the perceived their local culture could be subsumed by this Big Brother.

So imagine in this landscape, an ideology already associated with the negative forces of Europe and shorn of all good things; it was easy for everyone to fear and hate it. The Hindus that hated these ideology used it to create fear in the minds of Muslims. Countless articles are written about Hindu groups burning Churches and rioting against Muslims. Godhra and Babri Masjid occupy the minds of the people. A few killings in Central India is spoken at length.

Mullahs and Missionaries hate and fear it, because this Hindu Nationalism is a threat to them.
Muslims and Christians hate and fear it, because they perceive Hindu Nationalism to be a threat to them.
Regional power structures hate and fear it, because they consider the homogenizing nature of Hindu Nationalism a death knell to their regional and lingual identities.
True Seculars hate and fear it, because there are a few Hindu fringe elements that truly act violently and act like they are really fringe elements.
Foreign powers hate and fear it, because it creates a rising power that is just another problem to have on its hand.

And hence, all the above love and use Hindu Nationalism to their advantage. Almost 99% of the articles written on Hindu Nationalism, the authors never explain why they hate or fear it. They already assume it is shit and use it as shit. So question them on when a Hindu persecuted a non-Hindu; they will bring the communal riots, Godhra, Babri Masjid, Church burning, Valentine's day vandalism, oppression of Dalits and other backward people, regional suppression.

A quite a fascinating crisp and short paper on this topic. http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Ocasi ... nalism.pdf (a must read). And this is probably what Shiv is saying too (read the conclusion piece in the article).


Link to post

Answering the bolded part:
This is factually wrong. When the Europeans first encountered the Bhaarathiyas, they were positively mesmerized with the Advanced civilization of the Hindhus. They immediately realized that the Bhaarathiyas were the civilizational origin of mankind. There was a mania about Bhaarath and it is called Indo-mania. There is even a wiki page on this.
Wiki Link

Similarly, the middle-east knew before they came to Bhaarath that Bhaarath was an advanced civilization. Richer and more knowledgeable. Many of the sanskruth works were translated to Arabic. Brahma-Sputa-Siddhantha of BrahmaGuptha was translated to arabic in 628 CE. So, by this time, Arabs were taking keen interest in Hindhu knowledge.

The central-asians knew that also. They attacked Bhaarath because Bhaarath was richer.

So, to think that the Europeans or malsIs were merely mistaken about Hindhus is wrong. It is wrong to think that they thought Hindhus were inferior. Infact, they were keenly aware of superiority of Hindhus in all spheres of knowledge and riches. It was an active conspiracy to suppress the superiority of Hindhus because they realized what the Hindhus really were capable of.

"If you allow Hindhus even an inch, they'll lead the whole mankind in all spheres." This fear is present all the time among the opponents of Hindhus. Frankly, the fear is justified given the superiority of Hindhuism.

Commies, Nazis, colonialists, islamists, macualyists, and all the various variants have one common agenda: anti-Hindhuism.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 808
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby csaurabh » 12 Nov 2014 12:15

LokeshC wrote:
shiv wrote:I am a Hindu nationalist. Am I being accused of wanting to kill Muslims and eliminate all religious minorities in India? Why?


This has turned into one of my long ramblings, sorry for that :):

Short version from the "other" side: "You cannot be a Hindu Nationalist because it will pose a challenge to our narrative and our agenda for you". My goal is to convert the whole of India into an exclusivist religion and you dont have a place in that India. I might be doing it for religious, cultish or economic reasons, and you are coming in the way. How can I convert people if there is a Hindu Nationalistic movement??!! Hindu Nationalism is yeeevil because it is against Exclusivism (in other words: You are fighting its dual: Universalism). Universalist-Exclusivist duality runs counter to an Agnostic-Inclusive duality. Thus the fight against Hindu Nationalism is a continuing fight against Pagans and Infidels. We are fighting them for their crime of existing. It is an existential fight and we should not make any mistake about it.

Long version on how it happened:

I used to think this was leftover from colonial era policies, where Hindu Nationalists were especially singled out for harsh treatment. This created a harsh choice to the non-Macaulayized, Hindu elites in India. They could either hold on to their identity and miss the brishit loot gravy-train, or they could join in on it. Membership to the loot club was only done if you disowned who you are and then try to be who you never could be, the brishit-stiff-upper-lipped-TFTA Gora Admi. The few that chose to remain Hindu were later initially marginalized (Gokhale etc) and later actively persecuted (Savarkar and co).

Our Macaulayputras were fully involved in that process, and they were rewarded well by the looters. From that POV its easy to extrapolate and say that the current bunch of fully Macaulayized Brishit installed elites are descendents of those who had played a part in suppressing Hindu assertiveness, and thus are following the script laid out by their ancestors.

It is immaterial whether the initial suppression of Hindus by the elites was done by coercion by the Brishits or it was due to their own volition. What matters now is that their children are the ones making the decisions for the rest of us.

The above is what I used to believe. I still do to some extent. However I now think that there are many hidden agendas that is missing from this picture. A multi-generational transmission of shame, inferiority and self-hate that persisted in our elites for this long is a very potent thing. If you have no good intentions towards India, this self-hatred can be used to create problems in India, and we now know to the extent which it has corrupted us.

A gora/arab who is also a quick learner with a keen observational powers would easily manipulate things to push his or her own agenda. The white/arabic agenda-pushers have hijacked the self-confidence void of our elites by giving them a figment of respectability. An award here, a talk show there. Some metrics here and a statistic there and TimesOfIndia, HT, rrrrNDTV, MoorkhaButt, Turdesai will all be standing in line to bow to you, the white man. A gora holds a power over them that defies rationality,whether a gora likes it or not. Many goras initially get confused over this, but they quickly get used to it and get spoiled.

What the spoiled gora does not know is that he and the macaulayized Indian form a pathological bond. The gora gives the Indian his validity and in return he gets pampered and spoiled. Both of them live in a distorted world, but it is a perfect symbiotic relationship. The few goras who like this are usually full blown NPD cases or end up having borderline NPD (Narcissistic personality disorder) and the Indians become their Narcissistic fuel, who only exist as his/her extension which pampers him.

In such a case, a Nationalist Hindu is a challenge to this privilege of being able to set agendas and control India. By being a Hindu Nationalist you are taking away the gora-admis privilege, you are taking away the gora+macaulayputra control over you. This disturbs the pathological bond and thus creates two angry people.

1) The Gora Agenda-pusher who suddenly feels angry that he has no control. He has turned into an ordinary human being.
2) Macaulayized Indians who suddenly feel scared (scared more than angry), since you are pushing away his or her ONLY source of self-worth and his or her only source of "power and knowledge"

Symptom of this disturbance can be seen in the highly predictable NYTime, WaPo (f)artikals on yeeeeevil Modi churned out in constant intervals. And rrrrNDTV, C5M, turdesai behavior towards Modi.

On a side note: Our elites behave like they were hijacked by tiny aliens from space. I can spin many sci-fi short stories on that, one that puts a mirror in front of our elites to show what kind of jackasses they truly are.


+1 This is a good analysis. The sickular Indian and racist Gora need each other to survive.

There is a huge multi page article in this month's SPAN ( American magazine ) bemoaning the lack of 'South Asians' coming to the USA to do 'South Asian Studies'. It says that most of these students ( Indians ) are going into technical fields damn it! I think we have caught on to the fact that 'South Asian Studies' are mostly a way to bash India and Hinduism.

The sickular 'South Asian' gravy train needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Hindu nationalists are rewriting the rules of the game.

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby svenkat » 12 Nov 2014 12:46

shivji,
I am finding it extremely difficult to answer your question in a general way without giving specific examples,resorting to stereotypes or ending up supporting positions which I have never supported.

Each one of those groups might have had legitimate grievances before but it seems to me that they have no other choice but to sort their issues within Hindu/Indian nationalism.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 14:10

Pratyush wrote:Perhaps the answer is that, those who use HN in a pejorative sense are those who are actually projecting, their own worst impulse on a majority H population. That this is what we would have done if we were enjoying such a majority that the H enjoy in any population. They are also a group who are in the business of saving souls. Curiously, it is they who are in a minority in this country. So they are seeking to take us on a guilt trip, in order to makes sure that the H don't act in a manner that they would have if they were enjoying such a majority. They feel that it is the best if the H was defensive about HN.

In this regard, I feel that your efforts to have a serious conversation on this topic are misplaced. The pejorative description needs to be ridiculed and thrown back at those who are seeking to trap the H in guilt by projecting their own behavior. In order to free HN.

Pratyush there is nothing to disagree with what you say except that I need to explain why I am persisting with the intellectual enquiry rather than letting people stuff it and ignoring them.

The reason is that I believe we ignore them at our peril. That description of Hindu nationalists and the uncontested "permission" to use it in a derogatory sense by anybody and everybody allows influential "scholars" with Wndy Doniger and even Witzel to further undermine Hindus as a group.

Here is an excerpt from Wendy Doniger's book about Hindus:
Hindus nowadays are diverse in their attitude to their own diversity, which inspires pride in some, anxiety in others. In particular, it provokes anxiety in those Hindus who are sometimes called Hindu nationalists, or the Hindu right, or right-wing Hindus, or the Hindutva (“Hinduness”) faction, or, more approximately, Hindu fundamentalists; they are against Muslims, Christians, and the Wrong Sort of Hindus. Their most powerful political organ is the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), with its militant branch, the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), but they are also involved in groups such as Hindu Human Rights, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and the ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad). I will generally refer to them as the Hindutva faction or the Hindu right. This book is also alternative to the narrative of Hindu history that they tell.


Guess who is writing a history of Hindus?

You can see that a book about Hindus has an unashamed political agenda and Doniger easily concatenates "nationalism" with extremism. I have a duty to get into this fight and not ignore it. I think more BRFites need to read the works of people they dislike to understand how we are used and hurt by our attitude of "I don't care what they say". Doniger does not care two hoots about judgements made by the Indian supreme courts. She can do that She is not Indian and is sitting outside India - but she disputes the clu-bbing of Jains and Sikhs among Hindus.

Now why would an American academic do that? And whatever her reasons why should any Indian sit back and allow such people to go unopposed. The act of discussing these things out in the open on BRF is also a political act that needs to be done.
Last edited by shiv on 12 Nov 2014 14:34, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 14:15

Arjun wrote:Why would you need to reclaim the term, Shiv ? What is the end goal you hope to achieve by reclaiming "Hindu nationalist" and why do you think there is no alternative terminology that serves to achieve these same goals?

Even if someone suggested to me "alternate terminology" I think that the insulting description of Hindu nationalism has a life of its own where it is being misused to misinform, smear and create issues that should not be done. Therefore it is my business to ask people to open their eyes, see and attempt to create counter issues.

If you can think of "alternate terminology" I would be happy to hear it.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 12 Nov 2014 14:40

Arjun wrote:
shiv wrote:I don't think we need to give up the term. We need to reclaim the term. That is what this thread is about - recognizing how the term "Hindu Nationalism" has been made "toxic" (an appropriate word) and then detoxifying it and grabbing it. Hindu nationalists are not bigots. And there is a "Hindu" nationalism that stems from ancient traditions, literature and history that has nothing to do with hatred of minorities. It is love and loyalty to the geography and all the tradition and history that our sacred geography is associated with. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not "against" anyone. No one should be offended by it. Certainly not enough to call people bigots and extremists.

Why would you need to reclaim the term, Shiv ? What is the end goal you hope to achieve by reclaiming "Hindu nationalist" and why do you think there is no alternative terminology that serves to achieve these same goals?

If the goal is to protect India's ancient traditions and honor the memory and spirit of the ancestors of this land - it seems to me that is automatically achieved through allegiance to the concept of Dharma alone. Dharma is nothing but belief in a moral code that among other things implies that diversity of traditions and culture indigenous to a place should be preserved; and the memory of our ancestors needs to be respected.

Dharmic meta-ethics alone would militate against the concept of exclusivist and predatory faiths rooting out indigenous traditions. The Hindu in Bali only needs to understand Dharmic principles in order to understand why he needs to ensure that Bali's ancestral traditions are protected. The sacred geography of India is irrelevant to his decisioning process. And frankly, the same applies as much for Hindus in India.

I don't see why 'Hindu Nationalism' needs to be viewed as a necessary condition or terminology in order to achieve the balance in social and community relationships that we seek to achieve as our end goal. 'Dharmic Nationalism' or simply Dharmartha principles should be enough to lead one to the same conclusions.


shiv saar would of course explain it in his own way. Here is my take on it.

1) Cultural Terminology is just like Land. Others try to occupy one's land and one has to defend it. If one does not do so, then the other side feels emboldened and next time may try to grab even more land. Plus one cannot let it go because one's ancestry and culture are rooted in the land.

Same is with cultural terminology. Others ascribing to a different set of ideologies, values and agendas try to besmirch your cultural terminology, sometimes even in the garb of studying it. Thus they are able to establish their ownership over the semantics of the terminology. And so the West has also come to "own" the term "Hindu", often through their Macaulayist sepoys, and wish to subject Hindus to judgment about what it means to be a good Hindu and a bad Hindu. "Hindu Nationalist" is in no way a nice thing from their viewpoint.

Now if one is unwilling to let ownership of one's land pass into the hands of aggressors, why should we let the ownership of our cultural terminology pass into the hands of the same aggressors?

2) IMHO, Dharma gives us the values, and according to it we are duty-bound to protect our Sabhyata (~civilization) and Sanskriti (~culture). Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism is a concrete manifestation of that Dharma meant to deal with the challenges we faced ever since Muhammad bin Qasim attacked Sindh in 711 AD and we started our struggle to stave off foreign physical and ideological onslaught on India.

So in my opinion it makes no sense to fall back on a more general concept: Dharma, when we are not willing to embrace that what Dharma brought forth: Hiindutva or Hindu Nationalism. In some ways it is akin to retreating from Siachin and going back to barracks in Jammu.

3) Calling the traditional Balinese people as Hindus is a misnomer, just as calling ISKCON devotees from all over world as "Hindu" is also a misnomer. We share Dharma and the Āryatva/Bharatiya Sanskriti with them. If one insists on "Hinduism", then perhaps one can call them Hinduists.

The sacred geography and history of Bharat - the Bharatiya Sabhyata, is not completely irrelevant to the Balinese, because it is the process which generated the concepts of Dharma and to some extent the Sanskriti the Balinese person follows. But the Balinese person does not owe any political allegiance to any Bharatiya Rajya which sits on some holy place. Nor is he remote controlled from India through any channels that are used for faith. This is unlike Vatican or Mecca.

However one can still have a collective struggle against Adharma or against something that has been recognized as Adharma.

4) We need to be careful that we do not reduce Dharma to a dry hay, a list of "values", that one can recite on one hand, or that Dharma becomes a hollow encasing, with nothing inside, just a word. Through the medium of our epics and festivals, Dharma is a living organism. One cannot capture the essence of something like Dharma, simply through its name, so one needs to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathtub water, in one's eagerness to be reductionist.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 14:45

svenkat wrote:Each one of those groups might have had legitimate grievances before but it seems to me that they have no other choice but to sort their issues within Hindu/Indian nationalism.

If it is shameful for them to do that, what, do you believe makes them ashamed to be "Indian" or "Hindu" nationalists? Every one of the groups you mention including sickulars have provided India with heroes and patriots who have given their lives for the nation. So nationalism is present in every group. But if those groups have a complaint about being called "hindu" nationalists, what would that complaint be in your view?

Could it be possible that many Indians do not want to be called Hindu nationalists simply because the expression is already associated with murderers and that they do not want that association? But if this is true, then the point that I am trying to make is perfectly true as well. - i.e Hindu nationalism has been made shameful deliberately to create abhorrence and negativity among many Hindus so that they can never be "Hindu nationalists". In one move - "Hindu nationalism" has been converted into a shameful identity of murderers .

The obvious fallout from that statement is "The meaning of Hindu Nationalism is the ideology that seeks to to eliminate non Hindus". Now where and how did such a state of affairs befall Hindus? Where in Hindu dharma, Hindu texts, or in the teachings of any Hindu scholar or saint is there a requirement that non Hindus should be wiped out?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 12 Nov 2014 15:03

shiv wrote:The obvious fallout from that statement is "The meaning of Hindu Nationalism is the ideology that seeks to to eliminate non Hindus". Now where and how did such a state of affairs befall Hindus? Where in Hindu dharma, Hindu texts, or in the teachings of any Hindu scholar of saint is there a requirement that non Hindus should be wiped out?


That was one reason why I had posed the question on what it means to be anti-minority!

Hindu Nationalists, in my view, really don't care about Christians or Muslims praying freely to their gods in any way and place they feel fit, as long as it is legal and they are not a nuisance.

Hindu Nationalists, in my view, also do not grudge Christians and Muslims being full members of society and citizens of India.

Hindu Nationalists, in my view, however do not see Islam and Christianity simply as faiths, but also as subversive processes acting on imperialist agendas, preying upon naive Hindus and converting more to their agendas.

Hindu Nationalists, in my view, do not see the vast majority of followers of Islam and Christianity in India as supportive of the Hindu agenda: defending Dharma, Sabhyata, Sanskriti and Rāshtra.

So Hindu Nationalists are pro-"minority" as far as their freedom of worship goes, but are anti-"minority" as far as their freedom to pursue an agenda to destroy Hindu way of life goes, which includes their freedom to dominate Indian politics for the purpose.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3643
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Neela » 12 Nov 2014 15:46

^^^^
I am just reminded of all the articles we see on newspapers, magazines .
You will invariably find "the right wing Hindu nationalist party, the BJP" mentioned and along with it "militant wing, the RSS" .

People associate right wing / nationalist with what they are accustomed to and project the same here.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 12 Nov 2014 16:16

Neela wrote:^^^^
I am just reminded of all the articles we see on newspapers, magazines .
You will invariably find "the right wing Hindu nationalist party, the BJP" mentioned and along with it "militant wing, the RSS" .

People associate right wing / nationalist with what they are accustomed to and project the same here.


Funny is that after all the massacres in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and everywhere else on the planet, whenever something like this is said about Muslims, they just shout back at you that that is all your "Islamophobia", whereas in case of Hindus who haven't done anything, the Secular Hindus simply embrace the verbal abuse, become all apologetic and start admitting that Hindus need to curb down on "right wing Hindu nationalism"

Why is it difficult for us to always leave some article signature like "There has historically been a deep-seated anti-Hindu hostility in Western media."?!

If everybody just keeps repeating this statement ad infinitum ending any article or post like this, it is going to put Western media in a bind and free Hindus from its influence.

This follows the template as suggested by Anujan ji.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Arjun » 12 Nov 2014 16:30

shiv wrote:Even if someone suggested to me "alternate terminology" I think that the insulting description of Hindu nationalism has a life of its own where it is being misused to misinform, smear and create issues that should not be done. Therefore it is my business to ask people to open their eyes, see and attempt to create counter issues.

You are right. I realize that the question that you are trying to answer is - how do you respond to mischaracterization of 'Hindu Nationalism' in the media, which is clearly not going to go away anytime soon now that we actually have the BJP ensconced in power.

The question I was trying to address is somewhat different - is there an alternate self-description that is perhaps better suited to the purposes of both the BJP as well as unaffiliated nationalists ? And I had alluded to one such alternative - "Dharmic Nationalism". Two reasons why this may be a better alternative-

    1. A self-description as "Hindu Nationalist" is in some ways a 'shock and awe' strategy. Once the 'shock and awe' of the initial description is over - the typical next step is to attempt to water it down to "just a reference to a sacred geography", 'loyalty to the nation' etc. All sugar and spice and everything nice-type explanations follow - as I see on this thread as well. There's the further challenge of constantly having to take on questions on what role a moksha marg (as Hinduism is normally regarded) has in governance.

    On the other hand, "Dharmic Nationalist" is a far more legalistic definition that while starting off on a more non-confrontational mode - typically moves pretty quickly to a conversation around what type of meta-ethics and Dharma is appropriate for inter-faith relations (RM's 'sapeksha dharma' being just one option). Dharma is regarded as equivalent to Law by many, so this is not surprising. The conversation tends to moves quickly to the nuts and bolts of the societal transformation required of the government.

    2. A more important reasons than the one above is this - what does one do with the Christians and Muslims in the country ? Are you suggesting that the nationalists among them regard themselves as "Hindu Nationalists" too ? :eek: Good luck to you, if that is the recommendation !

    On the other hand, there is far higher chance of success in selling the concept of "Dharmic Nationalism" to these constituencies. Dharma-Artha ARE the secular (ie non Moksha Marg related) aspects of Indian philosophy - surely no-one would have an objection to Dharma as bedrock for the secular aspect of inter-faith relations while they continue with their current Moksha Marg.

I recognize one drawback, as RajeshA has alluded to, of potential loss of ownership and delinking of Dharma from Hinduism (as has happened with Yoga). On the other hand, there are also collateral benefits in enhancing India's 'Vishwaguru' appeal. On thinking more on the appropriate strategy - I think both of these groups need to exist in parallel pursuing their own agenda in India: 'Hindu Nationalists' and 'Dharmic Nationalists'. Speaking for myself - I would identify more with the latter.
Last edited by Arjun on 12 Nov 2014 16:32, edited 2 times in total.

Harpal Bector
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Harpal Bector » 12 Nov 2014 16:31

shiv wrote: My point of disagreement centers around the fact that we cannot simply back out and stop using expressions because someone else made them toxic. Those "toxic" expressions are reserved for us and people will keep on using them whether we back out or not. It is my intention to do whatever is in my power to point out that the "toxicity" is deliberately designed to shame Hindus and put them on the defensive. It is my intention to keep using that expression and stand accused of being a toxic Hindu and show that the accusation is false. I think the term Hindu nationalism needs to be reclaimed rather than putting one's tails between one's legs and slinking away.


Given the reality of perceptions in the world - this proposal seems unfeasible. In the present climate any attempt to act on such a proposal will invite the perception that another orgy of mass violence is in the works. That kind of thing creates its own momentum.

We are not the first to have this disagreement or debate and we will not be the last.

Certain knobs in the cockpit are deliberately set to whatever they need to be to prevent departure from controlled flight. One can debate if it makes sense to turn the knob one way or another, but eventually as the late Mishraji did in 1998 - the pilot will simply refuse to entertain something that is a total waste of time. Some people will go to the Hindu and complain to N. Ram while others will go to Aroon Purie and it will all be published in Frontline and India Today.

I really question if it makes sense to bring this matter up now. The India related ETFs are doing very well by comparison to most others. Creating a messy situation will cause unnecessary losses to investor confidence. Hindus and Nationalists alike agree that the promised improvements in infrastructure in the "sacred geography" will not happen without investment. No one is going to buy those long term bonds if investor confidence declines.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 17:17

Harpal ji, those folks who hate Hindus are welcome to hate the term Hindu nationalist. "Hindus and nationalists alike" - ah, so Hindus and nationalists are separate beings hain ji?

Many others are not so diffident or insecure about their identity and will proudly wear that tag. Attempts to equate it with another "orgy of mass violence" etc are hence pretty facile. The pilot today is one who (despite all the efforts of many who tried the same methods to make him feel insecure) proudly notes he is a Hindu nationalist. Those ETFs etc will increase because he is proud and not some macaulays child is afraid of the term.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 12 Nov 2014 17:25

It seems the Seculars in India threaten Hindus that international investment in India would suffer, as any Hindu Nationalism would mean that Islamists would create chaos and the investment environment would degrade.

So Seculars are using Islamist threat to blackmail Hindus from joining Hindu Nationalism stream.

In the end, it is an effort by Seculars to leave them in power and influence.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11638
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Nov 2014 17:43

"Sacred cow", "holy cow" -- this derision of Hindus is built into the English language.

Harpal Bector
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Harpal Bector » 12 Nov 2014 17:46

The opposition to the expense associated with rebranding "Hindu Nationalism" is being mislabeled as "Self Hate".

The concerns about the expenses associated with rebranding "Hindu Nationalism" are simply a critical cost-benefit evaluation.

Being critical of oneself is a way to curtail unproductive narcissism.

Having the ability to critically review matters relating to oneself is at the core of a healthy mind.

The manner in which some people (albeit a numerical minority) dismiss critical review of a proposed rebranding of "Hindu Nationalism" as "Self Hate" serves to reinforce the basic claim of the criticism - that this rebranding exercise simply gives a numerical and economically irrelevant minority disproportionate levels of attention.

Just leave that knob alone. It is a waste of money to turn that knob. Make a few meaningless statements in the media if necessary to swing a state level election somewhere, but basically leave the knob alone.

Harpal Bector
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Harpal Bector » 12 Nov 2014 17:57

The challenge facing the Indian economy is tremendous. Infrastructure for approximately 2 Billion people needs to be created in a short time. If this is not done there will be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.

There is no way this is possible without massive amounts of structured investment.

I agree a sense of positive forward momentum is needed to get this going - so kind of catch phrase is going to be needed for inspiring people to invest in India, but going back to toxic brands is the wrong direction.

Would you invest in General Motors if they said "Hey we are going to base the next fifty years of our production around the Saturn brand"?

Would you invest in an Russian automaker that wants to make shoddy copies of Fiat 124?

Would you invest in Premier Motors if they said they will make Padminis for the next century?

It is a simple question that all long term investors will be asking. These investors are in India, NRIs outside India, and non Indians in other lands.

It is easy to say things like

Hum Bhi Dariya Hain Humein Apna Hunar Maloom Hai
Jis Taraf Bhi Chal Parainge Raasta Ho Jaayega


But that concept now makes you personally responsible for choosing where you want this road to lead.

Harpal Bector
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Harpal Bector » 12 Nov 2014 18:06

Dear Karan,

The pilot is not as impressive as some in the media make it out to be. In other places, he is seen as a someone who hangs vardiwale out to dry when it is politically inconvenient.

In any case - his personal brand is his responsibility. He can say whatever he wants.

The rest of the world can come to its own conclusions.

If terms could be detoxified merely because he says it - it would be a very different world. That is not the world one lives in.

The ETF performance is a good indicator of overall investor confidence inside and outside India. That imo is what makes something like SCIF highly useful in determining things that no MARG/GRAM poll can access.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby member_20317 » 12 Nov 2014 18:36

Everybody is already responsible 'personally' for everything, whatever the way they choose to walk or acquiesce to or even merely tolerate.

Lets stop this green on green.

All people whatever background should be welcome so long as they can be properly in a yogic manner joined into the system already existing. Which actually does exists regardless of the cognition / recognition / mis-cognition of it.

A full convergence with all four purusharth is best. But there is no need to wait for the best and avoid the good enough. Even half way house should be welcome. Off course in this case the welcome should ideally be extended with appropriate changes to the overall deal (any other way would do injustice to both the parties).

Harpal Bector
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Harpal Bector » 12 Nov 2014 18:41

JE Menon wrote:Why should we let Hindu nationalism be defined by people who are subscribing primarily to ideologies that are not born in India, which is undeniably the fountainhead of Hinduism?


This claim of being the fountainhead cannot be historically substantiated. Historical records prior to the Iron age are scant. There is some evidence afforded by stratigraphy but it is not enough to construct a real narrative.

One is left with myths - powerful ones - but myths can be borrowed and shared between geographically disparate civilizations.

The maritime empires of Southern India carried the myths far into the east. The land based empires of the north carried the myths into lands of north Asia.

Without a historical cut-off the "sacred geography" cannot be defined.

The closest we have come to this in recent memory has been the attempt by the Cult of Shakti to define 52 locations where the pieces of the body of the Goddess fell. These 52 sacred locations (or peethas) define a geographically connected landmass creating an effective "sacred geography". This prescription may seem too sectarian for some people who do not subscribe to the ideas of the cult of Shakti.

The cults of Shiva/Oesho speak of a "sacred geography" that encompass modern day Central Asia.

The cults of Murugan (the son of Shiva) speak of a body of faith that straddles most of modern south-east Asia.

The cult of King Rama can easily lay claim to all of modern Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar as part of a "sacred geography".

The Pakistani Army's Ashraf Biradaries claim to be the true inheritors (and therefore masters) of the legacy and land of the Pandava clans. And despite professing that they have "come into the light" - they strongly adhere to kshatriya caste maryada as defined by the conduct of the Pandava Princes in Mahabharata. They go to great lengths to indicate that their "coming into the light" was merely a way to rid the "sacred geography" of a kuru-dynasty style misrule.

While this "sacred" Pandava land is poorly defined geographically, the Mahabharat and Ramayana are the national epics of Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. As my relative who lives there once told me - the Indonesians see these as *their* myths that were borrowed by the people who call themselves "Indians".

I feel this is just opening a can of worms.

It is best to let this lie and pick a different brand that works better for the next fifty years.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 18:59

Harpal ji, thanks for making us aware of your views and your dislike of the BJP, the RSS, Modi & co, what you think of Hindu nationalists etc.

So now, we have to be "self critical" otherwise its unproductive "narcissism", hain ji?

Please leave what the world thinks of India to the Indians & those who elected him. They are made of sterner stuff than those who disparage their choice of leadership & don't need intellectuals to fulminate and remind them of the "perils" of Hindu nationalism, conveniently packaged as being anti economy, anti this, anti that, anti minority.

Your arguments I daresay are built on your own idealogical choices. You associate Hindu nationalists with narcissism, with "chauvinism", "orgies of mass murder" and so forth & are exactly that individual who attempts to cow down those who think different from you by liberally using these labels and saying "others think like this, be afraid of those others" otherwise bad bad people may not think you well... enough please.

>>This claim of being the fountainhead cannot be historically substantiated. Myths.."cults of Murugan", Pakistanis claim to be Pandavas yada yada..

And now India is not the fountainhead and all its epics are "myths". Romila Thaparesque theories redux.

Welcome gentlemen, you have one of the very proponents of "beware of Hindu nationalism" and interlocutor of India and its history, telling all of you which nice boxes to sit on. Don't be abashed now.

Not impressed.
Last edited by Karan M on 12 Nov 2014 19:09, edited 2 times in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 19:05

Harpal Bector wrote:Dear Karan,

The pilot is not as impressive as some in the media make it out to be. In other places, he is seen as a someone who hangs vardiwale out to dry when it is politically inconvenient.


And how do you know this? Sorry, biased opinion is hardly evidence.

In any case - his personal brand is his responsibility. He can say whatever he wants.

The rest of the world can come to its own conclusions.


It very much has. He is seen as a strong and decisive leader whom other leaders are keen to engage with. Of course, you'd know better than the Abes, the other Govts including the USG etc who are engaging with him, but lets just go with the former.

If terms could be detoxified merely because he says it - it would be a very different world. That is not the world one lives in.


These terms will be detoxified only when you folks (the left lib intelligentsia) stop using it to label other Indians whose views you dislike, because of your own political predilections.

As long as your lot continues to use these terms to label all those who are Hindu & nationalist, these views will to some degree persist. Even if they do, India will still advance and ultimately, thats where things matter.

Its irrelevant.

The ETF performance is a good indicator of overall investor confidence inside and outside India. That imo is what makes something like SCIF highly useful in determining things that no MARG/GRAM poll can access.


Overall investor confidence right now in the Indian economy speaks for itself as versus hypotheticals about Hindu nationalists and what not, and airy fairy correlations with ETF or SCIF or whatever.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 12 Nov 2014 19:12

Harpal Bector wrote:I feel this is just opening a can of worms.

It is best to let this lie and pick a different brand that works better for the next fifty years.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 19:14

Harpal Bector wrote:The opposition to the expense associated with rebranding "Hindu Nationalism" is being mislabeled as "Self Hate".

The concerns about the expenses associated with rebranding "Hindu Nationalism" are simply a critical cost-benefit evaluation.

Being critical of oneself is a way to curtail unproductive narcissism.

Having the ability to critically review matters relating to oneself is at the core of a healthy mind.

The manner in which some people (albeit a numerical minority) dismiss critical review of a proposed rebranding of "Hindu Nationalism" as "Self Hate" serves to reinforce the basic claim of the criticism - that this rebranding exercise simply gives a numerical and economically irrelevant minority disproportionate levels of attention.

Just leave that knob alone. It is a waste of money to turn that knob. Make a few meaningless statements in the media if necessary to swing a state level election somewhere, but basically leave the knob alone.


LOL

The numerical minority was enough to put all the "pilots" detractors in their place, and also guarantee a thumping majority for the "Hindu nationalist" BJP.

Airy fairy arguements about costs of Hindu nationalism this, that fail to impress. Clearly the people who elected Shri Modi to power (a self proclaimed Hindu nationalist) and who regard him as a beacon of hope, and all those abroad who are keen to engage with him, couldn't care less about what our leftists think, mores the pity.

At the end of the day, the very pious world, could engage with their WW2 enemies, Deng-Xiao-Ping of China, and all sorts of characters in between. They can manage with a few Hindu nationalists as well.

Spice in the curry. :lol:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 19:15

RajeshA wrote:
Harpal Bector wrote:I feel this is just opening a can of worms.

It is best to let this lie and pick a different brand that works better for the next fifty years.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Sshhh shhhh sshhhh..
Lets just pretend a "Hindu nationalist" is not in power. They couldnt prevent him from getting to power, now lets just pretend he isnt there. :lol: :lol:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 19:33

Harpal Bector wrote:
I really question if it makes sense to bring this matter up now. The India related ETFs are doing very well by comparison to most others. Creating a messy situation will cause unnecessary losses to investor confidence. Hindus and Nationalists alike agree that the promised improvements in infrastructure in the "sacred geography" will not happen without investment. No one is going to buy those long term bonds if investor confidence declines.

In fact I felt that this is the best possible time to start this thread - when a party that has been dubbed as "Hindu Nationalist" is in power.

You see, if I had started this thread before the election, my thread would have been dubbed an election pitch for the BJP. No one can do that to me now.

Having said that your post sounds like blackmail. It says "Shush - don't raise controversial issues now or investor confidence will go and you wil become poorer". I don't have that much influence so you have raised a non issue.

Comer
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Comer » 12 Nov 2014 19:39

I think it is important to open the can of worms and see what comes out of it. And good to have discussions that strikes at the root of the question.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 19:46

Arjun wrote:1. A self-description as "Hindu Nationalist" is in some ways a 'shock and awe' strategy. Once the 'shock and awe' of the initial description is over - the typical next step is to attempt to water it down to "just a reference to a sacred geography", 'loyalty to the nation' etc. All sugar and spice and everything nice-type explanations follow - as I see on this thread as well. There's the further challenge of constantly having to take on questions on what role a moksha marg (as Hinduism is normally regarded) has in governance.

Arjun LOL! Your statement is very interesting to me. It starts with the premise that there is something horrible about Hindu nationalism that will scare some people, and that this scary thing is being watered down by "sacred geography", "loyalty" etc.

If you are already convinced that Hindu Nationalism is hateful - you are merely confirming the idea that made me start this thread. But you haven't said why Hindu nationalism is hateful.

Arjun wrote:2. A more important reasons than the one above is this - what does one do with the Christians and Muslims in the country ? Are you suggesting that the nationalists among them regard themselves as "Hindu Nationalists" too ? :eek: Good luck to you, if that is the recommendation !


You are doing that again here. You are starting with the premise that Hindu nationalism is against Muslims and Christians without saying why you have that impression in your mind.

In any case, what is the type of nationalism that Christians and Muslims show that Hindu nationalists are not showing. Do you believe that nationalism comes in varieties of which the two broadest ones are "Contemptible Hindu Nationalism" and " Good nationalism of other type".

Arjun wrote:On the other hand, there is far higher chance of success in selling the concept of "Dharmic Nationalism" to these constituencies. Dharma-Artha ARE the secular (ie non Moksha Marg related) aspects of Indian philosophy - surely no-one would have an objection to Dharma as bedrock for the secular aspect of inter-faith relations while they continue with their current Moksha Marg.

I have no problem with the word dharmic nationalism and would be happy to see it gain popularity. But I am in a state of war right now trying to figure out why Hindu nationalism is bad and what exactly is wrong with it.

If people think that hindu nationalism is essentially anti-minority - please say so. Ten at least I will know that this is what a lot of Indians believe. I will keep disputing that - but that is another matter :mrgreen:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 19:50

Harpal Bector wrote:
I feel this is just opening a can of worms.

It is best to let this lie and pick a different brand that works better for the next fifty years.

Unfortunately I have propensity for picking up and opening cans of juicy worms simply to see what comes out. It is the difficult and uncomfortable things that we push to the backs of our minds because we do not want to deal with them, that need to be brought out and dealt with.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Karan M » 12 Nov 2014 19:57

Exactly Shiv. Its this shush, you shouldnt talk of such things that has lead to everything from genocide of Hindus being negated, to Hinduism only being associated with poverty, caste system etc etc. Each time some Hindu pops his head up, all the other eggsperts appear to a) shout him down b ) profoundly tell the other person the former is a bad bad hindoo nationalist and no sirry, they arent like that, they are different etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2014 19:58

Harpal Bector wrote:Without a historical cut-off the "sacred geography" cannot be defined.

The closest we have come to this in recent memory has been the attempt by the Cult of Shakti to define 52 locations where the pieces of the body of the Goddess fell. These 52 sacred locations (or peethas) define a geographically connected landmass creating an effective "sacred geography". This prescription may seem too sectarian for some people who do not subscribe to the ideas of the cult of Shakti.

The cults of Shiva/Oesho speak of a "sacred geography" that encompass modern day Central Asia.

The cults of Murugan (the son of Shiva) speak of a body of faith that straddles most of modern south-east Asia.

The cult of King Rama can easily lay claim to all of modern Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar as part of a "sacred geography".

The Pakistani Army's Ashraf Biradaries claim to be the true inheritors (and therefore masters) of the legacy and land of the Pandava clans. And despite professing that they have "come into the light" - they strongly adhere to kshatriya caste maryada as defined by the conduct of the Pandava Princes in Mahabharata. They go to great lengths to indicate that their "coming into the light" was merely a way to rid the "sacred geography" of a kuru-dynasty style misrule.

While this "sacred" Pandava land is poorly defined geographically, the Mahabharat and Ramayana are the national epics of Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. As my relative who lives there once told me - the Indonesians see these as *their* myths that were borrowed by the people who call themselves "Indians".


The idea that there has to be a date cut off for defining sacred geography does not matter to millions of people to whom the geography is sacred.

Hindus in India who visit Kashi or Dwarka are not beset by doubts that make them think "Hey Indonesians say Mahabharata is theirs. maybe I am wrong. I need a rethink"

These are your thoughts that you laying open here. There is no reason why anyone else should suffer from the uncertainties of belief that have been introduced in your mind by your specific education.
Last edited by shiv on 12 Nov 2014 20:35, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pgbhat, saumitra_j, suryag, uskumar, Vips, Vivasvat and 17 guests