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.
govardhanks
BRFite
Posts: 220
Joined: 08 Jun 2009 23:12
Location: Earth

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

Post by govardhanks »

peter wrote: I think you need to be a bit more clear on what you are trying to say or ask.
I left four dots here and there to see whether you will connect them and understand the common point, but you could't..

From the same quote of silpa prakash isn't it clear, that yantra is something that is prepared and placed somewhere hidden between the statues in kamabandha.. In such case one should be able to see that yantra albeit with some field work.. my point was no one has seen till now.. and I was questioning did you see it? if not how do you know it exists?

Oh your concentration was taken out by statues , well I am asking about yantra not statues..

or are you asking it is in the main temple where work ship is done, then also one should be able to see it, at least when old temples where unearthed from excavations.. at least when Europeans looted from angkor wat they should have advertised for their propaganda..seems that yantra is missing every time.. or it was never there?

Silpa prakash is one school of arts, there many bunch of such schools all over India, with their own plans for construction of temples.. Do not generalize that " all Hindu temples will have statues in kamabandha" that's ridiculous .. at least you should be able understand now what I am saying..
Never say "a hindu temple cannot be consecrated unless it has an image of a male and female making out?"

You are wrong when you say that!!

And Peter sab one more thing... you cannot read Rig veda, it is told from a guru to a disciple, practiced...
what you read is actually interpretation of person of what he/she understands from shlokas of Veda.. each one of us can have our own interpretation..so the actual Veda is different from what is what you have read.. you need to be a Hindu/dharmic to understand it.. you don't know it.. Hence consider it as a some form of holy book like bible or koran.. It is way more different from them. You might argue then, what is that people in guru kul are reading? is it book or not?

My answer is modern approach dominated.. actual Vedas were told from person to person, which is again still followed by many old schools in India, some school modernized and wanted shortcut approach, result is what you see as a book.. but we do know where original Veda is :D and good luck with considering Vedas as some sort books..
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Sorry for the long post!
shiv wrote:Good Prince banished, wife kidnapped, kidnapper pursued and killed, wife returns, kingdom restored..
For Hindutva, what is important is this:

Good Prince (of some Rajya in Bharat) banished, wife kidnapped, kidnapper pursued and killed, wife returns, kingdom restored.
shiv wrote:So not only did the Brits corner English speaking Hindus into accepting a religion, they have also pushed Hindus into asking if irrational things (Like Monkey Tail throne, or Monkey carrying mountain) should be accepted or not.
Everyone reading Ramayana and Mahabharata would see different things, which are important to him. Most Hindus consider Ramayana to be Itihas, with the samantics "Thus it happened" and thus Satya!

However as I see it, Satya does not mean "literalism"!

Speaking for myself, my thought process about this episode would be
"Shri Hanuman transported a whole lot of herbs over a long distance in a short time as he could not discern which herb was the appropriate one to administer to Shri Lakshman for healing his wound"!

"Mountain" can be a misunderstanding of the semantics of the word, an error in transmission, an embellishment, an exaggeration, or have some cultural significance, or it too could be the truth, I don't know, and things that I don't know, one can speculate on it, but there just isn't sufficient data or evidence to determine what exactly was the case, and whatever theory people come up with, it would remain an interesting theory, and nothing more. But since in the text, we read "mountain" that is how I would advocate its further use, because "mountain" semantics has become part of our traditional culture.
shiv wrote:Quoting Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Deism , derived from the Latin word deus meaning "god") combines a rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority with the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe. Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment – especially in Britain, France, Germany and the United States – who, raised as Christians, believed in one god but became disenchanted with organized religion and notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles. Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.
This is the direction from which the British approached Hindu knowledge and tradition. Under these rules, it is necessary to have monotheistic religion (which is deemed "universal") but with no "miracles" or "revelations" or anything that cannot be explained by the current standards of what they called "rationality"

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/deism
DEISM, n. [L. God.] The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
So not only did the Brits corner English speaking Hindus into accepting a religion, they have also pushed Hindus into asking if irrational things (Like Monkey Tail throne, or Monkey carrying mountain) should be accepted or not.

Hindus ideally should have the sense to understand that some parts of out itihaas are not there to appeal to western deistic ideas of rationality, but as timeless lessons and therefore become irrational nonsense if you fail to take the lesson and start looking for "rational" explanations in "modern science" about how monkey carried mountain for one herb.

If you look at the Mahabharata, the story of gambling and losing everything is "rational and credible". It could be dubbed "history". The story of house of lac designed to burn the Pandavas is rational and "credible" and could be called "history" But then a lesson on the value of worship when all else seems lost, when one's near and dear one's cannot or will not help you - ie. Draupadi's unending garments while she was bing disrobed. This story is "irrational" and would have to be discarded and "not history and unnecessary" And the other entire chapter on the meaning of dharma that I mentioned earlier, where 4 Pandavas lie dead at a lake shore while Yudishthira answers questions on Dharma would be an "irrational story" that should be discarded. Cannot be history. Requires miracles.

Deists in the west did it for reasons steeped in their own history. We need to work with our history and not take cues from them as too many Hindus, both secular and Hindutva-vadis seem to be doing. This may actually be the appeal of western universalism
shiv saar,

I think there is a fundamental difference in the thinking and motivation of Europeans, who came up with Deism, and Bharatiyas, which leads to two different outcomes.

Here we return to our discussion on Religion and Sanskriti.

For true Christians, it is imperative to believe in the Bible, in the Word of God, and to have faith in that. That is the foundation of Church, of Religion. Without that faith, everything collapses. Bible or Qu'ran are efforts of self-appointed Emissaries and their groupies to make a case for God and their own representation of Him on Earth, by glorifying His power, by terrifying the believer into submission, by suggesting models in response to existential questions and by claiming representational authority by presenting genealogical lines and showing miracles! In short, it is a sales pitch based on gullibility.

There is no ethical imperative in Christianity to perpetuate tradition, preserve culture, understand underlying philosophy, live by noble ethics autonomous of those given by God, or even to seek knowledge! All that is irrelevant!

We make the mistake that the basis of our faith and associated action/behavior is the same as that in Christianity or in Religion in general!

Religion is analogous to a Slide in the hot Sun. Faith is a pair of thick trousers. If you wearing those, then you would slide smoothly and the hot metal of the slide would not burn your butt and legs. If you lose faith, then the religion may not remain that appealing.

Sanskriti is more like a whole amusement park! You can try whatever suits you - you can ride Itihas, Darśanams, Śruti, Ishwarvadi Bhakti, Pooja, Paath, Saṃskāra, Yoga, Tapa, Dharma, Virya, Shilpkala, Nritya, Natak, Saṃskṛtam, whatever you feel like! And everything is somehow interconnected like in an amusement park! The Darśanams keep our Faith rooted in Logic and Rationality by presenting the appropriate perspective.

We are a Sanskriti, and not a Religion, and thus we are not Fragile!

If we were to make Western Universalism as the Subject observing us as an Object, then we lose all our independence of thought. In fact even if we try to hide ourselves from the gaze of the Subject, then the Subject still sees us as hiding ourselves. That is where our insecurity comes from.

Our insecurity does not come from researching our texts for their historicity, but from having the West as the Subject.

Sure there are Hindu "Chauvinists" who like to take our Itihas literally in every aspect and respond to Macaulayist poking by making extraordinary claims. Their fault is that in order to respond, they accept and use Western categories and vocabulary, and thus sound irrational in that framework. Before answering a query made in a Western semantic framework, a Hindu would perhaps have to make several changes to Western semantics, in order to explain his thinking to them. But considering the rhetorical nature of such an exchange, often that effort is not made and as such responses end up being ridiculous and sounding "irrational". It is in this case that Rajiv Malhotra's suggestion of having Sanskrit Non-translatables makes sense.

And just like our Sanskriti is a whole amusement park, so too is our Itihas.

Yes of course is our Itihas for "Adhyatmic Jñāna", but those speaking in favor of restricting our Itihas only to spiritual knowledge are in some ways also acting according to Exclusivist paradigm. Itihas's purpose is only for "Adhyatma" and don't dare consider it as history or anything else!

This is where I find Balu's advice to Hindutva not to look at our Itihasic characters as historic people. It is presumptuous, and it is arrogant!

No Hindutvavadi is telling Balu, he should not read Ramayana or Mahabharata, solely for his Adhyatmic fulfillment. But he thinks Hindutvavadis are a bunch of people too obsessed with responding to Western poking about our historicity! He may be telling the Mouse it shouldn't move when the Scientist pokes him with a stick, for then the Scientist would go away! But in this scheme, the Scientist remains the Scientist and the Mouse remains the Mouse! The Subject remains the Subject and the Object remains the Object! The only difference that one has made is that the Scientist would jot down in his lab notes, that the Mouse refused to move due to some sense of pride and feigned ignorance of the provoking stick.

Trying to restrict Itihas only to "Adhyatmic Jñāna" is asking the Mouse to remain still when poked, so as to deny the Scientist the joy of seeing the Mouse react to his provocation. Should the Mouse then chew up his own legs, just so that it denies the Scientist the satisfaction of seeing it moving? "Na rahega baans, na bajegi baansuri"? This way the Mouse can perhaps additionally prove that it did not move because it had no legs, so that the Scientist then doesn't know why the Mouse did not move? All this keeps us in the cage of Western Universalism!

Balu's advice to Hindutvavadis does not change the West as a reference frame, but rather only perpetuates it. {My advice to the Mouse would be to bite the Scientist's finger really deep and then take notes on how much blood comes out!}

It is in the nature of the beast, that Itihas would continue to mean many things to different people, and there is no need to criticize one or the other, as long as the one treating the texts retains a sympathetic disposition towards our Sanskriti.

Just as an example, I accept Nilesh's dating of Rama's birth - Nov 29. 12240. For me that is plausible! There are other Hindus who suggest the date to be 1.2 million years ago, during the Treta Yuga! Fine, that is what they believe in, what their framework of beliefs and assumptions suggests to them! I have no problem with that.

Balu should know that for Hindutvavadis, the focus is a very different one than what he represents.

Itihas for Hindutva is that what keeps Sanskriti rooted to our Rāṣṭra.

The Hinduist stream of thought seems to be trying to uproot our Sanskriti from its geography, i.e. Bharat, and trying to make it an exportable commodity, something that one can put in a suitcase and take along to Amreeka, and forget that its roots lie in India. That is Hinduists are helping the West digest our Sanskriti. The Hinduists would make the case that everything in our Sanskriti, all our texts are basically non-historical in nature, for "Adhyatmic" purposes only.

The Hindutvavadi stream of thought tries to bind our Sanskriti to our Rāṣṭra through the sacred geography, and by keeping Itihas as something that happened in the sacred geography of Bharat, as Bharat's past. Hindutvavad does not reject the exportability of Āryatva Sanskriti, but we do insist on a copyleft license like say the Apache License II with a Notice text file referring to the Bharatiya sacred geography!

The Hinduists however wish to ignore the geography and to discard any Notice Text. The West which seems now to support Hinduists, may want in the future to do away with the copyleft licensing as well and set up a Hindu Holy See which would start telling Hindus all over the world what is the right path in Hinduism.

So I am against this "Adhyatmic" movement which tries to bury the sacred geography of "Āryatva Sanskriti"!

In many ways it looks not much different than the AIT.

First the British appropriated Aryan epithet for themselves from the Hindus, then they called the Dravidians some black mass of heathendom and then telling them that North Indian Brahmins considered them inferior due to the Aryan roots, so to avoid this "discrimination", the Dravidians should better convert to Christianity, and forget Hindi/Sanskrit.

Here the West may be appropriating Hindu epithet for themselves from the Hindus, by first calling Hindu Nationalists some names like irrational chauvinists, and then telling them that the British Colonialists, Macaulayists, Seculars derided them in the past, so to avoid this "ridicule" the Hindus should better convert to "Adhyatmic Hinduism", and forget history/geography.

Here is what you wrote in the first post
shiv wrote:Hindu history is more one of geography and culture. The geography is intrinsic to Hindu history.
and subsequently
shiv wrote:It is the geography that I was speaking of when I mentioned the Ramayana and Mahabharata, not a claim that the stories are 100% true and consistent. It is the place-names of the Ramayana and Mahabharata that are so significant. Have you read detailed versions recently? They may be made up stories. But those made up stories speak of a common culture across a geographic region and the stories exist in some form or other across that region. That is why I made a point about history and geography being taken separately or together. History without reference to geography is meaningless. ignoring geography in the literary and cultural memes of a people is equally a sign of illiteracy and denial of history.
This is generally what I too can concur with, except perhaps the "They may be made up stories." part.

Yes the main focus is the geography for Hindutvavadis, much less the timing, or the technological claims.
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

Post by shiv »

Speaking of sacred geography:
http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id= ... mment-3150

Why does this article say such things? Exactly what have Hindus done to make the author feel that his balls are being squeezed? Paid article by Italian waitress' asslickers?
Hindu hardliners go ape over Ram Setu report
India’s fragile political secularism is being tested by the Hindu extremists as the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seek to use archaeology to exploit religious sentiment for political gain.
Lord Ram is the subject of the epic mythological Hindu text, the Ramayana. Supposedly set c 1.7 million years ago and written by Valmiki, according to the Ramayana, Ram Setu (Ram’s Bridge
It can't be history. Hindus don't have history. Therefore its mythology

And this specious argument at the end which goes like "It's not my job to crap on your plate, but if your plate happens to be around I must crap on it"
Archaeology is the investigation of the past by means of material evidence. It is not a campaign to prove or disprove the existence of assorted deities. However, should archaeological evidence suggest that a god never existed, that a holy text described mythological fiction and folklore rather than actual historical events, then nobody should be afraid to say so.
is this some intrinsic hatred towards Hindus and their sentiment, or is it the work of "seculars" who are spreading this type of hatred? The naming of the BJP in the article suggests a political hand. The author is James Dosa
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

Post by shiv »

More stuff about "Hindu nationalists" in the media:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/worldbeforeher/p ... HSQzo-wdow
Most Hindu nationalists reject secularism and advocate for Hindutva, an ideology that defines Indian culture and politics in terms of Hindu religious values. In some cases, this ideology has led to a militant intolerance of religious minorities, especially Islam and Christianity, and it has led to a number of violent anti-Muslim and anti-Christian acts, most notably the destruction of a mosque on an alleged Hindu holy site in 1992, an anti-Muslim pogrom in the western state of Gujarat in 2002 and the burning of churches in the eastern state of Orissa in 2008. The nationalists responsible for the violence argue that the targeted communities pose a danger to Hinduism. Hindu nationalists also feel that their culture—and its traditional gender roles in particular—is threatened by Western-style fashion, media and consumerism.

Though ideological differences (especially regarding the use of violence) exist among Hindu nationalist groups in India, the primary groups in the movement are the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its youth wings—Bajrang Dal (male) and Durga Vahini (female). The Hindu nationalist political wing is the Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P., one of the two major political parties in India (the other is the secular Indian National Congress). The B.J.P. led a coalition government from 1998 to 2004, but it was defeated in the 2004 and 2009 elections. While the Indian National Congress won 206 seats in the national assembly in 2009 (a 60% increase from the previous election), the B.J.P. won just 116 (a 30% decrease).
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

Post by shiv »

Still more about Hindu nationalism , Hey all you guys - you're all part of this hatred
http://www.vox.com/cards/narendra-modi/ ... ationalism
What is Hindu nationalism?

Hindu nationalism is a movement of right-wing nationalism and social conservatism combined with a Hindu political identity so strong that its ultimate effect has been described as, if not Hindu supremacy, then Hindu hegemony to the potential detriment of the 20 percent of Indians who are not Hindu. That often means Muslims.

Modi is an avowed Hindu nationalist. He's been a member of a Hindu nationalist group, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (or RSS), since the 1970s, and the group has endorsed him for prime minister. The RSS has been previously banned for violence. It has moderated, but the point is that one reason people worry about Hindu nationalism is its history of extremism. Today, though, that doesn't come out in direct acts of violence so much as in rhetoric that stirs up religious resentment, which itself can lead to bloodshed.
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

Post by shiv »

http://www.countercurrents.org/puniyani240713.htm
Hindu Nationalism versus Indian Nationalism

By Ram Puniyani

24 July, 2013
Hindu nationalism will require a Ram Temple; Indian nationalism requires schools, universities and factories for employing the youth. Hindu nationalism is exclusive and divisive, Indian Nationalism is inclusive; rooted in the issues of this world, and not the identity related ones. Unfortunately Hindu nationalists have been raising the pitch around identity issues undermining the issues of the poor and marginalized. The Indian Nationalism, the product of our freedom movement is being challenged by the Hindu nationalism in India, Buddhist Nationalism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka and is a major threat to the process of democratization in those countries, Muslim Nationalism has wrecked havoc in Pakistan, and many other places.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

shiv saar,

in Europe, people know of Christianity only as the Church nearby which though not visited so much still tries to advance tolerance and good-neighborliness among humans, and tries to help those suffering in far off places and encourage other people to also adopt such values of "Love thy Neighbor" through bringing them the message of Jesus.

They do not know of the Church's role which tries to kill other cultures, demonize others' deities, and build a separate community often responding to subversive stimuli from abroad.
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

Post by shiv »

The thing that bothered me at the beginning of this thread continues.

You cannot be a Hindu nationalist without being accused of being a sponsor of murder and bigotry.

For example - say day to day greetings like "Ram Ram" or "Jai Bajrang bali" all have "Hindu connotations" and therefore you are a murderer. Tomorrow an army regiment with a particular Hindu war cry will be asked to secularize because Hindu nationalism means murder. What the fuk?

This is not correct. Something needs to be done to address this. But I don't know what.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

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

Post by harbans »

The RSS has been previously banned for violence.
When was the RSS banned for "violence"?
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Post by SBajwa »

Please sign this petition to rename the Aurungzeb road in Delhi

https://www.change.org/p/shri-najeeb-ju ... ngzeb-road
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22733 »

shiv wrote:The thing that bothered me at the beginning of this thread continues.

You cannot be a Hindu nationalist without being accused of being a sponsor of murder and bigotry.

For example - say day to day greetings like "Ram Ram" or "Jai Bajrang bali" all have "Hindu connotations" and therefore you are a murderer. Tomorrow an army regiment with a particular Hindu war cry will be asked to secularize because Hindu nationalism means murder. What the fuk?

This is not correct. Something needs to be done to address this. But I don't know what.
The west/Abrahamic followers have the capability of doing two things that Hindus dont:
1) Setting Narratives
2) Setting Agendas (which is based on Narratives)

I believe these are the factors for changing that perception:
1) We gain enough self respect (across the Hindu spectrum) to start measuring our culture by its OWN tools.
2) The above will make it difficult for anyone to set our narratives for us.
3) If they dont have control over our narratives, they cannot control our agenda.

After that point, whether they call us mass murderers or not wont matter to us. What we say about ourselves is what matters to us. They can stand outside the Hindu "club" and shout as much as they want to, it will have as much impact as stray dog barking.

They are ofcourse welcome to join us in the Hindu "club" if they are willing to abide by Hindu Dharma (and that means rejecting their universalism and exclusivism) .
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12068
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Shiv, Koenraad Elst is an outsider who is sympathetic to the Hindu nationalist cause, yet he is also a stern critic of the Hindu nationalists. Reading him might help you understand how Hindu nationalism got its reputation.

Explore:

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22733 »

^^^

Was skimming through it and I think I am getting some ideas on why it is so.

There are some followers of a philosophy that appears to be culturally Hindu, but is equally exclusivist in the sense that their actions are comparable to the action of who we would normally consider as exclusivists.

Their cultural symbols would be completely Hindu, but their actions would be completely exclusivist. This is a cultural artifact of colonization, and they are equally colonized as the sepoys amongst us.

I dont know what to call them, or how pervasive they are in the society, "reactionary-exclusivism" seems to be appropriate, they are different from "proactive-exclusivism" that the west/middle east demonstrates.

Sanatan Dharm, ironically excludes both of these exclusivist philosophies.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12068
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

shiv wrote: An epistemological historical enquiry into the Ramayana or Puranas is a case of casting pearls before swine, except that we have absorbed the word of the swine and now want to convince ourselves the way the swine asked to be convinced.
Shiv,

I think there is more to it then just that. One theory behind say, Hercules of the stories told by Greek bards is that there was a historic Hercules who though way above average was nevertheless human, and then bards spiced up the story - basically telling tall tales. This "over-active imagination" is regularly used for also by e.g., M. Witzel, when talking of the Vedic people.

As a modern day example, see Paul Bunyan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bunyan
E.g., http://www.loving2learn.com/SuperSubjec ... unyan.aspx
Many years ago, Paul Bunyan was born in the northeastern American state of Maine. His mother and father were shocked when they first saw the boy. Paul was so large at birth that five large birds had to carry him to his parents. When the boy was only a few weeks old, he weighed more than forty-five kilograms.

As a child, Paul was always hungry. His parents needed tens cows to supply milk for his meals. Before long, he ate fifty eggs and ten containers of potatoes every day.

Young Paul grew so big that his parents did not know what to do with him. Once, Paul rolled over so much in his sleep that he caused an earthquake. This angered people in the town where his parents lived. So, the government told his mother and father they would have to move him somewhere else.
Paul’s father built a wooden cradle -- a traditional bed for a baby. His parents put the cradle in waters along the coast of Maine. However, every time Paul rolled over, huge waves covered all the coastal towns. So his parents brought their son back on land. They took him into the woods. This is where he grew up.
This is the assumption these folks bring to the Ramayana and Puranas. That is, if Ravana was a historical figure, then giving him ten heads is the "Paul Bunyan-ization" of the historical figure. But IMHO, when Ravana is talked of having ten heads, it is not to tell a tall tale, there is a symbolism or insight encoded there.

IMO, there is a big difference between these two:

1. Ramayana is primarily with historical story, geographically accurate, with "Paul Bunyan-ization", and added-on spiritual significance.

2. Ramayana is primarily a spiritual story, with possible historical and geographical correlates. Instead of a Tolkeinesque "Middle Earth" the Rishis used a familiar geography.

PS: removed a para that might be more of a distraction.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Post by SBajwa »

I think there is more to it then just that. One theory behind say, Hercules of the stories told by Greek bards is that there was a historic Hercules who though way above average was nevertheless human, and then bards spiced up the story - basically telling tall tales. This "over-active imagination" is regularly used for also by e.g., M. Witzel, when talking of the Vedic people.
It happens in all cultures!!

Just from the Sikh History!

Mughals were so afraid of Baba Banda singh Bahadur that they never took on him in direct hand-to-hand combat due to him being a "Bairagi" and with magical powers (who defeated the Guns with knives and axes).

Guru Gobind Singh first murders five people and then magically brings them to life (even as his father was against all type of magics and even gave his life when Aurungzeb demanded "Show Magic to prove superiority of your beliefs").

Baba Dip Singh., was ordered by Guru Gobind Singh to do nothing all his life but to keep on making copies of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and distributing them to various villages (single reason that we have a full Guru Granth sahib now)., at the age of 80+ when Abdali invades India and destroys Golden Temple, Baba Dip singh collects a rag-tag force of 5000 people, takes a vow that we will reach the Golden Temple on Diwali day and will not die before it and attacks Abdali at Amritsar. About 3 KMs from Amritsar he is struck on his neck which he holds with his other hands and fights on reaching Golden Temple and breathing last on the Parikarma. Now!! Sikhs believe that his head was totally severed and he hold his severed head in his other hand and keeps on fighting till he reaches Golden Temple to fulfill his vows!

and so on!! in couple of centuries from now people will believe that Tendulkar could easily hit a ball with escape velocity reaching moon.
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

Post by shiv »

LokeshC wrote:
There are some followers of a philosophy that appears to be culturally Hindu, but is equally exclusivist in the sense that their actions are comparable to the action of who we would normally consider as exclusivists.

Their cultural symbols would be completely Hindu, but their actions would be completely exclusivist. This is a cultural artifact of colonization, and they are equally colonized as the sepoys amongst us.
It seems that as long as the "natives of India" did not project or identify themselves as "Hindu" in one group - all was believed to be well. Everyone called them Hindus, but they were not expected to identify themselves under one name. The natives of India were not "fascist-united" as in "We AM a Hindoo!!" They knew their differences and their similarities and just lived in one land with one diverse culture interconnected by "Hindu" folklore and tradition that would allow any Hindu from any part of India to visit places of significance to them from their folklore and tradition in any part of India. It's another matter that people who came to India were unable to see the underlying commonality when people who visited Kedarnath did so for reasons apparently completely different from why they might visit Puri, Dwaraka, Kashi, Tirupati or the Kumbh mela

The Islamic invaders and the British deserve credit for making the "other" out of all Hindus. Hindus rarely "othered" each other enough to try and kill each others identity. All were dumped in the category of heathen/kafir. What they perhaps did not realize was that there was already a "common ground" of all Hindus - the collective Hindu consciousness that underlies Indian diversity and fractious argumentativeness. This common ground was not recognized, but injured by the invaders.

I think the apparent unification of Hindus under a common cause is frightening to others. It is seen as a "devil" not just because the people are kafirs/pagan, but it "appears" like a new phenomenon that has simply arisen in the recent past (100-150 years) and that prior to this there was no commonality among Hindus in the remote past (>200 years) that could make them unite. For this reason Hindu figures like Veer Savarkar and others who are noticeable in the recent historic record are seen as Hitlers or Mussolinis because they have, in the eyes of historians, "indologists", Pakistanis and cold warriors, "Created a common militant/fascist Hindu consciousness that never existed before ". From this stems the secular conclusion that the British created and united India.

I have argued on this thread that this is a fake picture. There is a common Hindu consciousness across all of India that extends back at least 2500 years, if not 5000 years. That Hindu consciousness was a uniting culture that happens to be, in the eyes of Abrahamic religions, a "polytheistic" culture. But theism was never as important for Hindus in the way it forms the sheet anchor of Christian or Islamic identity. Thousand of Gods are worshipped in hundreds of holy places in India and while each place has its particular devotees, a huge proportion of Hindus see all these places as sacred. This is not about God. it is about the folklore, tradition and legends - based on - that word again, our "itihaasa"

Hindu nationalism goes back a long way. But militant nationalism occurred in the last 500 years as Sikh and Maratha militancy, but they were not pan-Indian. They were relatively local because the Muslim rulers were themselves not pan national. It is only after the British established pan national control that basically allowed the expression of pan national "Hindu nationalism". Gandhi definitely played a huge role in that re awakening, but Gandhi was clever enough to suppress the militancy from day 1, or else we would have subjected the British to a blood bath of the partition type somewhat earlier. But Gandhi was possibly responsible for making it seem like Hindus were gentle bunnies with no violent streak. That made "outcastes" of Hindus who wanted to fight. If the Marathas and Sikhs had tried the Gandhi paradigm, history would probably have been different. In fact, IIRC the Sikh faith did not become militant until the tenth Guru, thanks to Aurangzeb and his "peace"

So the picture of "Hindu nationalism" as a latter day "recent" militant fascism is wrong - it misinterprets an underlying Hindu loyalty to nation that did not become militant until provoked by conquistadores of various hues.
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22733 »

shiv wrote:So the picture of "Hindu nationalism" as a latter day "recent" militant fascism is wrong - it misinterprets an underlying Hindu loyalty to nation that did not become militant until provoked by conquistadores of various hues.
Good post.

This militant nature (or I call it "reactionary-exclusivism") is what is used as justification by every tom dick and harry and their sepoys in the west to beat up everyone who believes in its non-colonized sibling: Hindu Nationalism.

You beat up someone, he tries to take it initially, but you push him to a wall and he reacts because he has no other choice. You call him a violent brute and beat him up even more :).

This stereotyping of the whole spectrum of Hindu Identity and Hindu Nationalism and packaging it into a box of Hindu-reactionary-exclusivism is another fast one that the west pulled on us.

And we gladly accepted that box and have trapped ourselves in it :)
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

Post by shiv »

LokeshC wrote:
This stereotyping of the whole spectrum of Hindu Identity and Hindu Nationalism and packaging it into a box of Hindu-reactionary-exclusivism is another fast one that the west pulled on us.

And we gladly accepted that box and have trapped ourselves in it :)
In the link provided by Arun Gupta, Koenraad Elst too speaks of the same "boxes" with reference to Romila Thapar and secularists
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/
Ancient Indian thought was never divided in box-type orthodoxies on the pattern of Christians vs. Muslims or Catholics vs. Protestants. It is only a Western projection, borrowed as somehow more prestigious by the Indian “secularists”, that imposes this categorization on the Indian landscape of ideas. Buddhist thinkers were never treated as dissenters, and even less so when Buddhism was politically in the ascendant.
Now guess who, on this forum, "boxes" Buddhists separately? :rotfl:

The colonization runs deep and it's actually not funny
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

Indeed, a wider recognition of this ancestral greatness would solve a number of contemporary problems Hinduism faces. Separatism, the phenomenon that Hindu sects declare that they are non-Hindu and back-project that they never have been Hindus, is largely due to the bad reputation of Hinduism. Nobody wants to stay on a sinking ship (especially not the rats, the true nature of most defectors). Hinduism is slandered as “caste, wholly caste and nothing but caste”, and when at all it is admitted to be something else on top, it must be widow self-immolation, child marriage, dowry murders, nowadays the rapes that make headlines, and other human rights violations. Moreover, it is seen as superstitious, incoherent, flaky, and worst of all, weak. Hinduism has an intensely bad image, and that is why the Jains, Buddhists, Lingayats, Sikhs, Arya Samajis, Ramakrishna Mission and others insist that they are not Hindus, while another category of malcontents defect by converting to Christianity or Islam.
Koenraad Elst does make some good points, but some points do go under later in his commentary.
  1. worst of all, weak: this is the perfect boxing in: if you show strength, then we will deride you as extremist, intolerant, genocidal, etc. and if you practice Gandhigiri, then we will start calling you weak and meek. Koenraad Elst did not go further into how to break out of the box. Definitely the pall of secularism and degeneration of traditional Hindu institutions of Kshatriyata may have contributed to a certain weakening, but the weakness lies in the control of the narrative. Hindu can show Kshatriyata without any remorse or hesitation, if the narrative of the conflict is absolutely in favor of Dharmic wrath over Adharma. Groups of Hindus do enter into conflict with other groups, but mainstream Hindus cringe at that due to the pall of Secularism. The Hindu is very much in the same position as Arjuna, unwilling to fight and instead of bonds of blood that Arjuna had with the Kauravas, here we have responsibilities as a tolerant secular Indian. There is no Krishna to paint the opposite side as total Adharma, and even castigate elders like Bhishma Pitamah, Guru Dronacharya, and others as supportive of Adharma and thus Adharma. It is Secularism which has spread this pall of greyness over the ethical duty of the Hindu. And just like Arjuna, the Hindu is weak today! Only ethical clarity can remove this pall! And there where the Secularists leave off, the Hinduists take up from there turning our Sanskriti, our Itihas into some Ahinsātmak-Ādhyātmik Manthan and purging all the Vīrya out of our Itihas.
  2. superstitious: This again is a consequence of a propaganda defeat which Hindus are bound to get as long as we say "Hinduism" is a "Religion", because under Religion, all the beliefs of everybody would be accumulated, and all practices of various groups would be projected onto this megalith called "Hinduism Religion" and thus something of which all its followers partake of, either as guilt, or as embarrassment, or as inconsistency. If there are some low "superstitious" beliefs in some group in India, then that becomes the burden of all Hindus, and if some Hindus eat beef in some part, then it becomes a inconsistency of all of Hinduism! Yes, people are allowed to be superstitious. They may be carrying some age-old practice which made sense at some time in the past, and thus they carry some knowledge of the past. Yes people can be superstitious and their practices may not make sense looked at superficially. That is the whole point of plurality. But plurality and Religion don't really go together, and that is why we should not call ourselves a Religion but rather a Sanskriti.
  3. flaky: Again, structurally speaking, this becomes a problem when we see ourselves as a Religion. A Religion flakes. A Sanskriti expands. A religion is bound by identity and group belonging, and as such the Religion structure encourages various groups to assert their identity and sharply mark its contours viz-a-viz another. In our Sanskriti, every Panth presents its Moksha Marga and its exposition of the Common Dharma. However Religion-based contouring and demarcation is causing the unnatural pseudo-flaking that should not and need not be there.
  4. incoherent: Partly the incoherence comes from understanding Hinduism as a Religion, because a Religion is expected to be coherent. If we consider ourselves as a Sanskriti, then the incoherence vanishes, because that is just plurality of views. The real incoherence however comes on the ethical and political side of the equation, the Dharma. Who really is there in India to articulate Hindu Dharma? By disfiguring our Sanskriti with Dharma to mean simply some Ahinsātmak-Ādhyātmik Manthan called "Hinduism", the only place left was for pandits, and sants promising spiritual fulfillment, astrological predictions, and material blessings! There was nobody left to speak on what should be the Dharma of the Hindus, regarding socio-political ethics for today's world! RSS has tried to fill this space, but existing under a secular authoritarianism and a hostile media, there is only so much they could do. So everything has become individual and reactive!
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_20317 »

This is below the belt :). There are genuine differences with Buddhism and most people, who do box the buddhists separately (including myself) do not do it as a matter of 'otherness'. All the different words like Dharmic/Sanatan/Indic/Hindu/Bharatiya/India/Sanyaasi/NRI/RNI, have different meanings for different needs. There are similar differences with many other groups. There are cases of differences that have been misused by outsiders too.

And however hard it is tried there exist a lot of 'others' too, just as much as a lot of 'I' exist. These 'I' also band together to give rise to strains of thought giving rise to groups too (all real). Had Indians esp. the reactionary-exclusivist hindus been such a trouble then there is not much that the 'other' could have done to save themselves. There really is no reactionary-exclusivism in Hindu populations, on a proportionate basis. Having said that Hinduism does advocate for a translated/vivekpoorn version of active exclusivism.

It is true that styles/deeds of some people cannot be projected much less imposed on the larger majority. Jhaad hilane sey andhi nahi chalti. But then again, this is the land where armies could fight it out till death while the farmer a few kilometers away was doing his daily chores. There should be room enough for all kinds of people everywhere.
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

Post by shiv »

ravi_g wrote: And however hard it is tried there exist a lot of 'others' too, just as much as a lot of 'I' exist. These 'I' also band together to give rise to strains of thought giving rise to groups too (all real). Had Indians esp. the reactionary-exclusivist hindus been such a trouble then there is not much that the 'other' could have done to save themselves. There really is no reactionary-exclusivism in Hindu populations, on a proportionate basis. Having said that Hinduism does advocate for a translated/vivekpoorn version of active exclusivism.
I personally think that words like reactionary-exclusivist are terms we learn from our education to describe and "other" some people. Othering in India was never about destroying identity but accepting the other's separate identity. However much Buddhists are "other" they are allowed to remain as an alternate mode of thought.

In terms of Indian "historiography" there is not much information I have about "reactionary-exclusivist" Hindus . On the other hand there do exist stories of Shankaracharya and his debates and the legend that the person defeated in the debate had to accept the arguments/philosophy of the victor. True or not our historiography/historiophony does not record memes of wanting to kill Buddhists or declare them as false or misguided. Or Jains for that matter. I will dig deeper into this, now that you have provoked my curiosity
ravi_g wrote:It is true that styles/deeds of some people cannot be projected much less imposed on the larger majority. Jhaad hilane sey andhi nahi chalti. But then again, this is the land where armies could fight it out till death while the farmer a few kilometers away was doing his daily chores. There should be room enough for all kinds of people everywhere.
About armies fighting and farmers working nearby, you have reminded me of a thought I had yesterday. European wars at least in the 20th century were total wars with absolute hatred of the people - at least during the war and for a while after.

But even earlier European wars were fought by kings who forced all men to arm themselves and join the army. I recall reading some references to this recently - possibly in the book "Utopia"(**see footnote). So when you had two neighbouring "nations" they were separated linguistically, ethnically and often by religion (the flavour of Christainity) - so it became total war, people to people.

This never happened in India. Wars were fought by professional soldiers, leaving the professional artisans and farmers to do their work. This is also why political changes in India and new kigndoms did not create new "nation states" where free travel was not possible. People from the south kept on going to Kashi, dying due to disease, dacoits or wild animals. But not because of political or "religious" strife.

Footnote: ** Yes the book Utopia does describe the pathetic state of European nations where princes went to war either to hod power or increase wealth, often using religion as an excuse to goad people into war. For Europe and for Islam religion is a big cause FOR war.

Among Hindus, dharma or our way of live revolves around peace. There are fundamental differences which I believe we wil never understand until we distance ourselves from the "religions" and understand what "religion" means f from within Christianity and Islam.
Last edited by shiv on 26 Nov 2014 18:06, edited 1 time in total.
csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

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

Post by csaurabh »

About armies fighting and farmers working nearby, you have reminded me of a thought I had yesterday. European wars at least in the 20th century were total wars with absolute hatred of the people - at least during the war and for a while after.
Long before that actually. The cataclysmic thirty years war ( 17th century ) is estimated to have killed 12 million people in Germany alone. That war was based on strife between various factions of Christianity like protestants and catholics. 'Secularism' was a western invention to stop this kind of a thing.

So when people say, oh there are different types of Hindus just like there are different sects of Christianity and Islam. No, it is not even close to the same thing.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12068
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

RajeshA wrote: And there where the Secularists leave off, the Hinduists take up from there turning our Sanskriti, our Itihas into some Ahinsātmak-Ādhyātmik Manthan and purging all the Vīrya out of our Itihas.
Perhaps. Or perhaps there is a deep misunderstanding of what Adhyatma is about. The great warrior Arjuna loses his nerve and will to fight and the prime Adhyatmic work, the Gita is produced. Where does Virya come from?
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22733 »

Well the correct term would be "reactively-exclusivist" as opposed to "proactively-exclusivist". I believe (with no source or evidence to show other than words from my own mush) that the former emerged as a defense mechanism against the latter.

More of a statement to the proactive-exclusivists: "Your religion provides you with everything and it asks you to eat us alive, fine! we are now going to do the same thing to you."

Baudh Dharm, Jain Dharm, Sikh Dharm were all evolved from Hindu - Dharm due to various differences, but they were never meant to be proactive-exclusivist. And the reason I think for that is (source: my mush) that there were no "reactively-exclusivist" Hindus before the Moguls and the Brishits. People maintained their identity and sub-identities even after the Budhist wave and the following Hindu wave that swept through India. For a similar thing to happen in a similar scale in middle east or Oirope, you can be sure that mass murder of unprecedented scale would ensue.

Nowadays these guys believe that Hindu-ism and its scriptures have the answer to everything, from quantum electrodynamics to General Relativity.

Their main issue is that they are open to manipulation just like a person on the other end: a sepoy. Both these people have a bunch of insecurities and biases that makes their world view distorted and leaves them open to a 'surgical virus' attack.

A person secure in his identity as a follower of Hindu Dharm, he will have no emotional weaknesses of self-confidence that can be taken advantage of by a third party. I.e. his "anti virus" and "firewall" programs are running smoothly.
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

Post by shiv »

csaurabh wrote:
About armies fighting and farmers working nearby, you have reminded me of a thought I had yesterday. European wars at least in the 20th century were total wars with absolute hatred of the people - at least during the war and for a while after.
Long before that actually. The thirty years war ( 17th century ) is estimated to have killed 12 million people in Germany alone. That war was based on strife between various factions of Christianity like protestants and catholics. 'Secularism' was a western invention to stop this kind of a thing.

So when people say, oh there are different types of Hindus just like there are different sects of Christianity and Islam. No, it is not even close to the same thing.
True. Your post came as I was adding my footnote above.

It was the 30 years war that led to the peace of Westphalia and "secular states" with "secular" being church/religion being kept out of state affairs and vice versa.

This is why the British became very keen to box Hindus into a religion so that they could do a copy-paste of their laws, with "Hindu religious practice like caste" (which was never a Hindu religions practice) being outside the purview of state laws. Copy pasting their laws was important because as colonizers their citizens were both in India and in Britain and they needed a semblance of law and order (in Britain). In iindia they did not give flying fuk if they could help it.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote: And there where the Secularists leave off, the Hinduists take up from there turning our Sanskriti, our Itihas into some Ahinsātmak-Ādhyātmik Manthan and purging all the Vīrya out of our Itihas.
Perhaps. Or perhaps there is a deep misunderstanding of what Adhyatma is about. The great warrior Arjuna loses his nerve and will to fight and the prime Adhyatmic work, the Gita is produced. Where does Virya come from?
Yes, perhaps there is a deep misunderstanding of what Adhyatma is all about!

For Hinduists, it is only a पूजा-पाठ का धर्म, and so they distance themselves from Hindutvavadis, from those who also believe in राष्ट्र-सेवा का धर्म and Vīrya.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12068
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

LokeshC wrote:
A person secure in his identity as a follower of Hindu Dharm, he will have no emotional weaknesses of self-confidence that can be taken advantage of by a third party. I.e. his "anti virus" and "firewall" programs are running smoothly.
My vote for you to write Cyber Sutra!
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22733 »

Lol... There is a man amongst us who is an expert Cyber sutra practitioner. One and only Namo
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ wher bala comes from per itihaas
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/sheelam.html
A_Gupta ji,

thank you for that great link! Good write up!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

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

Post by brihaspati »

I still think we are giving western "historiography" a credit and distinction from Hindu so-called non-history that it doesnt deserve. Western histories show repeated narrative constructions of the same idea/iconic image/phenomenon - and one has to suspect if much of what is passed down as "historical fact" is not in reality a construction to gain legitimacy for a particular narrative/claim using pre-existing acceptable memes.

Western style history is rationalization of myth, and Hindu history is mythification of the rational.

The seemingly detailed/concretization of observations, in the west, is actually about trying to classify and discriminate between objects. More distinctions and micro-classifications the better. While Hindu trend seems to have been abstractification, and finding commonalities rather than distinctions. So where it couldn't avoid obvious distinctions it saw the differences as two different views/manifestations of the same thing. The same abstractification/symbolic focus required an abstract symbolic structure to fit diverse and disparate events in historical experience and gave them the mythologic form.

The difference is like trying to do maths by examples and by learning the common root principles that can be applied to diverse cases.
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

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:I still think we are giving western "historiography" a credit and distinction from Hindu so-called non-history that it doesnt deserve.
:D Yes and this has been the focus of discussion several times in this thread especially with reference to one Prof Balagangadhara in Ghent who has written extensively on this anomaly
https://www.academia.edu/9462514/What_D ... s_I_and_II
also this
http://www.hipkapi.com/2012/02/16/what- ... angadhara/
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Post by JE Menon »

>>Western style history is rationalization of myth, and Hindu history is mythification of the rational.

Very nice formulation. Will use it.
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

Post by shiv »

http://www.hipkapi.com/2012/02/16/what- ... angadhara/
In the link Balu traces how and why Christian history became "true" and how concepts of the past were divided up into "true" (Christian history) and "false" (others) starting from one Saint Augustine. What this did was to make the claim that history was the "search for truth" and that since history was full of lies and misleading information created by the devil, true history came from the Christian past.

Interestingly Balu goes further back to trace why Christians did this. Initially their "miracles" and their stories of Christ were dismissed by the Romans. The Romans dismissed these stories because old Greek mythology itself had been discarded as useless by Plato (and yes I just read that in Plato's "Republic"). The Christians were then hell bent on proving that their stories were "really true". So the past was divided up into "true past" (History as stated by the Christian "eternally correct" Brits) and false past.

This is the same paradigm that was imposed on Indians - and our forebears, with no access to these complex concepts that were necessitated by Christian history, fell for it hook, line and sinker for the crap that Indian historians now believe about India and we, as good students have learned to parrot out "India has no history. The British taught us about history".

Balu goes on to ask a rhetorical question: "What do we need to know? Do we need to know our past? or do we need "history"(as defined in the west)?

I quote Balu
Thus, to St. Augustine, it was very obvious that there was only attitude possible with respect to the past. Such an attitude sought the ‘true’ past: it was an attitude that answered the question “how ‘ought’ one to study the past”? One ‘ought’ to study the past in such a way as to find the true past. This ‘true’ past had to be found through a painstaking study (of scriptures and the writings of the early church fathers), said Augustine, because mankind has been deceived into believing the lies told by the Devil about the human past. In short, because lies about the past abound in human communities (these ‘lies’ are, of course, the stories that human groups have about their own multiple pasts), one needs ‘the truth’. The Bible was the only repository of this ‘truth’, as far as Augustine was concerned.

Because ‘truth’ is what all human beings like to seek, today it has become obvious to talk as though one seeks truth while one studies the past. Two important issues need to be understood here. There is, first, the question why study the past at all? There is, second, the problem of what ‘truth’ means in this context.

Consider the first issue. Why ‘study’ the past instead of recounting your community’s story about the past? I mean, why are we not satisfied in recounting Ramayana, Mahabharata, puranas, etc as our stories about our past? What do we need to study and why? To these questions, there is a plausible sounding answer: ‘we need to know whether these stories are true’. Ask again why: Why do we need to know whether these stories are true? After all, as we believe, these stories have been in circulation for millennia and they have adequately and admirably met the needs of our ancestors (and most of our contemporaries as well) in their quest for human flourishing. So, what extra reasons exist to ‘study’ the past?

Here is the first possible answer, which takes the form of a question: what if our stories about the past turn out to be false? Let me answer it with a counter-question: so what? What does it matter whether what we believe about our past is true or false as long as it helps us in human flourishing? One can choose truth above falsehood if (a) truth about the past helps us live better as human beings and (b) falsehood damages us. Without answering these questions, one cannot provide extra reasons to study the past.

<snip>

In fact, there is a radical disjunction between what the historians think they are doing (‘seeking explanations about the past’) and what they do (collect factoids). When he seeks ‘the truth’ about the past, neither the historian nor his reader knows whether he has found it or even why it has to be ‘found’. The ‘archives’ of the historian is not some kind of ‘collective memory’ of the humankind. It is what it always was: a collection of records that sits in a library shelf slowly gathering dust.

The ‘truth’ that St. Augustine sought can never be proved or disproved by any kind of research in the ‘archives’. His ‘truth’ was about the Christ nature of Jesus of Nazareth and about the Bible. His predecessors had established that Jesus of Nazareth existed and their theologies had proved that he was The Messiah. Therefore, he claimed that one ‘ought’ to study the past on the basis of this knowledge. What sense does it make to take over his theological question and try to garnish it with ‘secular’ sounding dogmas?
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Post by johneeG »

Bhesterners came across Bhaarath and immediately realized that Bhaarath was glorious. Infact, they came to Bhaarath because they knew Bhaarath was glorious.

Anyway, by sheer stroke of luck, they came to control Bhaarath. Now, they had to set a new narrative to undermine the Bhaarath.

Hindhus: we have a glorious history, civilization, culture, tradition, religion, ...etc.

Bhesterner 1: Nonsense! You have no history, no civilization, no culture and no religion. You have just myths and superstitions. Hindhuism is not even a religion, its just a mish-mash of various cults. Bhaarath is not even a country. Its just a few geographical locations with myriad customs. Its us...th great bhest who have created a united country.

This was the first reaction. Simply deny the existence of history, civilization, culture, religion, ...etc of Bhaarath.

Then, after some thought, another Bhesterner came up with a more intelligent and wily narrative:
Bhesterner 2: No, no, Hindhus are right. They do have a history, civilization, culture, religion, ...etc. BUT, this was given to them by us. How? Well, the 'Aryans' were actually from Oirope. So, out great ancestors came to this silly place and gave them history, civilization, culture, religion, ...etc. Just as we are going to give them history, civilization, culture, religion, ...etc.

Now, the bhesterner 1 and bhesterner 2 are saying contradictory things.(But, both are trying to glorify the bhest). So, bhesterner 1 and bhesterner 2 get into an argument.

Bhesterner 1: nonsense, how can this silly literature be called history? This is just mythology.

Bhesterner 2: maybe, there is some exaggeration. But, thats normal. The truth about Aryan invasion cannot be denied.

Now, Bhesterner 1 and Bhesterner 2 come to Hindhus and ask them:

Bhesterner 1 and Bhesterner 2: Hey Hindhu, we both have been arguing for sometime and are not able to reach any clear conclusion. Tell us, who do you accept as correct?
a) Is you literature just a silly mythology i.e. fabricated lies? or
b) Is you history trying to portray the invasion of Oiropean Aryans?

This is like asking: have you stopped beating your wife?
If I say, "yes", then it means I admit to beating my wife previously.
If I say, "no", then it means that I still beat my wife.

Balu is knowingly or unknowingly following the line of bhesterner 1.
Peter is knowingly or unknowingly following the line of bhesterner 2.

-----
RajeshA wrote:johneeG garu,

Here I myself am a strong proponent of "Hinduism" NOT being a "Religion"! :)

I think we will have to discuss this, just the two of us, in some appropriate thread, with cool heads, about what is the best architecture for our Sanskriti!
I know your stand, saar.

I was trying to point out that denying Hindhuism as religion is more or less same as denying the Bhaarath's history or denying Bhaarath as a single country.

shiv wrote: This is what Balu says:
when they {Europeans} looked at India, they described using their notions, their conceptions, their theories, their words, and they looked at the myths and the legends of the Puranas and the so-called Itihaasa literature as disguised history.
Balu is saying that the Europeans saw pure fiction that they felt Indians were trying to pass off as history, that is "fiction in the guise of history". Do you disagree with that?

Shiv saar,
to me, it seems like what Balu is saying is, "Oiropeans thought it was history when it was not history."

Basically, Balu is saying that it was Oiropeans who came up with the unique idea that Ramayana and Mahabharatha are histories. This is utter nonsense. Ramayana and Mahabharatha were always seen as histories long before the Oiropeans came.

Infact, it was the Oiropeans who first started questioning the Ramayana and Mahabharatha as histories. They first denied them historical significance.

Then, they tried a better method and came up with Aryan invasion theory.

Once, they came up with Aryan invasion theory, they did not have to deny the history of Ramayana and Mahabharath because they were now going to rely on same Ramayana and Mahabharatha to peddle their race theories.

I think Balu is either completely wrong or totally wily.

He is trying to be clever by saying that Oiropeans came up with a unique idea that Hindhu Ithihaasas are history.
A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, Koenraad Elst is an outsider who is sympathetic to the Hindu nationalist cause, yet he is also a stern critic of the Hindu nationalists. Reading him might help you understand how Hindu nationalism got its reputation.

Explore:

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/
johneeG wrote:
Virendra wrote:
By the way, did you know that Konread Elst is not a fan of P N Oak? :twisted:
Didn't know that, but was always suspicious of that character! :mrgreen: Comes across as a complex mole. Even if not a mole, he has his limitations.

His philosophy, it seems, is strange. He confesses to be a part of some church society. And despite him supposedly writing against church's theology(piskology of prophetism), he has not left church, supposedly for practical benefits. But, why would church not expel him?

He confesses that he was an ardent believer(supposedly, not any more). He says that his family(or his father) were strong(fanatic?) fundamentalists, to the extent that they considered church to have 'secularizing tendencies'(whatever that may mean).
INTRODUCTION

This book will deal with items of faith central to the Christian tradition. It may therefore be in order to clarify where I stand vis-a-vis this tradition. For most practical purposes, I belong to the Catholic community in my country: schooling, membership of cultural organizations, trade-union etc. I confess (therewith upholding a Christian ritual) that several times, I have voted for the Christian-Democratic Party, a non-confessional party that vaguely adheres to �values� upheld by the Christian tradition.

Moreover, in my youth I was a genuine believer, more than most of my class-mates and my generation as a whole. My father was one of the last polemizing Catholics in Belgium, and a sharp critic of the degenerative secularizing tendencies within the modern Church. I have always respected this wholehearted acceptance of the authentic doctrine and tradition more than the wishy-washy approach currently taken by our bishops and taught in our Theology faculty.

All this may be worth mentioning to clarify that I do not belong to that category of people, fairly widespread in my country, who have a deep-seated hatred against the Catholic Church and traditions, either because they were brought up as militant atheists or because they slammed the church door behind them during adolescence, never to look back again except to pour contempt. There is quite a literature by writers who in adult life continue to react against the frustrations, mostly sexual, which they associate with their years in the Jesuit college. Today, it is no exaggeration to say that the anti-Christian people in countries like mine are more fanatical and intolerant than the dwindling number of churchgoers. My motive in writing this book has nothing to do with that type of anti-Christian reaction.

The point is simply that we, European Christians of many generations, have outgrown Christianity. Most people who left the Church have found that they are not missing anything, and that the beliefs which once provided a framework for interpreting and shaping life, were but a bizarre and unnecessary construction after all. We now know that Jesus was not God�s Only-begotten Son, that he did not save humanity from eternal sin, and that our happiness in this world or the next does not depend on believing these or any other dogmas.

When staying in India, I find it sad and sometimes comical to see how these outdated beliefs are being foisted upon backward sections of the Indian population by fanatical missionaries. In their aggressive campaign to sell their product, the missionaries are helped a lot by sentimental expressions of admiration for Christianity on the part of leading Hindus. Many Hindus project their own religious categories on the few Jesus episodes they have heard, and they base their whole attitude to Christianity on what I know to be a selective, incoherent and unhistorical version of the available information on Jesus� life and teachings. That is why I have written the present introduction to one of the most revealing lines of proper scientific research into the origins of Christianity, viz. the psychological analysis of Jesus and of several other Biblical characters.

As Jawaharlal Nehru said, we do injustice to the Vedas by treating them as divine revelations rather than as milestones of human understanding. Glad that for once I can agree with Nehru, I affirm that we should take a secular, historicizing look at the factual human basis of religious scriptures. In the case of religions, which describe their own basis as God-given, directly revealed by God�s word, such a secular approach will imply an analysis of the consciousness, which claims to receive direct revelations from God. That is the line of research to which this book offers a brief introduction.

Delhi, 24 January 1993
Link

That book, piskology of prophetism, also comes across as a backhanded argument(or apology) that the tales and characters of NT and OT are real. He is trying to argue that the tales and characters are real and historical. One has to understand that in the recent past, historical studies have shown that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any of the characters of OT or NT. So, this seems like a backhanded one(a work that looks like a criticism, but in reality is an apology) to argue about the historical jesus(which is the fundamental basis of catholic religion and the elst is a member of catholic church).

For example, the proposal of Christian Lindtner(Link) and Micheal Lockwood(Link) that Christ is a mythical character forged by the Buddhists to spread their canonical texts like Mula-Sarva-Asthi-Vadha-Vinaya and Sadh-Dharma-Pundarika-Suthram. Such works, I assume, will not be acceptable to elst because such works(like Lindtner or Lockwood) strike at the very basis of catholic cult.
Link to post

----
johneeG wrote:ShauryaT saar,
I think you asked a question sometime back: what is Hindutva?

There are two points:
a) The contemporary
b) The Hindu

My understanding is Hindutva is a compromise between (a) and (b). From contemporary point of view, Hindutva is same as Hinduism(or perhaps a diluted version of Hinduism). From Hindu point of view, Hindutva is a journey whose goal is Hinduism.

Contemporary means the policies of the ruler and attitude of the masses.
Link to post


----
RajeshA saar,
about Puja-paat and Rashtra-seva:
There is one Dharma, not two. A thing is either Dharma or Adharma.
Is Puja-paat Dharma? Yes.
Is Rashtra-seva Dharma? Yes.

So, the question is:
Which of the two(Puja-paat or Rashtra-seva) has higher priority?
Strictly speaking, it depends on circumstances.
johneeG wrote:How can 'doing good' be quantified and declared that one is more 'do-gooder' than another? For example, if a person X does
a) in his personal life, supports an ideology and works towards educating others about the ideology.
b) in his public life, supports a regime that works towards undermining that ideology and eliminating it, if possible.

Is the above person X, 'doing good' for the ideology through his personal acts? or is he doing great damage to ideology by supporting anti-ideology regimes?

How does one quantify the above and reach a conclusion?

Personally, I think supporting anti-ideology regime means undermining the ideology. And I don't think one can make up for it by some personal acts because one person's personal act can never be equal to the state's policy.

According to Hinduism, if a sin/crime has taken place, then there are 4 culprits:
a) The actual criminal/sinner.
b) The ones who motivated the criminal to commit crime/sin.
c) The ones who did not stop the crime/sin despite being in a position(and having a duty) to do so.
d) The ones who cheered the crime/sin (instead of being passive or protesting against it).

The least that can be done by the public, when a regime resorts to 'sin/crime' is protest, if not publicly, then atleast in private. If even that cannot be done, then maybe one should remain quite. But, if one chooses to support the regime, then one shares the blame, from Hindu perspective. This is the logic used support burning of Lanka by Hanuman, even though it was only Ravana who abducted Sita Amma. This is the logic used to punish Bhishma, Drona, Kripa and Ashwattama, even though it was only Duryodhana and his friends(Shakuni, Karna and Dusshasana) who insulted Draupadi. In both the cases, Vibhishana and Vidura were spared for protesting against the decisions of the regime.

Lastly, Hinduism goes one step ahead and accepts 'crime by association'.
Link to post

So, generally, supporting an Adharmik regime cannot be neutralized by personal acts of piety because the state outperforms an individual. Individual cannot match a state in terms of actions(good or bad).

Having said that, the Karma(i.e. consequences of the actions) will depend on both the personal piety and the regimes that one supports according to Hindhuism.

Mahabhaaratha is the best example of this complex mechanism. Many of the people who fought for the Dhuryodhana's side were known for their personal piety. Yet, in the war, they were killed mercilessly led by Shri Krushna Himself.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

johneeG wrote:RajeshA saar,
about Puja-paat and Rashtra-seva:
There is one Dharma, not two. A thing is either Dharma or Adharma.
Is Puja-paat Dharma? Yes.
Is Rashtra-seva Dharma? Yes.

So, the question is:
Which of the two(Puja-paat or Rashtra-seva) has higher priority?
Strictly speaking, it depends on circumstances.
That was exactly my point! There is one Dharma, and we have to understand it independently of both Moksha-Marga, Pooja-Pāṭha and Rāṣṭra-Seva!

However there is a movement, most notably advocated by Gandhi, to make Dharma into some sort of Ahinsātmak-Ādhyātmikta and many Hindus too just see it as Pooja-Pāṭha only, modeled on Christian praying, but sourced from our own Sanskriti!

They start asking what has violence to do with Dharma?
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

Post by shiv »

johneeG wrote: to me, it seems like what Balu is saying is, "Oiropeans thought it was history when it was not history."

Basically, Balu is saying that it was Oiropeans who came up with the unique idea that Ramayana and Mahabharatha are histories. This is utter nonsense. Ramayana and Mahabharatha were always seen as histories long before the Oiropeans came.

Infact, it was the Oiropeans who first started questioning the Ramayana and Mahabharatha as histories. They first denied them historical significance.
JohneeG please don't expose your shallowness by passing comments without reading or understanding what he writes. Balu writes longer posts than you - so I admit it is difficult to read. But you cannot comment without reading and it is obvious that you have not read what he is saying. Please don't shame yourself.
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

Post by shiv »

RajeshA wrote:
johneeG wrote:RajeshA saar,
about Puja-paat and Rashtra-seva:
There is one Dharma, not two. A thing is either Dharma or Adharma.
Is Puja-paat Dharma? Yes.
Is Rashtra-seva Dharma? Yes.

So, the question is:
Which of the two(Puja-paat or Rashtra-seva) has higher priority?
Strictly speaking, it depends on circumstances.
That was exactly my point! There is one Dharma, and we have to understand it independently of both Moksha-Marga, Pooja-Pāṭha and Rāṣṭra-Seva!

However there is a movement, most notably advocated by Gandhi, to make Dharma into some sort of Ahinsātmak-Ādhyātmikta and many Hindus too just see it as Pooja-Pāṭha only, modeled on Christian praying, but sourced from our own Sanskriti!

They start asking what has violence to do with Dharma?
I think that the laws are perfectly clear. For the king/leader/kshatriya Rashtra-seva takes precedence over Pooja-Patha. There is no ambiguity. I would be happy to be shown examples of incidents from the epics or puranas where kings did the correct thing by doing pooja-patha when they should have been doing rashtra seva.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

shiv wrote:I think that the laws are perfectly clear. For the king/leader/kshatriya Rashtra-seva takes precedence over Pooja-Patha. There is no ambiguity. I would be happy to be shown examples of incidents from the epics or puranas where kings did the correct thing by doing pooja-patha when they should have been doing rashtra seva.
Laws are clear for those for whom they are clear, even in this day!

My reference point was today's world, when there is packaging of our beliefs into religion, there is propaganda against "Hindu Nationalism", there is Gandhi's Ahimsa, there is a Secular pall over the nation since the last 67 years, and all the Mahatmas one sees around today are those promising bliss and blessings!
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

Post by shiv »

johneeG wrote: Now, Bhesterner 1 and Bhesterner 2 come to Hindhus and ask them:

Bhesterner 1 and Bhesterner 2: Hey Hindhu, we both have been arguing for sometime and are not able to reach any clear conclusion. Tell us, who do you accept as correct?
a) Is you literature just a silly mythology i.e. fabricated lies? or
b) Is you history trying to portray the invasion of Oiropean Aryans?

This is like asking: have you stopped beating your wife?
If I say, "yes", then it means I admit to beating my wife previously.
If I say, "no", then it means that I still beat my wife.

Balu is knowingly or unknowingly following the line of bhesterner 1.
I think you are knowingly or unknowingly talking crap and you have made up a story to make that crap sound convincing.

Balu is not doing what you say and your story is too shallow and idiotic for me to be polite any more.

Balu's entire work is probably too difficult for you to express in your silly "bhesterner did this" style. His work centers around pointing out why Indians failed to understand Europeans and got fooled into agreeing with their terms of reference. This is obviously not important to you because you are too busy making up stories that you like.

But Balus work is important in tearing down the edifices built by India''s secular historians in their JNU fortresses in a way that other academics can understand. The fact that you cannot or will not bother to try and understand is fine - but you should not pass comments out of ignorance. You have posted a whole long made up story about "Hindhus" and "bhesterners" simply to show up your ignorance and I think it is high time you stopped. This does not speak very highly of you - because you are hiding your ignorance (or misinformation?) in humongously long posts.
Post Reply