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

[shiv]

The other view is HBjis view that we cannot rely on past to solve problems of today.Infact even shivji used to take a similar stand that 'Hinduism' arose in an agricultural society and we live in different times.

I think my statement was in a different context altogether - I think it was in relation to the ritual of Ganesh pooja which is where the thought struck me.

But the idea that we must not rely on the past to solve today's problems is a general truism that is not even true in many instances. The hatred that Hindu nationalism invites is rooted in the past. All I am saying is that there is a Hindu nationalism that exists and it is hardly the xenophobic nationalism that is hated.

All these discussions about history, religion and law were sparked by the need to explain exactly why Hindus were viewed with suspicion and contempt. There are some very real reasons out there that need to be understood (as discussed over many pages) as opposed to generalities like "The British were against us and wanted to put us down" etc

The latter is a dumb explanation that can only cause impotent anger because we don't know why they "wanted to put us down". And that impotent anger leads to explanations like "We and our philosophy were all too great for them and so they were jealous"

My view is, OK let us accept that one possible explanation is

The British were against us and wanted to put us down.We and our philosophy were all too great for them and so they were jealous. They knew we were the source of everything on earth

But frankly, this explanation sounds like the sort of delusions of grandeur that are cooked up by a person who has been deeply insulted and does not know why it happened. I cannot swear that the explanation is wrong, but I would worry if this was offered as the only explanation "We we too great. The British were jealous". The explanation fails because our greatness failed us and after it failed us it gets difficult to claim that we were great but we lost. Yet another inane attitude would be "No actually we never lost. We survived"

if you look at Pakistan today - they come up with similar rationalizations about how great they were but lost, or that they have not lost. They survived. If Hindus need to do "mirror image explanations" that sound like Pakis, then both Pakis and Hindus have the same mental problem, with a helpless feeling of loss. It is a mental defence mechanism to retain a sense of balance after having one's butt kicked in.

In fact there are other explanations as to why Hindus were misunderstood and cursed and these are not about British jealousy. it was all about a European sense of superiority over the Oriental that made sure that anything oriental perfunctorily examined and discarded as worthless. And this attitude has been inculcated into Indians who then got good jobs under the British, so they had no incentive to question the cursing of their culture.

Indians have a deep inferiority complex about Hinduism. Some escape the inferiority by toeing the British/western line and saying "Oh we have now discarded all that bad bad past stuff. We are moving on". These are the "sickular libtards" (LOL what a name)

Another set of deeply hurt Indians are the Hindutvavadis who can recall some of Hindu-ism's good things but are unable to frame in in language that anyone else can follow because they are stuck using the only words the know like "religion" and "history" and "secular" etc.

Hindus have been tainted unfairly and i do not buy this escapism of saying that we can forget the past. The Hindu past was not worthy of such taint and perhaps we need to go further back and reclaim what was forgotten. I also dislike the Hindutva attitude of explanations emerging from a deep sense of hurt and anger and complete ignorance of how words and meanings with a European Christian context were used to smear us. We have learned no new words and we are trying to use the same words to turn the tables round. Its like knowing only the words "bad" and "stupid" that have been used to describe us, and then trying to wrestle with those words to say how we were good and smart and how the words "bad" and "stupid" actually mean good and smart in our dictionary. We need an increased vocabulary and an increased desire to use our own words (like dharma and itihaasa) and explain them in language that does not use the old words like religion and history.

Our inability to reframe the problem in a universally comprehensible language has led to a secular vs hindutva fight. It is not because the seculars are stupid and Hindutva vadis are clever. Both unfortunately are emerging from their mental colonization with different views but both are totally ignorant of what it was that caused them to develop this deep sense of shame. It was an original Hindu inability to express himself to a racist sceptical British ruler in his terms. But at least now we can express ourselves right - but we need to do our homework for that, and not come up with inane excuses or denials.

[member_20317]

Re. shiv Post subject: Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative senPostPosted: 04 Dec 2014 14:24

A "law" is simply a line of words spoken or written by someone. It means nothing unless there is an enforcement mechanism. Of course there should also be a system of justice that ensures that the law, when enforced is fair. But let me ignore that.

Why bother at all if this is to be left out. Ok just kidding. I will try.

A law cannot be called a law unless enforced. A loosely enforced law cannot be law; it is just a collection of words that suggest some action in reaction to some event

&

"Law" means 100% enforcement. No exceptions.

That is a common enough stand and I don’t accept it. You are simply jumping to the end of it all.

Would medicine be medicine only if a Doctor can bring to life a near dead person.

Everybody wishes for the safety of cause and effect but there is none available. No Doctor assure his patients that he would infect himself if the patient does not return to health. Just the same way no accounting and law professional will take unlimited liability, divorced from the inputs/circumstances/engagement scopes. Now if the experts remain so tentative then how can you expect the clients to be any confident. And if everybody is tentative then how can enforcement be a certainty.

Enforcement issues are something that people spend their lives trying to avoid. Even in cases where the agreements are entirely one sided. Fund managers often design one sided agreements and despite that they want to avoid having to use enforcement mechanism. Nobody has time or bandwidth to get into jhagda-fasaad.

Shiv ji, Law like medicine is a practice. Nothing is 100% sure to happen. You are asking for 100% certainty in legal work where a simple ‘notwithstanding’ or a comma or tense can change a lot. Actually there used to be a concept of ‘True and correct opinions’ which the people realized was bhunkus because in some cases nobody had the guts to achieve the standards voiced and in even more cases they felt that instead of ensuring accuracy and absence of frauds it is far more important to give an idea/view of the reliability of what was stated, so they changed it to ‘True and Fair’. I think they use ‘True’ in American legal system. I have found courts taking people to task for merely signing papers with or without the mention of True etc


Ok since you seem to desire 100% enforcement and probably think that it would be great for the nation. Now can you imagine why people complain that businessmen insist on carrying ~40% of business in black where there is absolutely zero benefit/possibility of enforcement being void agreements. Should these businessmen be classified as idiot? Why doesn’t the government insist on registering every marriage/birth/death/gift which would take out many a lafadas right out of the systems. Why give exceptions?

Law is not a science or engineering that you should get so impressed by enforcement. You have voiced your pain about wrongful usages/practices in medicine. What if instead of believing you as a doctor or in case of doubt seeking second opinions, I instead seek punishment for you if you are unable to remove my medical problems. Would that be justifiable. In fact doctors are some of the foremost practitioners that want to avoid going anywhere near the mess that is law, when it comes to their professional responsibilities. Fortunately in your case only the patient suffers (at the most he will die). In case of Legal practice, often all parties and the whole nation suffers, the process except the cunning ********.

What religions like Christianity and Islam did was to take the laws they were given and built an entire system of enforcement around it. The western meaning of "law" therefore became something that was 100% sure to happen the minute a law was transgressed. Christians set up a Church and Muslims set up a formal Caliph, army and judiciary to enforce and propagate Islamic law.

All they gave you was a Matrix and you were born in it. Now which pill do you want – jeh bataiye. We will take you in and out of the Matrix just like Neo and let’s just see if you are the chosen one. Ok as usual kidding again.


Enforcement is a good religio-political idea to keep people busy while the real action is elsewhere. The wrath of god and whatever. But is it the prime concern of law? Are there no laws that don’t end up in enforcement dead ends or utter compromises or the main focus of which is merely procedural. What about transition phases (partial notifications, opening stocks). These days the company law is the latest of the major bungling. It took a long time to stabilize transition phases in indirect tax laws. Winding up and arrangements procedures would never get completed if they are unable to avoid enforcement procedures. You just have to see some of the structuring people resort to. Till recently a loan made by a company to its director was voidable at the option of the Board of that loan making company (neither void nor prohibited). Now what kind of law was that? Is it even worth enforcing such a provision? Can you imagine how many companies would fall under such a situation?

It is believed that law is enforceable hence it is better than Dharma. Now, does that mean:
1) that the enforcement benefits the society (remember that is what you really wanted addressed. This is where that, Bajrang Dal jhapad and Short skirt related Islam-parast jhapad comes in. What about land acquisitions under urgency clause in Noida – what enforcement and what social benefits?).
2) that there are no laws which get made and then turn out unenforceable or nearly so (eg. independent directors can be appointed and/or fired and reappointed and/or re-fired, by citing that a person as being/not being, a man of integrity. Now what is integrity? If you claim that punishment is the enforcement mechanism, then what punishment would do justice if the integrity is under question. How do you enforce and what the hell do you enforce. Official secrets act and land related laws are a similar case. Armed forces laws can be even more hilarious at times),
3) that all laws are enforced (1000 laws that are being repealed),
4) that all manner of agreements get enforced if violated (what if an agreement or transfers/transmissions, depend on matters like, start of life or marriage or cruelty),
5) that enforcement is of the subject matter or is it of some tangential punishment (what if a hindu women simply refuses to give conjugal rights or parent-children issues or teacher-student issues or professional-client relations. What do you enforce in such cases and how does society get benefited by it),
6) that evidence is prime or evidence as admitted is prime,
7) that the courts cannot be check mated (courts cannot order anything illegal to impart justice even if it is a silly procedural matter and people do end up committing such mistakes, then there are known cases of frauds committed where one of the party had just missed understanding an obscure requirement – kind of like a legal sleight/distraction, right in front of you - what justice and how do you get enforcement and of what – mind you such fraudsters come well prepared)
8 ) that evidence is available to prove/disprove, the allegation. What if the only real evidence just slipped out of your hands and into the hands of your opponent. I have seen this happen.
9) that enforcement is not a regular commercial decision where a balancing of the cost-risks-rewards-time is to be considered.


Shiv ji, if merely the fact that formal enforceability is a real attraction, then I have no problem with it so long as it is personal law for the person claiming under it. But to claim that all people should only claim under such a law is a breach of trust of fellow citizens since it involves state coercion and for some groups including the indistinct groups at times, the state may only be an imposition merely requiring taquiya.

Besides there are multiple reasons for weakness of this supposed strong point, like:
1) there is no real enforcement against the enforcing authorities should they fail to enforce. A normal citizen can easily be buried in documentation. Are you satisfied with the conviction rates?
2) there is no guarantee of achieving justice on account of a successful enforcement. Justice becomes a defined expectation and not a reasonable expectation of justice. The system just declares for your benefit – ‘This is Justice’ . (seen some really strange judgements where say a non-bailable warrant is issued where only bailable can be issue, an old women who had disowned her sanyasi son could not evict her DIL who was illegally occupying the old women’s property, because the court in its wisdom asked the old women to trace the sanyasi son so he could be charged for his wives maintenance. This is a sign of too much work on the judges. It is not justice. So how do you approach the issue of enforcement in such cases)
3) the structure of law and its practice itself is so wishy-washy that it fails to inspire confidence (as above).
4) simply assumes authority from a notional date for no really logical reason, except that it is the convention to start it in that manner. Actually logic is discouraged in law. But sensibilities are a special consideration.
5) the statement of legislative intent is often subverted by differences in the political parties, what to mention of the different arms of the republic.
6) laws of any one form of governments (democratic/autocratic) never makes any transition provisions or even consider the possibility that the system of government itself may change (Islamic laws of Pakistan and what about Nepal).
7) an entire new class of justice requirements may arise which for various reason may remain unaddressed or the theoretical notion of what is justice itself may change while the law is providing for some archaic requirements.
8 ) the administrative machinery for generating evidence or enforcing orders, simply may not be there (self-assesses’ accounting departments and related reporting environment, government tax departments, monetary and human resource investments).
9) evidence concoction, tampering and judge management is rampant which is basically the same thing as buying the ‘Royal Certificate of Whiteness’ a old usage of a concept in Christian law.
10) Presumptions as to what constitutes evidence, chain of evidence and how it is to be admitted.
11) Presumptions as to judge made laws and rules of interpretation. This is a big mess. I can show you enough cases where these issues sap the lifeblood of the nation.
12) Presumptions as to delegations of powers by legislature (say of legislative rule making, or enforcement seizures – Is it not a merely vicarious presumption, that legislative intent is duly served).
13) Presumptions as to certificates and due administrative process prior to it.
14) Presumptions as to court proceedings like hearing dates and attendance.

Reason why law, as it is practiced dashes so many hopes and yet is abused as a negotiating tactic or extortion mechanism, is because it states that it ‘enforces’ compliance when in fact it has no non-vicarious hands to enforce it. This situation, because of this very fact, brings in control issues (political and non-political). If you have to rely on vicarious enforcement then how is it different from the Hindu law in respect of enforcement. What is the basis for reliance on the police but suspicion over one’s own King. And if there is none, then does it not mean that the issue in essence was about political control ab-initio. Baki sab demands/concerns kya drama nahi tha? And all this when those who profess by ‘The Law’, never take responsibility for miscarriage of it and instead just forward random platitudes.

[member_20317]

The British were against us and wanted to put us down.We and our philosophy were all too great for them and so they were jealous. They knew we were the source of everything on earth

But frankly, this explanation sounds like the sort of delusions of grandeur that are cooked up by a person who has been deeply insulted and does not know why it happened. I cannot swear that the explanation is wrong, but I would worry if this was offered as the only explanation "We we too great. The British were jealous". The explanation fails because our greatness failed us and after it failed us it gets difficult to claim that we were great but we lost. Yet another inane attitude would be "No actually we never lost. We survived"

if you look at Pakistan today - they come up with similar rationalizations about how great they were but lost, or that they have not lost. They survived. If Hindus need to do "mirror image explanations" that sound like Pakis, then both Pakis and Hindus have the same mental problem, with a helpless feeling of loss. It is a mental defence mechanism to retain a sense of balance after having one's butt kicked in.

Pisko saar .

[RajeshA]

A "law" is simply a line of words spoken or written by someone. It means nothing unless there is an enforcement mechanism. Of course there should also be a system of justice that ensures that the law, when enforced is fair. But let me ignore that.

A law cannot be called a law unless enforced. A loosely enforced law cannot be law; it is just a collection of words that suggest some action in reaction to some event

What religions like Christianity and Islam did was to take the laws they were given and built an entire system of enforcement around it. The western meaning of "law" therefore became something that was 100% sure to happen the minute a law was transgressed. Christians set up a Church and Muslims set up a formal Caliph, army and judiciary to enforce and propagate Islamic law.

I think the focus on "Laws" given by Religions is somewhat misplaced and misleading. It may be something they would want the others and may be the believers too to believe that it is all about Will of God. But that is a deliberate deception.

If one were to analyze the behavior of these Religions, one would observe that their main focus is on

1. Power & Influence
2. Allegiance to the Religion
3. Control of Society
4. Privileged Opt-out option from this Control

Implementing "Laws" given by God and the like is just hollow propaganda and not the main motive, and in analysis we should try to see beyond that.

JMHO

[ShauryaT]

imho,there are two views being articulated here cautioning about the strains developing in the claims of Hindu nationalism.One by Atriji that we are facing new pressures from population migration.Somewhat related to this is the view of ShauryaTji that the constitutional proclamations have little relation to reality.

The other view is HBjis view that we cannot rely on past to solve problems of today.Infact even shivji used to take a similar stand that 'Hinduism' arose in an agricultural society and we live in different times.

What new pressures of population migration are being referred to here? The only such I know of at a national level, is the pressure on urban centers. What has these pressures to do with nationalism?

The past does not exist to solve new problems of today, not in a direct manner anyways. The past exists to seek continuity in certain ever lasting values of this land. Values, principles and objectives that make us the longest continuing civilization in history. If we continue to believe in those values then it is our duty to tap into these value systems, appraise them and find a way to continue these values, IF we think they have served us well. IMO, the MOST humane and "universalist" civilization that ever existed. It will be a great shame to loose this heritage.

[RajeshA]

Why is history a protestant concept? Isn't the word 'history' having greek roots? How can anyone claim that the word 'history' is coined and defined by protestants?

Is it your claim that the definitions provided by the X-ists are most authoritative?

Wiki on etymology of 'history':

Ancient Greek ἱστορία[12] (historía) means "inquiry","knowledge from inquiry", or "judge". It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his Περὶ Τὰ Ζῷα Ἱστορίαι[13] (Perì Tà Zôa Ηistoríai "Inquiries about Animals"). The ancestor word ἵστωρ is attested early on in Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and in Boiotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness", or similar).

The word entered the English language in 1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story". In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" arose in the late 15th century. It was still in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the late 16th century, when he wrote about "Natural History". For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy).

Wiki Link

Coming to the meaning of the word 'History':

History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation") is the study of the past, particularly how it relates to humans. It is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. Scholars who write about history are called historians. Events occurring prior to written record are considered prehistory.

Link

If its about past and its written record, then its history. 'Pre-history' is supposedly about the time before the records could be written down. That means its about a time before the scripts were invented.

Very much correct.

1) Only "Recorded History" is History: "Recorded History" need not just be recorded by writing. The issue is one of minimum loss transmission over time. This can be done orally. This can be done by repeated copying of written texts from one medium to the next, as the mediums/media can degrade over time. So the argument that claims that a transmission is only as old as the parchment on which it is written or some stone slab on which it is inscribed or some coin on which it is engraved, does not hold enough water. It is a crude methodology for dating, and no definitive proof.

2) Only "Rational History" is History: "Something is rational" is more often a function of the ability of the Subject to see the rationality behind a claim than the nature of the claim itself. For the lossless and truthful transmission of some Itihas, it can be that the Composer used a number of tools of poetry, which may include symbolism, embellishments, exaggerations, rhyming, meter, deification, etc. Or may be the composer interwove multiple layers of semantics in his poetry, something for different audiences. All that can make deciphering the true semantics of the reading somewhat difficult, but that does not mean that whatever is written is less than completely rational, but what can one do if the reader cannot see the underlying rationality.

3) Only "Timestamped History" is History: In our Itihas, there are sufficient clues which indicate chronological information. However these timestamps using Yugas, Manvantaras and Sakas too may not be decipherable so easily today as we may have lost various sheet anchors. But just because this information may not be readily available to the modern decipherers, it doesn't mean that the story was written in an ahistorical way. It says more about our incapacity to decipher, rather than a failure of the composers to narrate our history.

There is no reason to treat Ramayana and Mahabharata as not historical.

And then it is not just these two Kavyas which are history. There is a lot more history written in various other inscriptions and texts, the genealogies of Barhadradhas, Pradyotas, Sisunagas, Nandas, Mauryas, Sungas, Kanvas, Andhra Satavahanas, Guptas, Panwars, Chelas, Cholas, and so many more. To all of them Ramayana and Mahabharata was their history, so why should we think differently. So it is not just that the question is about "Itihas" that is Ramayana and Mahabharata, but other historical writings which talk about all these dynasties. If we start disputing everything, then one day we may end up disputing the existence of MK Gandhi himself and calling it all pseudo-history, rather than true history.

We have very much a historical tradition and let's not deny it.

[shiv]

Reason why law, as it is practiced dashes so many hopes and yet is abused as a negotiating tactic or extortion mechanism, is because it states that it ‘enforces’ compliance when in fact it has no non-vicarious hands to enforce it.

Beautifully put.

ravi_g you have given some examples that probably illustrate the point I am trying to make. I don;t think I have anything to disagree with what you say, but nevertheless I am referring to a particular attitude towards the concept of "law" that comes from Christianity which is the attitude that you find in the west and a slightly different attitude towards the law that comes from Hindu systems that you find in India.

Let me try and illustrate that - starting with examples that you have quoted

Shiv ji, Law like medicine is a practice. Nothing is 100% sure to happen

This is an enlightened view that can bend in different ways depending on how "law" is viewed and used. In India a patient falls sick and comes to a doctor for help. "I am ill, I need your help" He expects help from the doctor and provided the doctor remains within the bounds of professional competence the patient does not blame the doctor for a less than optimal (less than 100%) result. This is India.

In America, the patient typically puts the burden of curing the patient on the doctor and are less understanding about disease processes that cannot be resolved 100%. The American patient says "I am ill, You cure me" What this leads to is that the law is used to try and pin responsibility on the doctor at the slightest excuse. I will not quote some of the more ridiculous cases, but in America the attitude is different. The law is brought to bear upon the doctor and make him culpable and to punish him in some way. These attitudes have diametrically opposite effects on the medical care system in India and the US (good and bad effects on both sides). And the difference is merely the "difference in attitude" in bringing laws to bear on doctors.

How many of us drink and drive in India, and how many drink and drive in the US or Europe. Losing licenses and being thrown in jail are commonplace in the west. Why? That is because the attitudes towards "law" is one of jihadi application. This "jihadi application" of the law is a fallout from Christianity and the concept of "divine laws" which states that God is an absolute monarch and his laws are absolute. It was enforcement of such "laws" that even led to killing of unbelievers and blasphemers that have shaped western attitudes to laws and their enforcement.

How scared are your friends and relatives in America of avoiding tax and being paid a visit by the IRS in Yamrika? how many try and evade tax in India, openly? Why does this occur? is this because Indians are "lawless" and Americans "law abiding", or is because the law is enforced rigidly in America?

So is there an "Indian attitude" to law? I quote you again:

Enforcement issues are something that people spend their lives trying to avoid. Even in cases where the agreements are entirely one sided.

Indian attitudes towards what we call "law" are less demanding of absolute enforcement. In fact it should be easy to draw a parallel between this attitude and Hindu views on life. Rigidity is not a Hindu characteristic. Nuances and exceptions are recognized, and even the concept of "dharma" does not demand the exact same behavior every time. It is a "balance of forces". The Mahabharata has many examples. Normally dharma calls for absolute obedience to one's mother. But Karna refuses his mother Kunti's request for him to join the Pandavas because he has already pledged allegiance to Duryodhana and owes a debt of gratitude to the latter.

In the west, attitudes towards law are taken from Christianity and the western definition of law is absolute. "Law" is an English word, like religion and history. The Indian attitude towards what we call "law" is different. From the Western Christian viewpoint the Indian attitude is not "law". This is what led to the accusation that Indians have no laws and that they are lawless.

i write this in the context of how differences in terminology and attitudes led to Hindus being given an undeservedly bad reputation.

What is an Indian equivalent of the word "law"? It is not kanoon.

I would think that "dharma" is more of a combined law+justice system than rigid law. In the former, the "sentence" or "enforcement" depends on the circumstances. The latter is a 1 or 0 binary.

[shiv]

I would think that "dharma" is more of a combined law+justice system than rigid law. In the former, the "sentence" or "enforcement" depends on the circumstances. The latter is a 1 or 0 binary.

Laws draw a line, a Lakshman rekha, that ought not to be crossed. When that line is crossed, the law is supposed to kick in automatically. Since humans are not inanimate objects like gases that obey physical laws, there are some intermediate steps between the law "kicking in" and something (eg punishment) happening

That "intermediate step" is a justice system

In theory, for laws to work all you need is the law breaker and the person who enforces the law. In practice, this can lead to injustice, so ideally, a justice system is needed in which the law breaker gets a chance to meet an intermediary - like a (impartial) jury or an (impartial) judge before he has to face the person who enforces the punishment.

So there are three components
1. Law
2. Justice system
3. Law enforcement

I tried to look for the word "law" in Sanskrit and found the words "vyavastha" and "vidhi". Both these words seem to mean more of a mechanism of a justice system than "law"

When I looked for the word 'justice" I found "dharma" and "nyaya"

I think that most thinking people will understand, upon reflection, that what people need is justice, not just laws.

Religions like Christianity and Islam laid down absolute laws mandated by God, the breaking of whose laws would absolutely lead to punishment upon accusation. It was, and remains draconian. Hindu-ism NEVER had such a system The Hindu system was justice, not rigid implementation of law. Laws are there, subject to justice. But we cheerfully equate Hindu law with Christian derived "laws". The way those "laws" are looked at is so totally different.

Once again this is a misunderstanding like "religion and "history"

Why don't we acknowledge that we (as Hindus) have evolved different systems and work to explain that rather than desperately trying to do same-same equal equal? That is what our Hindu forebears did out of ignorance and compulsion of colonization. We need to open our eyes.

[shiv]

Please pardon me folks for hammering again and again and again on the topic of differences in British and Indian perceptions of the meaning of Religion, History and Law. The topic is perfectly relevant and spot on with regard to the thread title, "Why is Hindu Nationalism spoken off in a pejorative sense?"

How does a Briton identify himself? Better still, how did a Briton between the years 1800 and 1930 see himself? Typically Britons were proud of their laws, their history and their religion. These were the things that "in their view" set them apart and made them special people, ahead of everyone else. Technology was not yet mature in the 1800s and in any case what was there was also there in the rest of Europe, so it was history, British laws and the system of governance and their Protestant religion that was part of the unique British identity and national pride.

When the British came to India they came with the pre-set notion that they were superior to the rest of the world in history, laws and governance and that this superiority was a natural consequence of their superior Protestant belief system that allowed much new thought outside of the fossilized Catholic system.

The British subjected Hindus to grilling about the things that the British thought were great about themselves.

Hindus were asked "What is your religion?" The Hindus, with no exact equivalent translation for "religion" said something and the British dismissed that as nonsense, not religion.

The British asked Hindus "Where is your history". The Hindus, again with no exact translation for the British sense of the word "history", answered something which the British dismissed as nonsense

The British confronted Hindus and questioned them about morality and laws. Hindus, with no exact translations of those words, answered something which the British dismissed because it did not fit their interpretation.

All in all the British dismissed everything about Hindus, religion, history, laws and morality as trash. And after doing that and after sucking out the economy, they set about re educating Hindus to the "right way" and those reeducated Hindus learned English and started working for the British as clerks, magistrates, managers, administrators, scribes, doctors and engineers. All these people developed a very low self esteem about Hindus and "Hindu-ism". Hindu-ism had a lot that was wrong and a lot to be apologetic about. Hindus had no religion, no history, no laws, no ethics.

But this is all so false, so unfair, so fake! We know that! Why did our forebears agree? They agreed because of failure of language and submission to the British way. It is high time we set these historic misconceptions right. Hindus were accused of having no religion, ethics, laws or history because of the reasons I have stated above. Bad translation, British jingoism, Indian submission. Not because there was no religion, ethics, history or laws among Hindus.

When Hindus get angry, the anger is termed the anger of losers who need to suck it up and learn to live with it. But that anger is no substitute for understanding. We have a duty to see Hindus as the British saw us to understand why they damned us, and then expand our vocabulary and expressiveness to point out the gross historic fallacies that have gone mainstream when the British accused Hindus of having no religion, history, laws or ethics.

it is Hindu anger that is dubbed as fundamentalism and angry Hindu nationalists are called fundamentalists. But unless supporters of Hindutva can open their brains to new thought, this is not going to change. i think we can do our country and culture a favour by turning the debate and the cliches upside down. We have an opportunity and we must grab it.

[member_22733]

IMVVHO anger is justified, so is grief. I am angry and I do grieve at what we lost. But that does not make me blind to things, I try to understand what the west is all about and then just as you said, turn the debate on its head.

The biggest battles I have fought on this very topic are with MacaulayPutras, some of which turned into heated arguments, with people in my family (including my own father). The amrus and the brishits I have debated with usually end up either not bringing this up again or accepting that their view of the other is racist bullshit. It never, ever gets as heated up as it does with Indian MacaulayPutras.

I have not tried to debate much with the other side (The 'Hinduism had everything, including quantum electrodynamics and relativity' types). I am sure it would get equally heated up there as well.

Anger and grieving is a justified reaction to what the Brishits and the Islamic fundoo Moguls did to us. It is like shitting on a beautiful painting. One has to feel sad and angry a bit for it. Now we have to scrub the shit off of it and see it as it was.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ This is not a battle over definitions or what the school textbooks say about "Praacheen Bharat". Historians typically say that history in India begins with Ashoka, who has the first date-able writings. They are date-able because some Ashokan inscriptions mention external personalities who are date-able. Everything before Ashoka is thus pre-history.

You can invent all the time-unstamped history that you want on BRF, unless you try to do what Rajiv Malhotra is doing and establish a foothold in the university/academia knowledge system, it won't make a difference as far as formal knowledge goes. Yes, it can make a difference at the ground level, e.g., what is taught, say in Ekal Vidyalayas, etc.

[A_Gupta]

Om Swasti Astu!

Project to save endangered Balinese language and script:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/17 ... sts/128651

[peter]

Please read this:

To the personal enemy of the Shaikhawat was intrusted the twofold duty of exacting tribute, and the demolition of the temple, the ornament of Khandela, whose chief, degrading the name of Bahadur (warrior), abandoned his capital ; and the royal army had arrived within two coss without the appearance of opposition. The news spread over the lands of the confederacy, that Bahadur had fled from Khandela, and that the Turk was bent on the destruction of its shrines.

It reached the ear of Shujawan Singh, the chieftain of Chapauli, a descendant of Bhojraj,the second son of Raesal. Imbued with all the spirit of this hero, the brave Bhojani resolved to devote himself to the protection of the temple, or perish in its defence. At the moment the tidings reached him, he was solemnizing his nuptials on the Marwar frontier. Hastening home with his bride, he left her with his mother, and bade both a solemn [396] farewell. In vain his kindred, collecting round him, dissuaded him from his design, urging that it was Bahadur Singh's affair, not his. " Am not I," he said, " also of Raesal's stock, and can I allow the Turk to destroy the dwelling of the Thakur (lord), and not attempt to save it ? Would this be acting the part of a Rajput?" As their entreaties were vain,they,to the number of sixty, resolved to accompany him, and share his fate. They were joined by a party of Bahadur's adherents, and succeeded in entering Khandela.

The imperial commander, to whom this unlooked-for opposition was reported, well aware of what a Rajput is capable when excited to action, and perhaps moved by a generous feeling at seeing a handful of men oppose an army, requested that two of their number might be deputed to his camp to confer with him. He told them,that not withstanding it was the king's command that he should raze the temple to the ground, he would be satisfied (if accompanied by proper submission) with taking off the kalas, or golden ball which surmounted its pinnacle. They endeavoured to dissuade him ; offered money to the utmost possible amount of their means ; but the answer was, " The kalas must come down." One of these noble delegates,no longer able to contain himself, exclaimed, "Break down the kalas ! " as with some moist clay at his feet he moulded a ball, which he placed on a little mound before him : and drawing his sword, repeated, " Break down the kalas ! I dare you even to break this ballofclay! " The intrepidity of this action gained the applause even of the foe, and they had safe -conduct to rejoin their brethren, and prepare them for the worst.

At this time, Khandela had no forti-fications ; there was, however, a gateway half-way up the hill in the route of ascent, which led to the place of residence of its chieftains, adjoining which was the temple. One party was stationed in the gateway, while Shujawan reserved for himself the defence of the temple, in which he took post with his kinsmen. When the mercenaries of the tyrant advanced, the defenders of the gateway, after dealing many a distant death, marched upon them sword in hand,and perished. When they pushed onto the chief object of attack, the band issued forth in small detached parties, having first made their obeisances to the image, and carried destruction along with them. Shujawan was the last who fell. The temple was levelled to the earth, the idol broken in pieces, and the fragments thrown into the foundation of a mosque erected on its ruins.There is hardly a town of note in Rajwara that has not to relate a similar tale of desperate valour in the defence of their household gods against the iniquitous and impolitic Aurangzeb.

This is how Hindu Dharm was defended. Love of God and his dwelling was supreme. To all who are arguing that somehow that a universal "Dharm" exists which people know is a fallacy. And the colonial influenced those who say Vedas were not written please have a chat with villagers who defended Hindu Dharm and learn something. Filling up reams and reams of web pages with same ape-turd ain't gonna move the ball forward.

And let me add that those who think that their was/is something "inherent" in Hindu "Dharm" which allowed "it" to "live" under the onslaught of the invaders ought to not be a laughing stock anymore!

[A_Gupta]

"Hindu Chauvinist" - the origin of the word "Chauvinist":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Chauvin

[member_22733]

^^^ This is not a battle over definitions or what the school textbooks say about "Praacheen Bharat". Historians typically say that history in India begins with Ashoka, who has the first date-able writings. They are date-able because some Ashokan inscriptions mention external personalities who are date-able. Everything before Ashoka is thus pre-history.

You can invent all the time-unstamped history that you want on BRF, unless you try to do what Rajiv Malhotra is doing and establish a foothold in the university/academia knowledge system, it won't make a difference as far as formal knowledge goes. Yes, it can make a difference at the ground level, e.g., what is taught, say in Ekal Vidyalayas, etc.

That is an interesting take. The deeper question is who is it that defines formal knowledge? If its Western Indologists then we better make them irrelevant, Modi style. But for that we would have to set the narrative, and for that we need money.

[A_Gupta]

Why Hindu Nationalism is spoken of in a pejorative sense? Because they don't do enough to suppress Hindu-Muslim riots (nor do other secular parties, except the Congress) - research from Yale University:
(draft of the paper):

http://nellis.commons.yale.edu/files/20 ... -India.pdf

[A_Gupta]

That is an interesting take. The deeper question is who is it that defines formal knowledge? If its Western Indologists then we better make them irrelevant, Modi style. But for that we would have to set the narrative, and for that we need money.

Which are the 100 top universities in the world?
Where does most of the world's academic research take place?
Who publishes the top journals in each field?
When peer-review is done, who are the "peers" who influence the reviews?
Which academic recognition systems have the most prestige?
etc.

It is not just a matter of money. BTW, Sheldon Pollock, whom Rajiv Malhotra thinks is wrong, is a Sanskritist who occupies a chair at Columbia University, funded by an R. Arvind.

The top hundred richest people in India are all billionaires (in dollar terms). If they wanted to, they could easily fund the appropriate effort. But why would they want to? Again, it is not a matter of money; it is a matter of civilizational effort, to set up all the facilities for (a) scholarship and (b) having a share as the gatekeepers of admitting what is knowledge. This is a long-term and sustained effort.

Where is the support for Hindu scholars to deep-dive Christian works the way the Western universities have deep-dived into Sanskrit, Itihaas, etc.? Heck, where is the support for Hindu scholars to deep-dive Hindu works? All we do is fight over German v. Sanskrit in Kendriya Vidyalayas.

It is here that a deeper dive into Rajiv Malhotra's works may help people understand the size of the challenge ahead of us. You don't have to agree with him, just understand the problem.

Section F, "Power Structure" of this rather old set of his notes may help with a beginning:
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITi ... ameset.htm

Since this is Bharat-Rakshak, I'd say that academic/knowledge power in today's world is much like military power. You can't just will it into existence.

What Modi is doing is more choosing to exert India's existing clout than the UPA sarkar did; whether he is able to expand India's clout remains to be seen. Modi has not made Western power irrelevant; and nor is it that easy to displace Western Indologists. Nor do statements by him or BJP leaders, such as "India conducted nuclear explosions lakhs of years ago" or "Ganesh's head is example of advanced surgery" at all help the case -- but they say this because their Hindutvavaadi supporters have cast Itihaas as factual history. Like it or not, this is seen in exactly the same way as Pakistan's water-powered car.

PS: I probably made a mistake by linking Malhotra's notes above, but since I've done it, I'll leave it in. Those notes from 2000 deal with Malhotra's rising awareness of the problem in the US. Since BRF is made of ultra-patriots, of course, they will just say so and magically render the US irrelevant; why is Malhotra so bothered about the US, after all? Well, Malhotra spends most of his time in India now, because in the last fourteen years he has learned a lot, and strategized a lot, and knows that the cure to so many ills lies in changing India. But the notes from 2000 apply just as much to Indian academia as to the US academia.

[peter]

Why Hindu Nationalism is spoken of in a pejorative sense? Because they don't do enough to suppress Hindu-Muslim riots (nor do other secular parties, except the Congress) - research from Yale University:
(draft of the paper):

http://nellis.commons.yale.edu/files/20 ... -India.pdf

Thanks! So Yale a top 100 school etc.

You seem to be smart and I have heard correlation ain't causation! Here is a great chance for someone to redo the analysis and point out the obvious mistakes in nellis' piece. He *is* wrong. I dont know science or math but I am sure here exist people who do.

"According to simulations, had Congress lost all close elections in the dataset—compared to its actual performance—India would have experienced 10 percent more Hindu-Muslim riots (1,118 instead of 998) and 46 percent more riot casualties (43,000 instead of 30,000) over the 40 years we investigate. The effect withstands numerous robustness checks making it, to our knowledge, the most watertight empirical finding yet uncovered about the causes of Hindu-Muslim violence in India."

What a bunch of ballowney!

[peter]

....
Where is the support for Hindu scholars to deep-dive Christian works the way the Western universities have deep-dived into Sanskrit, Itihaas, etc.? Heck, where is the support for Hindu scholars to deep-dive Hindu works? All we do is fight over German v. Sanskrit in Kendriya Vidyalayas.

...

Lack of vision!

[A_Gupta]

Why Hindu Nationalism is spoken of in a pejorative sense? Because they don't do enough to suppress Hindu-Muslim riots (nor do other secular parties, except the Congress) - research from Yale University:
(draft of the paper):

http://nellis.commons.yale.edu/files/20 ... -India.pdf

Thanks! So Yale a top 100 school etc.

You seem to be smart and I have heard correlation ain't causation! Here is a great chance for someone to redo the analysis and point out the obvious mistakes in nellis' piece. He *is* wrong. I dont know science or math but I am sure here exist people who do.

"According to simulations, had Congress lost all close elections in the dataset—compared to its actual performance—India would have experienced 10 percent more Hindu-Muslim riots (1,118 instead of 998) and 46 percent more riot casualties (43,000 instead of 30,000) over the 40 years we investigate. The effect withstands numerous robustness checks making it, to our knowledge, the most watertight empirical finding yet uncovered about the causes of Hindu-Muslim violence in India."

What a bunch of ballowney!

"For someone to do". Right. Who? Can you even get access to the basic data set of assembly election results, vote counts, demographics, riots? Where to publish the contrary results? It takes time and effort and expertise and resources - who is going to pay for it?

PS: the paper above is not some random production. It is the result of a research program.
E.g., see:
http://www.stevencrosenzweig.com/research
http://nellis.commons.yale.edu/

Gareth Nellis
Political scientist researching India, comparative politics, and political economy



I am a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Yale University. You can find my CV here. My dissertation addresses the causes and consequences of undisciplined political parties, with a focus on post-independence India.

In addition to my thesis, I am engaged in ongoing research with Nikhar Gaikwad that investigates discrimination against internal migrants in developing democracies.

Methodologically, I use simple econometric tehcniques that rely either on real experiments or some kind of naturally occurring randomization. I also conduct extensive qualitative fieldwork.

My work has been funded by the International Growth Centre, the Institute for Social and Policy Studies, the Macmillan Center at Yale, and the Leitner Program in Comparative and International Political Economy. As part of my PhD, I spent a year at the American Institute for Indian Studies in Jaipur, Rajasthan, studying Hindi.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~ng245/Home.html

[csaurabh]

What Modi is doing is more choosing to exert India's existing clout than the UPA sarkar did; whether he is able to expand India's clout remains to be seen. Modi has not made Western power irrelevant; and nor is it that easy to displace Western Indologists. Nor do statements by him or BJP leaders, such as "India conducted nuclear explosions lakhs of years ago" or "Ganesh's head is example of advanced surgery" at all help the case -- but they say this because their Hindutvavaadi supporters have cast Itihaas as factual history. Like it or not, this is seen in exactly the same way as Pakistan's water-powered car.

I will say one thing about this: Extremists define what is considered 'moderate'.
Because 'Hinduvaadis' make such statements, it is easy for a 'moderate' to say to a 'secular' Indian: Well, that stuff is nonsense. But you know, there is some cool mathematical stuff Indians did - and then follow up with something from Bhaskara etc.

Currently, the bar is slanted too far towards the left. This is why 'extremists' are necessary. Commie-sickular gang has convinced the vast bulk of Hindus that they do not have any history worth speaking of. Everything is a gift by British and West. Don't go by BRF please. Talk to other people.

[A_Gupta]

FYI: On twitter, I followed Sonia Faleiro, but was blocked after this exchange:

Sonia Faleiro:
"Lakhs of years ago Sage Kanad conducted a nuclear test" says BJP MP determined to take India back lakhs of years: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 93029.aspx

Me:
@soniafaleiro LOL, back to the Sat-Yuga, I suppose!
@soniafaleiro Tho ancients having technology lost till modern times is a bit more rational than parting of Red Sea or man rising from dead

I wouldn't have mentioned it except that I noticed this morning that this "liberal" has blocked me.

[member_22733]

Arun saar,

I agree with you on most of the things that you say above (we are sort of saying the same things). The goal i.e. the end goal, if our civilizational memory has to survive (in the forms of Itihaasa, Sanskrit, Puranas etc), is to take control of the narrative.

This narrative is set today by a colonial caste system, where a western individual (need not be white) sets the agenda and narrative and our sepoys duly propagate it to get brownie points. If a sepoy revolts, or decides to become a Field N***r (in Malcolm X's terms) then he is cut out of western funding. That is a rational thing to do for the west, as there is no use for that sepoy anymore.

How do we take control of who sets the narrative for the Hindus? To understand that we must first understand what we are up against, and that is where I am at right now. What have we really lost, what do we need to recover, what do I need to do to de-colonize myself.

Only when we have the clarity to look at the problem in that way can we formulate any strategy to counter the current colonial structure.

I dont have an answer to the question of how it can be done. I am only saying "It has to be done, if we were ever to survive". I must add that I am pessimistic of our future, unlike many here. I dont see this is as a lost cause, but the amount of brainwashed zombies we have to fight are quite a large number.

[A_Gupta]

I will say one thing about this: Extremists define what is considered 'moderate'.
Because 'Hinduvaadis' make such statements, it is easy for a 'moderate' to say to a 'secular' Indian: Well, that stuff is nonsense. But you know, there is some cool mathematical stuff Indians did - and then follow up with something from Bhaskara etc.

Currently, the bar is slanted too far towards the left. This is why 'extremists' are necessary. Commie-sickular gang has convinced the vast bulk of Hindus that they do not have any history worth speaking of. Everything is a gift by British and West. Don't go by BRF please. Talk to other people.

As a strategy, I disagree with this completely. When the center is sparsely occupied, you strive to take it over and occupy it, you don't stand up extremists to in order to define the center.

Your post of what the "moderate" should say to the "secular" reminded me of that twitter exchange with Sonia Faleiro that I posted above. So notice that "Rishi Kanada conducted nuclear experiments lakhs of years ago" is not admissible even as a statement of religious faith (i.e., my religion tells me that these nuclear experiments happened just as yours tells you Jesus was resurrected). Comparison with the parting of the Red Sea for Moses, or Jesus' resurrection is bad manners, though, as I said, at least the Rishi Kanada belief has nothing to do with supernatural.

[A_Gupta]

LokeshC,

I'm optimistic because
(a) otherwise the effort of living is not worth it, and
(b) it just takes one strong wind to blow away all the clouds.

Each of us must do what we can, and keep the space open for new Sankaras, Vivekanandas, and such to survive their childhood.

[peter]

Why Hindu Nationalism is spoken of in a pejorative sense? Because they don't do enough to suppress Hindu-Muslim riots (nor do other secular parties, except the Congress) - research from Yale University:
(draft of the paper):

http://nellis.commons.yale.edu/files/20 ... -India.pdf

Thanks! So Yale a top 100 school etc.

You seem to be smart and I have heard correlation ain't causation! Here is a great chance for someone to redo the analysis and point out the obvious mistakes in nellis' piece. He *is* wrong. I dont know science or math but I am sure here exist people who do.

"According to simulations, had Congress lost all close elections in the dataset—compared to its actual performance—India would have experienced 10 percent more Hindu-Muslim riots (1,118 instead of 998) and 46 percent more riot casualties (43,000 instead of 30,000) over the 40 years we investigate. The effect withstands numerous robustness checks making it, to our knowledge, the most watertight empirical finding yet uncovered about the causes of Hindu-Muslim violence in India."

What a bunch of ballowney!

"For someone to do". Right. Who? Can you even get access to the basic data set of assembly election results, vote counts, demographics, riots?

Who is TBD. But could be someone here from the math forum or other smart ones here. Data is easy. Ask the author he should have no problems in giving the data.

Where to publish the contrary results? It takes time and effort and expertise and resources - who is going to pay for it?

Publishing could first be done here on this site and a note sent to the author Nellis telling him that he is wrong and this is the evidence.

Pay for it is not an issue. Statistical analysis over an evening is not more then a couple of beer.

[RajeshA]

Following are some posts that I found by searching on "anger" and "shame" in this thread.

Link

But Hindus were not eliminated. We Hindus tend to be very proud of this, but that is a mistake. What has been done is to create a sense of self hate in us. Our secularists are a part of the self haters, but even Hindutvavadis are part of the problem. They are not self haters, but they are aggrieved and angry people who do not have the words and means to express why these accusations are wrong. And it is expressions of anger that cause them to be accused of being violence prone.

Hindutva vadis may not be self haters, but they are just as hurt and ashamed about what was said about our past. In order to climb out of this deep sense of shame Hindus desperately try to deny and fight against all the accusations made

Link

I also dislike the Hindutva attitude of explanations emerging from a deep sense of hurt and anger and complete ignorance of how words and meanings with a European Christian context were used to smear us. We have learned no new words and we are trying to use the same words to turn the tables round. Its like knowing only the words "bad" and "stupid" that have been used to describe us, and then trying to wrestle with those words to say how we were good and smart and how the words "bad" and "stupid" actually mean good and smart in our dictionary. We need an increased vocabulary and an increased desire to use our own words (like dharma and itihaasa) and explain them in language that does not use the old words like religion and history.

Our inability to reframe the problem in a universally comprehensible language has led to a secular vs hindutva fight. It is not because the seculars are stupid and Hindutva vadis are clever. Both unfortunately are emerging from their mental colonization with different views but both are totally ignorant of what it was that caused them to develop this deep sense of shame. It was an original Hindu inability to express himself to a racist sceptical British ruler in his terms. But at least now we can express ourselves right - but we need to do our homework for that, and not come up with inane excuses or denials.

Link

When Hindus get angry, the anger is termed the anger of losers who need to suck it up and learn to live with it. But that anger is no substitute for understanding. We have a duty to see Hindus as the British saw us to understand why they damned us, and then expand our vocabulary and expressiveness to point out the gross historic fallacies that have gone mainstream when the British accused Hindus of having no religion, history, laws or ethics.

it is Hindu anger that is dubbed as fundamentalism and angry Hindu nationalists are called fundamentalists. But unless supporters of Hindutva can open their brains to new thought, this is not going to change. i think we can do our country and culture a favour by turning the debate and the cliches upside down. We have an opportunity and we must grab it.

I would like to use the above noted sentiments to make a general criticism, and this is please not to be mistaken as some sort of personal criticism or sign of disrespect.

I would term above category of expressions as the "Menstruating Woman Attack".

Basically the attempt is to project
- emotionality and thus
- lack of balance,
- lack of rationality,
- impotent anger, and
- frustration onto the Hindutvavadi.

Such an accusation allows the other to claim superior rationalism and balance, and based on it to claim that one's arguments are more logical and superior, while the others arguments and responses simply fall apart simply due to their coming from ignorant and unbalanced minds, in this case minds of Hindutvavadis.

Now why am I raking up this aspect of the discussion here? I am because like by umpteen ideological fronts before, I feel even here, unknowingly perhaps, an effort is being made to delegitimize the Hindutvavadi opinion.

Often it is done by some party or the other trying to occupy the middle ground and putting Hindutvavadis down. If Hindus had a problem with Islamic rulers, then British pushed themselves into the equation, and claimed to be neutral arbitrators. If Hindus had a problem with the British, then an assortment of Seculars, Dhimmis, Macaulayists and Marxists with Hindu-sounding-names pushed themselves in between, and claimed to represent us, but ended us putting us down. When Hindus were able to unmask this dirty lot, now it seems a whole lot of Hinduists are pushing themselves in between, claiming to uphold the interests of Hindus, trying to mediate between Seculars and Hindutvavadis, cursing Seculars and calling Hindutvavadis as irrational to earn the confidence of both.

As I have said earlier, Hinduists for me are those who disclaim that "Hinduism", "Sanatana Dharma" is deeply rooted in Bharatvarsha through Itihas and thus through sacred geography, and who treat our Sanskriti as an exportable commodity where they can leave out the label in boldface, "Made in India". Secondly in order to make "Hinduism" more easily exportable, effort is made to dumb it down, chop off the thorns; in order to make "Hinduism" more easily digestible, effort is made to lessen the hotness, the chilli content of "Hinduism", shoo away all those Hindutvavadis who give "Hinduism" a bad name, either through chauvinism, intolerance and violence or by making preposterous statements of nuclear technology in Pracheen Bharat. Thirdly what Hinduists seek is equality with West, respect from West, not ideological or civilizational confrontation, for such a posture may not be liked by those whom they wish to lure with and sell Ādhyātma.

Now the above expressions, I wouldn't necessarily categorize as Hinduist arguments, but the high middle ground is being sought nevertheless to delegitimize Hindutva opinion.

The main reason remains: If one considers one's identity to be based on "Hinduism" or "Sanatana Dharma", the Religion, then Hindutvavad's activities cast a shadow on its antecedents as a tolerant religion from which followers of "Hinduism", the Hinduists like to distance themselves from and seem to have a difficulty to shake Hindutvad's image off.

So Hinduists now have started giving explanations for Hindutvavadis, the same way Moderate Muslims give explanations for the conduct of Taliban: Hindutvavadis are hurt, angry, riven with shame, and so they have become reactionary, but they are still WRONG. How can emotionally charged people be rational and right? And yes, just like Taliban have certain grievances against the West, for West's interventions in the affairs and politics of the Muslim world, so too have Hindutvavadis a certain right to be angry and show impotent anger! BUT their ideology does not mean "Hinduism" is intolerant, just like Taliban's actions does not mean that Islam is any less a Religion of Peace.

Bottomline for others is: Hindutvavadis are WRONG, both in resorting to aggressive postures as well as making "impossible" claims about Pracheen Bharat!

It is not Hindutvavadis that suffer from shame and anger. It is the Hinduists who suffer from shame and anger, shame and anger at their "co-religionists" making irrational statements and by resorting to violence, bringing a bad name to their beloved Religion "Hinduism"! And in whose eyes do Hindutvavadis bring a bad name? In the eyes of the West of course, for that remains the standard of objectivity and modernity for them!

In the future too, there will be a lot of apparently "fantastic" statements that would be made by Hindutvavadis about technological progress in Pracheen Bharat. And the only way others would respond is through ridicule and through their own shame! But the fact is that NOBODY can logically falsify any of the statements that Hindutvavadis make based on a certain reading of our texts. At least in favor of Hindutvadis would be the text, the Śabda as Pramāṇa. In favor of "Rational Modern Man" there is nothing other than theories of historical evolution of mankind based on Christianist and Colonial worldviews. The Hindutvavadi does not need to feel ashamed for any such claims. Yes the Hinduist would run and hide his face and act apologetically for lack of rational thinking of his "co-religionists".

In the future too, there will be many acts of violence committed by Hindutvavadis. If they can make the case these to be against Adharma and Rāṣṭra-Drōha, other Hindutvavadis would feel proud. Yes the Hinduist would again run and hide his face and look ashamed at the apparent intolerance of his "co-religionists".

It is not shame and anger that drives Hindutvavadis, but rather a sense of self, a sense of pride in self. It is not false pride. It is simply pride. And our pride in ourselves is not dependent in how pejoratively others call us. They simply don't have the intellectual caliber and unbiased sense to judge us! The only frustration of Hindutvavadis is with the Secularist grip on media and education in India. Basically the Hindutvavadi is forward-looking, solution-oriented, otherwise one would be seeing similar protests with Hindu rage-boys in India against Britain and West every other day.

It is the Hinduists who are the unhinged lot and feel Western eyes always watching them, whereas it is mostly their own eyes watching themselves through a Western perspective. It is the Hinduists who feel that the West treats them with somewhat disdain, either due to the activities of their "co-religionists", the Hindutvavadis, or because the West has "misunderstood" "Hinduism", perhaps due to failure of Western categories to better capture and appreciate our culture, and it is the job of Hindus to better explain ourselves to the West.

Yes Hindus are always ready to explain ourselves to others, but that is only to raise others to Āryatva, and not to justify ourselves to others. May be right now due to a thousand years of social degradation, even Hindutvavadis may not see the main priority to be to spread Āryatva, as we may be more concerned and preoccupied with protecting and strengthening the core. Should then intellectual Hinduists go around talking Hindutvavadis down as lacking an international perspective and thus being frogs in the well? I think not!

[shiv]

I would term above category of expressions as the "Menstruating Woman Attack".

Basically the attempt is to project
- emotionality and thus
- lack of balance,
- lack of rationality,
- impotent anger, and
- frustration onto the Hindutvavadi.

<snip>

Yes Hindus are always ready to explain ourselves to others, but that is only to raise others to Āryatva, and not to justify ourselves to others. May be right now due to a thousand years of social degradation, even Hindutvavadis may not see the main priority to be to spread Āryatva, as we may be more concerned and preoccupied with protecting and strengthening the core. Should then intellectual Hinduists go around talking Hindutvavadis down as lacking an international perspective and thus being frogs in the well? I think not!

Rajesh I can accept your argument as good rhetoric to put up against another argument, but it does not go any further than rhetoric.

Perhaps you have not seen the point yourself?

The point is not to explain to others, but to explain to ourselves what we are. It is my view that Hindus don't know themselves. The woman does not realize she is menstruating.

I use the expression "angry Hindus' because all that I have seen angry Hindus do is simply rehash arguments in the language used by the British to describe us. We see and speak of ourselves through their eyes and try to deny that. We need to see them though our eyes. Right now we see them thought their eyes just like we see us through their eyes. We have absorbed their views. We need to ertrieve our eyes and it can only be done by a mental roll-back This is not about you personally.

i repeat yet again that unless we start seeing the world the way the British saw it we cannot understand what they have done to us and roll back the things they made us do and think. We are not only in metaphorical denial where we deny the accusations, we are in real denial of deep ignorance of wtf hit us. This is bad and rhetoric about how it is OK to be angry will not go very far. The Brits and WU would not have gone so far if it has not been able to screw up a whole lot of indigenous people (including Indians) by messing with their culture and then giving them a language that opened technology and jobs to them.

We have to make a real effort to speak to each other convincingly about why we should use words like itihaas and dharma when we discuss Indian culture and history with each other. Right now I see only a cargo cult type of acceptance because in our hearts when we say "itihaasa" we actually mean history and when we say "dharma" we don't know what we are talking about. That is why it is so easy for us to fall back into the comfort zone of words like History, religion, laws and ethics. Most Hindus, menstruating or not do not know why this matters.

Fundamentally no Indian has done a convincing analysis in English, addressed to English speaking Indians of the significance itihaasa has to us or how we tend to operate at a "dharma" level where we tend to apply laws "loosely" as we are judgemental. i am not saying our judgement is wrong - but we have a living culture that embodies both itihaasa and dharma in subtle ways that we educated English speakers cannot easily recognize. I have had a discussion about that on this very page. This culture cannot be understood in western terminology. To "belong" to India we need to change the framework of debate. And I assure you that when we start doing that we will find even more vicious attacks than this "menstruating" analogy. We may not even like what we find. I will dig out bits in due course on this thread and let's see what reactions we get. We are colonized to the core. Getting out ain't gonna be easy. We are pisko-checkmated. That is why WU is spreading and we are worried and thrashing about.

[shiv]

I think that if we are going to protect what we are, it might be a good idea to understand what we are without getting upset or mocking about what we may find.

I am not at all sure that we would be telling the truth if we did not look at ourselves and our people honestly and if we start worrying about what we might find because it does not necessarily gel well with what we have been taught to accept of people and culture. And I am not speaking of rape or peeing in public.

Let me take a few examples of what we say on BRF on the lines of "we are like that onlee"

1. Why do Indians call each other with respectful terms like "sir" and "ji" and what is it that makes some of us feel that this is unnecessary?

2. Why do Indians fail to line up in a queue? Why are other Indians embarrassed by that?

3. Why do Indians drive on the wrong side of the road?

4. Do Indians have a sense of justice outside the Indian penal code? If yes can you give some examples? Anecdotes will do

Let us start with this to define what our people are. We may play with hifunda words like itihaasa anot history and dharma not law. But the British did not wipe everything clean just like tens of generations of blacks in America have not had some vestigial African culture wiped clean

[ShauryaT]

4. Do Indians have a sense of justice outside the Indian penal code? If yes can you give some examples? Anecdotes will do

Most emphatically yes. Lesson 101, for doing business in India, even for large business. Contracts are a good insurance, however relationships are everything. For, if and when, there is a dispute, it is these relationships that help settle a dispute.

90%+ of the small business in India is done without any contract. The sense of justice for a dispute is mostly settled by a group of peers.

MOST family disputes in India are settled "outside" of the law. The sense of justice again comes from a judgement of peers/elders/respected - not by an alien court and judge.

There is a reason why even Sharia courts seem popular, as the judgment is from a community imam, who knows the issues and people and is local and not an alien. It is not about the religion based sharia law but local access.

The penal code is seen as too stark and alien, impersonal, draconian and corrupted.

For a more detailed reading of the matter:

2. Conclusion
The British while justifying their colonial rule in Indian claimed Indians lacked civilized system of self rule and their presence in this country gave India a sense of justice and rule of law. Many Indians today hold these views in their heart. These views are not only incorrect but they are blatant lies. The British supplanted ancient Indian law and introduced in its place their own system of law. One has to understand that this was not a simple change of laws but was the imposition of a totally alien philosophy, understanding of human nature, belief system, and way of life and concept of polity. This was and is a mismatch. Both Civil as well as Criminal Law administration during British regime is worse and blind observance of which even after independence is more than worse.

There were multiple reasons why British Legal System is not suitable to India,

2.1 Present Legal System had its origins in the dominant philosophy of Britain of those days. It is based on the notion of an Austinian state, where a single monarch or a power had all the power which was indivisible. All powers devolved from top down. That was the structure of the modern nation state that the British were familiar with. So there was centralization of legislative authority and executive authority. Seeing a region with multiple states was itself a shock to them having come from a unitary one. On top of it to have multiple legal systems, where different castes and religions had their own institutions was quite alien to them. So one of the things they tried to bring is certainty and uniformity in the law; certainty and uniformity in the judicial and legal institutions they created. That homogenization itself was a major shock to Indians. The judicial system is one part of the legal system. A legal system would involve all the laws, norms, standards that are laid down to determine what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect. It would also involve all that goes to enforce the legality: that is the Courts, police, jails etc.

2.2 It was profoundly disturbing to the Indian masses that they set up these specialized Courts manned by people trained in law with so called independent judges. That itself was a cultural shock for the people of India, because till that time, if you look at the existing dispute resolution systems, typically at the village level, one had the Panchayat system. Panchas would be notables who would be known locally. They were not appointed by state as we understand today. By the British yardstick they would not be ‘independent’ as they would be members of the community. The idea of an independent judge comes from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and it requires that the judge’s mind is a tabula rasa, a clean slate, with respect to the dispute and he only allows his mind to register that which is ‘relevant’ to the dispute. The medium by which the judge appreciates facts or the evidence is through the two lawyers representing either side. What they bring into the Court largely determines the final outcome. So who should be allowed to address the Court; complex rules of evidence concerning who could step into the witness box; what matters can be addressed and so on, became very important. For example, unless one’s own eyes or ears had seen or heard the transaction, one could not testify and one could testify only with regard to that particular transaction. Whereas in the panchayat, which was held in the open, anybody who had even fringe knowledge could speak. They did not have to go through this filter of ‘is this relevant, are you worthy’. Therefore you had a sense of participation and anybody could speak. With the new system however, one had a judge who was not known to the parties, which was seen as virtue in the English system but was alien to Indians; it goes without saying that the language of the Court was English and one had to hire a lawyer and so on. The new Courts had very strict rules of relevancy. Many of these continue till today. Thus new Courts with their very specialized rules of evidence which were manned by very technical judges, and where you would have to place your full faith in the vakeel, who alone would be the voice that would speak in the Court, made the system inaccessible to Indians. Thus, in all these area: the choice of the judge, who could testify, regarding what they could testify, the location of the Court and so on, all these things were alien and the process alienating. In the old panchayat, even if you were not of the ‘high caste’, you could sit or stand up. Further Judgment today’s Courts is in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ form, whereas, the panchayats always negotiated, with no clear winner or loser. Panchayats were willing to find a mid-ground so that all could save face. People were used to that system, where you would not lose everything but some form of justice would be done. So that you did not have a win-lose but a win-win situation. In Panchayat system the solution gave a lot of discretion to the decision makers to decide what would best serve the ends of justice. So long as their decision was not out of sync with vyavahara as practiced, they had a whole range of flexibility. In contrast, for the British, the ‘certainty of law’, that it was fixed before the dispute came into being, was seen as a major virtue.

2.3 The administration of Criminal Justice was not also well founded in India, the police can oppress with impunity. During British rule the visit of a police darogah (officer) to a native villager is a calamity. If a robbery is committed, the poor are afraid to complain; if anyone is wanted as a witness, he is taken for several days from his labor and treated as a prisoner; if a criminal, or suspected criminal, is arrested, he is at once presumed to be guilty, and is very probably tortured to confess.... The insecurity of property induces all who can afford it, to hire watchman, in fact, bludgeon men, of their own; and these, whenever occasion requires, are of course used as agents of any amount of violence and oppression.... The people sink under the weight of fear, and their natural cowardice is increased by a sense of hopelessness of resistance. Justice is to a large extent, practically denied them; the land-holders and the police are chief powers they know; and they are hunted by both, till they surrender themselves to servility, to despair. Even after 65 years of Independence Justice Administration of justice in India never satisfied the aspiration of people, this is because wrong selection of foreign made legal structure, application of discontent laws, discarding indigenous system of justice administration.

The Legal system in ancient India

Added: Actually the last part is a good test. The sense of security people feel in a system/area is tested by how much they have to do to guard their properties. The less you have to do, the more secure one feels. This aspect has multiplier effects. Example in Pakistan, girls from close knit jatis (yes, even Pakistan has them) feel secure to go to school and hence are more educated compared to girls who feel insecure and from communities where jatis are not as close knit.

[csaurabh]

The word 'Law' cannot be translated into any Indian language. ( kanoon does not count - urdu ). 'Niyam' or 'rule' come closest.

Here is an anecdotal situation. I am sure most of you would have seen things like this.

Case A: A professor occupies an 'important post'. He is rude and dismissive of everyone. He does not produce any research worth speaking of and is a terrible teacher. Everyone dislikes him. Yet he continues to occupy this 'post' and make everyone miserable until he is retired at the age of 65.

Case B: A professor is excellent at research and teaching. Everyone likes him. But he has reached the age of 65 and must be retired.

It is very obvious, that this is a case where 'nyaya' ( justice ) is more important than 'niyam' ( rules ).

Usually, therefore, the 'rule book' will contain clauses like: considering the circumstances, the period can be extended blah blah or can be relieved of duty because of misbehavior blah blah.

Now try to put this vague 'rule' into practice. What happens? A subcommittee will be formed, which will push papers back and forth and ultimately the decision will fall on some person, some where.

Now we hit the next stumbling block which is called 'politics'.

The word 'politics' has no translation in Indian language. We often call it 'raajniti', but what that means is 'niti' ( governance ) of a rajya ( state ). A king can practice rajniti. But he is not a 'politician'. 'Neta' is another popular translation. But 'neta' just means 'leader'. Not 'politician'.

Why is this important? Because in the British system of democracy, 'politicians' are ultimately responsible for everything. Not only that, but even where it is not required, we play politics. Everywhere. Being politically connected is more important than competence, sometimes.

Ultimately everything in the world comes down to one person and his sense of 'nyaya'. I am strongly of the belief that every good decision in the world is made by good people on the basis of 'nyaya' and 'naitikta' ( morality ). 'Niyam' ( rules) and 'Niyat' ( policy ) are guidelines, at best.

Some morons will argue that in order to 'fix' the system is to create 'another' system like a Lokpal who will put checks and balances on it. This works to some extent, but it too is inherently flawed. Ultimately, a system is only as good as the people who run it.

The whole concept of our 'itihaasa' and 'dharma' is to create stories and draw conclusions from them which influence the way we think. Swami Vivekanand says, for example, that if a child never steals anything before the age of 12 , he will probably never steal in his life. That is the essence of ancient Indian education. It has nothing to do with memorizing sentences.

The 'Christian' approach to this is to issue 'laws' in the form of 'commandments' such as 'Do not kill'. These laws are notoriously vague ( for example, does this apply to humans, or plants? animals? non believers? people of a different race? ) and worse usually are too rigid. Hindu ethos on the other hand teaches us that it is perfectly okay to kill even your own brother, if the circumstances demand it. That is the Bhagwad gita says in the Mahabharata war.

A good part of the reason why most government sector ( and even private sector to some extent ) are screwed is because 'niyam' is being implemented by people who are totally untrained to think on the basis of their 'naitikta' , 'nyaya' and 'netritiva'.

It is very important to note down and discuss the defects of the western world which by the way they really do understand but have no answer for. This is because they think on the basis of 'Christianity' or some empty 'athiest' philosophy which are imperfect at best. I suggest creating a discussion in the WU thread to deconstruct 'Western methods of doing things' particularly by using their own articles ( which often find a reasonably good diagnosis, but no cure ). In the fields of:

Politics
Law
Medicine
Education
Business
Religion
History
etc.

There is a lot of juicy stuff we can really dig into. The TV show 'yes Minister' is a good example of how 'politics' in the Western world works, and whether this is really a model which we want to adopt for our society.

[ShauryaT]

Some morons will argue that in order to 'fix' the system is to create 'another' system like a Lokpal who will put checks and balances on it. This works to some extent, but it too is inherently flawed. Ultimately, a system is only as good as the people who run it.

This has been an age old debate amongst many thinkers of India. Good people can make a system of governance like the one we have work. While I have no doubt that there needs to be a deliberate effort made to ensure that good people are elected/posted to public offices, I am equally convinced that good people alone cannot make an inherently alien system ill suited for our polity just work. Lokpal - is moronic and not about checks and balances but about creating another alienated bureaucracy without representations and lax accountabilities.

[shiv]

Excellent posts ShauryaT and csaurabh.

Indians have an innate sense of justice - not because of genetics, ASI and ANI genes or because of Central Asian genes. A sense of justice rather than searching for laws comes in our culture and passed on in our stories and legends - taken from the smritis.

Laws are fundamentally dumb, and always need to be implemented depending on circumstances. That is called justice. The law is one thing, a sense of right and wrong is essential for laws to be applied justly and Indian culture inculcates a judgemental attitude of right and wrong so that disputes and disagreements can be handled at a local level. This is just the sort of thing the British and top-down "law imposing" societies would hate.

In India a purse snatcher, if caught gets beaten to within an inch of his life, but may or may not be handed to the police. if he is handed to the police the person gets caught in a web of legalities and bureaucracy and ultimately gets away with a light sentence or no sentence for lack of 'evidence' or lack of FIR. chances are that the police too give him a whack or two before releasing him. This is called lawlessness. But it is also justice in the absence of a superintending authority - the "top-down" God is supreme type laws that the Brits imposed.

In fact order is maintained by respect and common sense. The road is being used by handcarts, cattle and vehicles. All have a right to pass. All must pass. the path of least resistance is always the best route rather than a rigid left and right.

About queues, everyone must exit from one narrow door. yes. Everyone will exit. There is no "rank" in the system Those who are in a hurry will go sooner and will get out sooner.

Rigid rules when imposed create a fear of the law enforcing authority and lead to "law abiding societies" India has its own system of common sense and justice, courtesy and politeness. It was there before the Brits came and it has outlasted them. Only, it chafes when you are taught that the top down law abiding system is the best and that Indians are unruly.

It is the imposition of the idea that the western sourced top-down "everyone must abide by THE law laid down by THE authority" is the best is what adds to Indian self hate. Once you buy that idea, all Indians look unruly and lawless.

[member_20317]

Please read this:

<snip>

This is how Hindu Dharm was defended. Love of God and his dwelling was supreme. To all who are arguing that somehow that a universal "Dharm" exists which people know is a fallacy. And the colonial influenced those who say Vedas were not written please have a chat with villagers who defended Hindu Dharm and learn something. Filling up reams and reams of web pages with same ape-turd ain't gonna move the ball forward.

And let me add that those who think that their was/is something "inherent" in Hindu "Dharm" which allowed "it" to "live" under the onslaught of the invaders ought to not be a laughing stock anymore!

Peter ji while I have difference with you on some issues but those are either a logical contest type or when you just come in shooting you six gun.

You are right that the Ishta when established is to be defended. Only an invalid/fallen Rajput will turn his back. If this basic thing is not understood then at least for kshatriyas, all the universities and all the books are just worth a Coke and wafers. Ishta aradhaya, womenfolk, children, ancestors, is the only real university and our Dharm towards them the only real course of study, for a Kshatriya. Hell merely the womenfolk in our country would be more than all the minorities combined (for whose sensibilities we must be willing to squeez ourselves into a pipe ). Probably these womenfolk are in far more difficult a condition but it still may never be entertained in certain quarters. In such a case would it be wrong to entertain the thought that probably it is not the time or probably the intent is to avoid these.

Basically you have got to enjoy your stay and choose for yourself, just as those clear minded rajputs did when their time to act came. Our real deal are our people, mostly poor rickshaw puller, kaamwali, our business community, our teachers, our forests, our rivers, our land, our Ishta. But in all cases our. Our and those ‘ours’ that we have established. Probably these are our real universities and our commitment to these ‘ours’ is our real yagyan. Probably just probably that is why a lay Hindutva vaadi does not care for why, Hindu Nationalism is a pejorative. For those who are estranged we can at best try that our existence does not bind them in a situation where a regular unprepared person feels 'pushed' into a Jauhar. Would you agree that this later requirement, to not push the unprepared, is necessary.

My humble wish is that you do take time to notice that there are always people in India who would dispute everything that is worth disputing from the Hindu viewpoint, in deeds. And in such forums where you can only talk and not use your shool, in words.

99.99% of India has chosen its way regardless of what the top 100 university departments think or say. Surely that should carry some weight in your opinion.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting from "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

What Abrahamic religions did was to try and eliminate the possibility of a king who would not impose morality. This was done by appointing a "permanent King" - a God, whose moral rules were handed down via a Prophet or some such means. But there was no point in appointing such a "God" unles the moral rules could be imposed. That is how religious "laws" came into existence. That is how, in Abrahamic religions, there came to be absolute rules that would invariably invite punishment if they were not followed. It is obvious that anyone who does not like this situation will try and leave the reigion. That is why Christianity and Islam came up with the concept of a law that ensures punishment if you do not join and stay within the religion. These absolute laws that enforced morality/good behavior/conformity were borrowed for the basis of "laws" and "legal systems" of all nations nowadays where "goverment" replaces "God"

It should really be a no brainer to understand that you need absolute laws that force people to follow your rules only when you want to be an absolute dictator. Abrahamic single Gods are positioned exactly like absolute dictators, although no one calls them that. Calling those Gods "dictators" would automatically invite a death sentence. Hinduism is nothing like this

Exactly!

Link

12. Feudalism is the primary or sole philosophical principle. In religion God is modeled on a Feudal Lord projected onto the transcendental plane.

[csaurabh]

In fact order is maintained by respect and common sense. The road is being used by handcarts, cattle and vehicles. All have a right to pass. All must pass. the path of least resistance is always the best route rather than a rigid left and right.

About queues, everyone must exit from one narrow door. yes. Everyone will exit. There is no "rank" in the system Those who are in a hurry will go sooner and will get out sooner.

With respect Shiv, I must disagree here.

Traffic rules are primarily about safety, not 'law'. Pulling into the path of incoming traffic is a sure recipe for disaster where speeds are very high. In small lanes or where traffic is slow, yes, it doesn't matter.

We do not have this concept in our itihaasa because the technological circumstances were not like that. If it were , we would surely have stories along the following lines: This guy broke traffic rules. See what happened to him.

As far as queues go, the system is fundamentally that of efficiency in times of shortage. When you have a very large number of people and too few to serve them, the queue ensures efficiency and fairness in that the person eventually will be served. This shortage was created by British colonization ( before, we used to be a land of plenty ). And we have to live with it right now.

Just because WU is wrong about most things doesn't mean we can't learn some things from them.

[shiv]

In fact order is maintained by respect and common sense. The road is being used by handcarts, cattle and vehicles. All have a right to pass. All must pass. the path of least resistance is always the best route rather than a rigid left and right.

About queues, everyone must exit from one narrow door. yes. Everyone will exit. There is no "rank" in the system Those who are in a hurry will go sooner and will get out sooner.

With respect Shiv, I must disagree here.

Traffic rules are primarily about safety, not 'law'. Pulling into the path of incoming traffic is a sure recipe for disaster where speeds are very high. In small lanes or where traffic is slow, yes, it doesn't matter.

We do not have this concept in our itihaasa because the technological circumstances were not like that. If it were , we would surely have stories along the following lines: This guy broke traffic rules. See what happened to him.

As far as queues go, the system is fundamentally that of efficiency in times of shortage. When you have a very large number of people and too few to serve them, the queue ensures efficiency and fairness in that the person eventually will be served. This shortage was created by British colonization ( before, we used to be a land of plenty ). And we have to live with it right now.

Just because WU is wrong about most things doesn't mean we can't learn some things from them.

Your disagreement is perfectly valid, but Indian rules apply in jam packed Indian roads even today in narrow town and city lanes. The problem is "speed". Roads and cars were built for speed and road laws were created for speed. Indians never took to those laws. Buses and cars are slowed down and everyone goes at the same low speed because of miscellaneous slow moving vehicles. But traffic moves slowly and rarely gets jammed. It's not as if this prevents accidents, but on jam packed roads with crawling traffic accidents are minor.

India's most horrendous accidents are on highways in the early hours where speed is combined with loose road sense that works only on jam packed roads. Indians follow the same logic on roads in which high speeds are possible - with dangerous "flexibility" in rules. People who use high speed highways slowly are the most likely to survive.

As I see it the rigid laws that came to us from the west with caution about road safety are simply not followed by Indians. if it is a matter of enforcement of road laws, then they should be enforced on highways and narrow city lanes. That will make highway traffic safer, but it will likely choke up narrow city lanes by removing flexibility.

I don't say this as a criticism of safety rules just because they are western. But should a car have greater right to use a road than a handcart? If speed is the problem it is surely the responsibility of the car/bus driver to slow down, because the hand cart is not causing high speed accidents. The Indian system is to slow down all traffic. That means that a lot of people will have to travel for longer periods, or they have to opt for shorter distances.

This can be called inefficiency. but I would dispute that - let me leave that question for some other time.

[johneeG]

The other view is HBjis view that we cannot rely on past to solve problems of today.Infact even shivji used to take a similar stand that 'Hinduism' arose in an agricultural society and we live in different times.

I think my statement was in a different context altogether - I think it was in relation to the ritual of Ganesh pooja which is where the thought struck me.

But the idea that we must not rely on the past to solve today's problems is a general truism that is not even true in many instances. The hatred that Hindu nationalism invites is rooted in the past. All I am saying is that there is a Hindu nationalism that exists and it is hardly the xenophobic nationalism that is hated.

All these discussions about history, religion and law were sparked by the need to explain exactly why Hindus were viewed with suspicion and contempt. There are some very real reasons out there that need to be understood (as discussed over many pages) as opposed to generalities like "The British were against us and wanted to put us down" etc

The latter is a dumb explanation that can only cause impotent anger because we don't know why they "wanted to put us down". And that impotent anger leads to explanations like "We and our philosophy were all too great for them and so they were jealous"

I didn't quite understand your rationale:
why is saying that 'X were against us and they won over us' lead to 'impotent anger'?

You say that it leads to impotent anger because we don't why they wanted to put us down. Then, you anticipate the answer: 'we are so good that they wanted to put us down'.

But, for some reason you don't want to accept this explanation. I don't know why. You just call all sorts of names but don't give any good reason why this answer is not good enough.

My view is, OK let us accept that one possible explanation is

The British were against us and wanted to put us down.We and our philosophy were all too great for them and so they were jealous. They knew we were the source of everything on earth

But frankly, this explanation sounds like the sort of delusions of grandeur that are cooked up by a person who has been deeply insulted and does not know why it happened. I cannot swear that the explanation is wrong, but I would worry if this was offered as the only explanation "We we too great. The British were jealous".

No, its not jealousy. Its a much simpler thing greed. Robbers will attack only rich houses. They don't attack poor shacks. If there is a rich house among many poor people, then the chances of it being looted rise exponentially.

The same logic applies at larger level. Bhaarath was attacked because it was rich and powerful while others became impoverished for whatever reasons. Others knew about Bhaarath's richness before they came to Bhaarath. They came to Bhaarath because they heard of Bhaarath's richness and greatness. These are not delusions but facts.

Why do you think Columbus was searching for a route to Bhaarath? Just time-pass? What was Vasco-Da-Gama's great achievement? He was the first european to find a route to Bhaarath. Bhaarath... the paradise on earth where people lived like Gods. These were the impressions of outsiders. And indeed, compared to the life outside, Bhaarathiyas were living like Gods.

The explanation fails because our greatness failed us and after it failed us it gets difficult to claim that we were great but we lost.

So, the question is: 'If we were so great, then why did we lose?'
I think the problem in this line of questioning is that there is an implicit assumption that the winners must be great guys and losers must be useless guys.

But, in real world, this is not necessarily true. Success and failures happen due to combination of factors. Winners are not necessarily great guys nor losers are useless idiots. If winners were great guys, then they would always win and never lose. Further, even great guys lose some matches. No one has total success rate. Win some, lose some.

Let me ask a reverse question: if the westerners are so great, then why are they not re-colonizing the entire world like they did in the past? Why are they not genociding other races like they did in the past?

Yet another inane attitude would be "No actually we never lost. We survived"

Well, survival through the bad phase is an achievement.

if you look at Pakistan today - they come up with similar rationalizations about how great they were but lost, or that they have not lost. They survived. If Hindus need to do "mirror image explanations" that sound like Pakis, then both Pakis and Hindus have the same mental problem, with a helpless feeling of loss. It is a mental defence mechanism to retain a sense of balance after having one's butt kicked in.

Well, bakis are also Hindhus(Hindhus who lost to malsI). So, their physical survival is an achievement. But, they lost their cultural moorings and that is their loss.

In fact there are other explanations as to why Hindus were misunderstood and cursed and these are not about British jealousy. it was all about a European sense of superiority over the Oriental that made sure that anything oriental perfunctorily examined and discarded as worthless. And this attitude has been inculcated into Indians who then got good jobs under the British, so they had no incentive to question the cursing of their culture.

This western superiority complex came much later. It came after 1880. Between 1860 and 1880, there was continuous looting of Bhaarath which led to enormous amounts of suffering and impoverishment. Continuous famines for 20 yrs. It was at this time that they wanted Bhaarathiyas to believe in western superiority. They themselves started believing their own lies. Even then, they were always aware of their own sense of lack of control over the masses and lack of historical narrative(which dwarfed before the ancient Hindhuism) and therefore were trying all sorts of gimmicks(like trying to create new creed: Ahmeddiyya or trying to create rifts between sikhs and Hindhus). Aryan Invasion Theory was brought on to the stage precisely because of the Oiropean insecurity with their own lack of history.

Just imagine: germans claiming themselves as 'Aryans'!

Indians have a deep inferiority complex about Hinduism. Some escape the inferiority by toeing the British/western line and saying "Oh we have now discarded all that bad bad past stuff. We are moving on". These are the "sickular libtards" (LOL what a name)

Fine. But, this is not just true about Hindhuism. This is true about Bhaarath in general. Or non-west in general.

Another set of deeply hurt Indians are the Hindutvavadis who can recall some of Hindu-ism's good things but are unable to frame in in language that anyone else can follow because they are stuck using the only words the know like "religion" and "history" and "secular" etc.

No, this is wrong portrayal. Another set of Hindhus try to learn about Hindhuism to know exactly what it actually is rather than just believe what the colonials or commies say. And while learning, they may discover or believe that they discovered some great things about Hindhuism.

When they share these feelings, they are hush-hushed by the sepoy Hindhus who are too focused on pleasing the white man.

Words like 'religion', 'history' and 'secular' are being used because the discussion is in english. If they discussion were in another language, then the words of that language would be used. Just because the language being used is english, it does not mean that those concepts are unique to west.

Hindus have been tainted unfairly and i do not buy this escapism of saying that we can forget the past. The Hindu past was not worthy of such taint and perhaps we need to go further back and reclaim what was forgotten. I also dislike the Hindutva attitude of explanations emerging from a deep sense of hurt and anger and complete ignorance of how words and meanings with a European Christian context were used to smear us. We have learned no new words and we are trying to use the same words to turn the tables round. Its like knowing only the words "bad" and "stupid" that have been used to describe us, and then trying to wrestle with those words to say how we were good and smart and how the words "bad" and "stupid" actually mean good and smart in our dictionary. We need an increased vocabulary and an increased desire to use our own words (like dharma and itihaasa) and explain them in language that does not use the old words like religion and history.

Please explain why Ithihaasa is not history.
Also explain why history is a unique european X-ist concept.

Our inability to reframe the problem in a universally comprehensible language has led to a secular vs hindutva fight. It is not because the seculars are stupid and Hindutva vadis are clever. Both unfortunately are emerging from their mental colonization with different views but both are totally ignorant of what it was that caused them to develop this deep sense of shame. It was an original Hindu inability to express himself to a racist sceptical British ruler in his terms. But at least now we can express ourselves right - but we need to do our homework for that, and not come up with inane excuses or denials.

Its not about stupidity or cleverness. Its about cultural moorings. 'Seculars' are anchored to west and its latest ideologies(including science). 'Hindhuthvadhis' are anchored to Hindhuism without worrying about the views of the west.

you enunciated two groups of Hindhus:
a) 'sickular libtard'
b) Hindhuthva-vadhis.

I think there is a third group:
c) confused bunch.

It seems to me that most people fall into the third group and are confused. The reason for confusions is lack of knowledge. The lack of knowledge is deliberate because colonials instituted a system which will not let the Hindhu learning come to Hindhus.

So, most Hindhus are ignorant about Hindhuism and hence are confused about Hindhuism in general.

The 'sickular libtard' group and the Hindhuthva-vadhi group are competing to win the 'confused bunch' as their followers.

Since, there are two competing views, the 'confused bunch' get more confused. Some jump to one group and others jump to another group. Many times, they change parties.

If Bhaarathiyas say,"brits looted us and therefore we are poor', then the brits would say,"you are angry and hate-filled". As soon as Hindhus talk about jihadhi invasions and attacks on temples, commies accuse Hindhus of 'hatred' and 'anger'. BTW, when Bhaarathiyas talk about 26/11, bakis also accuse Bhaarathiyas of being 'angry' and 'hatefilled'. This is a very simple trick.

If a robber robs me and I say 'robber robbed me', then robbers says that I am hate-filled and angry.

What is 'hate-filled' and 'angry' about stating facts? Even if someone is hate-filled and angry, how does it matter to others? Others should simply focus on whether or not the facts are correct or not? If the facts are not right, then they can easily be refuted. If the facts are right, then the emotions don't matter.

Generally, such pseudo-pisko-analysis of the opponents' point of view is used as an attempt to avoid meeting the arguments of opponents head on.


----

Shiv saar,
so now, you are saying that Hindhus don't even have laws.
You said Hindhu don't have religion. They don't have history.

So, Hindhus lived in lawlessness till the Abrahamics came to rule?

You are saying that the present lawlessness reflects the general attitude of Hindhus. This is not true. One generally finds that Hindhus are quite law abiding in general wherever they go.

Then, the question is: why are the legal systems inefficient in the Bhaarath?
Because they were instituted by the colonials and were not intended to help the natives. They were instituted to stop revolts and rebellions.

The general lack of discipline(and lack of cleanliness, especially public cleanliness) is due to lack of proper infrastructure.

For example, the number of the vehicles which ply on a Bhaarathiya a road in a city far exceeds its limits. That causes traffic jams. This problem can only be solved by building infrastructure.

But how much infrastructure can be built if people keep migrating to cities?

So, the solution is to strengthen the rural areas. Once the rural areas are sufficient developed, it stops migration to cities. That will put less pressure on cities' infrastructure. Then, there will be less traffic jams, more cleanliness and more discipline.

If there is only one chapathi, and 10 mouths to feed, then there won't be much discipline. The discipline will come only when there are enough chapathis to feed every mouth.

I think you are confusing the present lawlessness due to lack of infrastructure(i.e. lack of development) with culture.

----

^^^ This is not a battle over definitions or what the school textbooks say about "Praacheen Bharat". Historians typically say that history in India begins with Ashoka, who has the first date-able writings. They are date-able because some Ashokan inscriptions mention external personalities who are date-able. Everything before Ashoka is thus pre-history.

You can invent all the time-unstamped history that you want on BRF, unless you try to do what Rajiv Malhotra is doing and establish a foothold in the university/academia knowledge system, it won't make a difference as far as formal knowledge goes. Yes, it can make a difference at the ground level, e.g., what is taught, say in Ekal Vidyalayas, etc.

That is an interesting take. The deeper question is who is it that defines formal knowledge? If its Western Indologists then we better make them irrelevant, Modi style. But for that we would have to set the narrative, and for that we need money.

The Bhestern narrative is important only as long as the non-bhesterners are willing to listen to Bhest.

If the non-bhesterners refuse to listen to the west, then all the univs of the bhest will be useless.

Cheen and Bhaarath have largest populations and are therefore they decide the narrative due to sheer numbers.

The greatest strength of bhest is its the media(including the univs). But, they are useless if their narratives are not accepted by large number of people.

Each person has the freedom to reject a narrative or accept it based on his judgement.

FYI: On twitter, I followed Sonia Faleiro, but was blocked after this exchange:

Sonia Faleiro:
"Lakhs of years ago Sage Kanad conducted a nuclear test" says BJP MP determined to take India back lakhs of years: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 93029.aspx

Me:
@soniafaleiro LOL, back to the Sat-Yuga, I suppose!
@soniafaleiro Tho ancients having technology lost till modern times is a bit more rational than parting of Red Sea or man rising from dead

I wouldn't have mentioned it except that I noticed this morning that this "liberal" has blocked me.

The irony about this situation is that it was actually the scientist who first quoted the scripture to claim legitimacy for his bomb.



Why was he quoting Hindhu scripture?
To claim legitimacy. If I suddenly start claiming that I invented some amazing weapon, will people believe me just like that? Especially, during wars, there would be lot of war-time propaganda. So, quoting this ancient scripture was an attempt to gain legitimacy.

Its always been like that. Others try to distort and deny Hindhuism but still depend Hindhuism. Hindhuism neither had to distort others, nor deny others and certainly not depend on others.

BTW, if those ancient Sanskruth scriptures are useless, then why are they still kept by the westerners? Why don't they just return them to Bhaarathiyas?

[vishvak]

BTW, if those ancient Sanskruth scriptures are useless, then why are they still kept by the westerners? Why don't they just return them to Bhaarathiyas?

May be to legitimize no more than what is known currently - or useful currently? If some tech/thought/etc/etc/etc has more punch, too bad ain't it if its not controlled? The fancy narratives (aliens/cursed-immortal-crew-of-pirate-ship/blahlbah) will have alternatives.

[member_22733]

WRT to road manners in Indian cities, we have to keep in mind that there were very few Indic cities in India. India was mostly made of its villages, it still is.

The cities were born and grew to such an astronomical proportions due to the "concentration of power" in the hands of the colonial mass murderers (Brishits or Mogul). Most of our cities are kabilas or garrison towns.

So people with Indic values which were largely made for a village life, are forced into a highly populous area by means of de-industrialization, then were made to follow an alien value system that they could not quite understand. How can one expect our cities to be livable after this kind of trauma?

Added later:
The places where Indic cities were to a large extent Indic (Rajasthan and Kerala), show a marked difference from other places. But they still ended up suffering "colonial-urbanization" due to the effects of the Nehru-Macaulay-cancer that carried on the Brishit legacy of de-industrializing (license raj) and concentrating power, without any consideration of infrastructure needed to support such urbanization.