Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 2

JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Postby JwalaMukhi » 19 Dec 2007 21:17

An interesting take on effects of islamism and colonialism on Indic sytems by Prof.S.N.Balagangadhara... (Warning: not for light and quick reading)

http://colonial.consciousness.googlepag ... sciousness

Such a consciousness is characterized by a double impotency. It is impotent to access its cultural experience. Where it does read the ‘shastras’ or uses ‘technical terms’ from them that have become a part of the daily language-use (‘atman’, ‘chitta’, ‘kosha’, Buddhi’, etc), it has no understanding of their meaning or reference. It is equally impotent to access the outlines of the experience of the western culture. Such impotent consciousness constitutes the class of Indian intellectuals today. Is there any wonder that they fail to produce any interesting reflections on either ‘secularism’ or political or cultural theory? Is there any wonder they are also incapable of bringing about any regeneration of the Indian culture? Most Pundits in India, the fossils created by Islam, reproduce Indian ‘shatsras’ mantrically without making any original contribution. The modern Indian intellectuals, another fossil created by the British, reproduce western claims equally mantrically without being able to make any original contribution to the regeneration of the Indian culture. Neither the children of the mullahs nor the children of Macaulay should belong anywhere other than in a Jurassic Park. I hope we can build such parks soon.

http://colonial.consciousness.googlepag ... icaltheory
Last edited by JwalaMukhi on 19 Dec 2007 21:22, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 19 Dec 2007 21:20

Ok here is some light reading as to how the IM started feeling takleef.

LOSS OF PRIVILEGES PORTRAYED AS PRIVATION

indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Postby indygill » 19 Dec 2007 21:50

After Sultanate era the second phase of Islamism was carried out by great Sufis Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi & shah waliullah and there followers.

Now since late 19th century there is a third phase of Islamism. In here also great Sufism has played a major role

With changing times and ground realities in 1879 a new Sufi Muslim revivalist movement started and it was called Deobandi Islam. We can call this the third and present Phase.

Phase one was literally sword, I think Hindus countered it.
Phase two was more in terms with Relgious war which Hindus failed to counter
Phase three is where we need to learn from previous mistakes

From Phase two onwards we can see that concept of Jihad and pure Islam is very much indigenous to India and role Sufis and Sufism have played is very much evident. Infact contrary to accepted notions they have infact divided the society and can be blamed for partition of India and present day conflicts.

At present in the third phase it is Jihad insitigated by Deband Islam

Taliban and SIMI prescribe to Deoband Philosphy of
“Allah is our Lord, Quran is our constitution, Muhammad is our leader, Jihad is our way and Shahadah is our desire".

Now who are the present day Sufis, we must know them and what insitutions they are using by proxy. lets start with

Dr. Mohammad Ahmadullah Siddiqi the founder of SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India)

His primary areas of interest are media, information policy making in Muslim countries, and Islam's and Muslims' portrayal in American media and India media

At present he is Professor of Journalism and Public Relations at Western Illinois University Macomb, Illinois since 1987.

Dr. Siddiqi also serves as Honorary Vice President of the American Islamic College Chicago and is a member of the College's Board of Directors.

Dr. Siddiqi is the founding member and Secretary General of the North American Association of Muslims Professionals and Scholars (NAAMPS).
Dr. Siddiqi is life member of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR)

Member of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)

In India

Assistant Secretary General of IIFSO and joined Jamaat-e-Islami of India in 1973.

He has also served on the Board of Directors and Governing Boards of Institute of Objective Studies, New Delhi, India,

Center for Studies on Sciences, Aligarh, India, Students Islamic Trust of Indian

All-India Council for Muslim Educational Upliftment, Bombay, India.

-----------------------

Shiv

I think we should keep a databse of all these kind of inviduals and insitutions they have influence over.

Modi is denied Visa for US and the creaters of Islamic Jihadi Organizations are given access to US insitutions...

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 19 Dec 2007 22:16

indygill wrote:Taliban and SIMI prescribe to Deoband Philosphy of
“Allah is our Lord, Quran is our constitution, Muhammad is our leader, Jihad is our way and Shahadah is our desire".


We can certainly help on that. :D

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20873
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 19 Dec 2007 22:29

SwamyG wrote:Doctor Sahib:
Wah Wah brilliant. If you were standing in front of me, I would fall at your feet and get your blessings (i.e. if you are an elder to me). In tamil I would say "Kalakteenga saar".

You have the uncanny ability to articulate the lurking thoughts of several members into a lucid write-up. I would rate the following paragraph as the BIGGEST jewel on the crown:
But for Hindus, individual freedom was defined in a different way. Hindu philosophy seems to have developed in such a way as to not destroy the collective "groups of individuals" structure of Indian society.Individual freedom was not obtained by rebellion and the abrupt or forced changing of societal rules to cater to individual tastes. Individual freedom was gained by looking inwards spiritually and considering life itself to be transient, with the attendant joys and sollows of life, its injustices and inequities as a temporary passing phase in an eternal, supra-human metaphysical existence. Nothing could have been more alien to the British.


You say less freedom was offered to an individual within the group. But we have had rebels all the time. Some rose and shone: For example what is now called the Heterodox school of Indian philosophy. My point is that the individuals still found opportunities to splinter out from their group and form different groups. Once a group broke out, then all the group dynamics you describe came back into picture. One reason why I believe most of the Indians do not see it odd for individuals in a political party to split and form splinter groups. They take it as "Chalta hai" {in tamil: sagajam appa - meaning: just normal}


Swami Vivekananda diagnosed this as Hinduism defining so called God in flexible terms while making society rigid and Semetics defining so called God in rigid terms while giving flexibility to society or individuals. What we need is balance, middle path, accomodation etc. Sikhism is modern example of this as it gives a glimpse of this balance .
Problem with Islam is the demand of supremacy it imposes on the land it inhabits . This is strictkly no no. If they wont change or cant change then issue will be decided in battle between Infidels and Momins . If this is true then sooner the better as future generations of Infidels should be spared os same mess. With globalism i.e acceptence or inclusiveness ,humanity is on the verge to make upward leap of consciousness. Islam by nature is not fit for this exercise and there are not many remedial options.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 19 Dec 2007 22:30

Talking about awards and recognition to the murderers, we have a animation movie releasing somewhere in 2009. Rajnikanth's daughter is involved in it, and they are creating a character called 'Sultan'.

After all the royal titles existing in India they had to chose 'Sultan' - a word that brings attention to the Sultanate and associated horrors. Nobody seems to really mind it, actually. Why did they name it? Is it because it is easily marketable?

I hope there is a grass root movement to rename that movie.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 19 Dec 2007 23:33

ShauryaT wrote:
Johann wrote:Ayodhya 1992 was a turning point for the Pakistanis because that is when they recognised that the Hindu-Muslim struggle within India as a whole was a viable and exploitable option.
These turds did not need Ayodhya to figure that out!

Johann, your assertion of Ayodhya being the key marking event for TSP is interesting. It essentially restates what the fifth column in India asserts, that the so called "communal" parties' actions, have been responsible for the "takleef" that the IM's are facing. This "takleef" is being exploited by TSP to fan terrorist activity across India. Conclusion: If the so called hindu communal forces, were arrested, then the "takleef" will disappear and hence TSP meddling.

You know better that this is not the case. Maybe, I am not reading your statement correctly.

There is another view of Ayodhya. It is the event that marked the resurgence of Nationalist forces in India, leading to political victory in 1998. It is the event, that sent a shock wave across India along with corresponding globalization and economic forces. This shock wave woke up, many a sleeping Hindu dhimmi, including myself. Repulsed at the events at first, but after that repulsion, some started introspecting, as to what happenned and why?


Shaurya,

I am not suggesting that the status quo before 1992 was a healthy one, or that the Sangh Parivar should be treated as the ultimate and final source of blame for the wave of Muslim radicalisation that followed Ayodhya.

But there's no question that Ayodhya was the point at which the INC Hindu-Muslim national compact that dated back to the 1920s is put under a huge question mark.

It was a forcible demand that Hindus renegotiate Islam's relationship with India unilaterally if change is not forthcoming.

I think everyone who is familar with the reflexes that exist within Islam, and certainly that includes the Pakistanis expected what would come next after this 'bring it on' challenge to both Islam and the existing Indian consensus.

Just as you say Ayodhya began the process that turned many dhimmi Hindus in to hawks, it also began a process that turned Muslim doves in to hawks.

However inevitable Ayodhya might have been, for Pakistan it was an opening of a sort they had not had since Partition, given that Indian Muslims for the most part were satisfied with the status quo. Ayodhya is when Pakistan realised that it would be able to reach significant numbers of Indian Muslims beyond Kashmir, and win support from the wider ummah.

Again, this is not an endorsement of the dhimmi view that the pre-Ayodhya status quo was a normal, healthy situation.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3674
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Postby sanjaykumar » 20 Dec 2007 00:16

It was in fact 1947 when Muslims ceased to have any legitimate aspirations in India. All else is confabulation. Hindus owe them as much as Pakistan owes Hindus:nothing less, nothing more.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 20 Dec 2007 00:20

Johann wrote:Just as you say Ayodhya began the process that turned many dhimmi Hindus in to hawks, it also began a process that turned Muslim doves in to hawks.

However inevitable Ayodhya might have been, for Pakistan it was an opening of a sort they had not had since Partition, given that Indian Muslims for the most part were satisfied with the status quo. Ayodhya is when Pakistan realised that it would be able to reach significant numbers of Indian Muslims beyond Kashmir, and win support from the wider ummah.


Johann,

For Pakkistan, the IM's have always been viewed the same: a resource to hurt India. They have always built and maintained links and contacts wtih IM's. I do not think it is accurate to say that Pakistanis thought about this for the first time after Ayodhya. There have been elements of IM's always susceptible to enticements of Pakkistan. Those who have lived close to IM majority areas near Aligarh etc. know the green flags all too well. The sympathy was never absent. Ayodhya made it somewhat worse.

Poeple here are somewhat sensitive to the suggestion that Ayodhya was a big contributor. The reason is that they saw a paki-tilting IM population before 1992 as well.

But let us not dwell on these issues. We should look at the new and troubling development of TSP & Mushy targetting India proper. Your view that Jihadi terrorist has became worse surprised me. If we had a datase of all attacks on India, we could plot the number incidents or deaths as a function of time and see any change. Public domain knowledge can tell us a lot (as you said)!!!

Going back to the original point, I want to thank you for your analysis. TSP has banked on a waging a sub-conventional warfare with plausible deniability. With Operation Parakram, India reduced its threshold so that was sub-threshold became above threshold. This led to the statement of Mushy promising to end insurgency in Kashmir forever. But Mushy & TSP went on to the 2nd phase without achieving the first one. (2nd phase = jihad in whole of India; 1st phase = Kashmir). But what he plans to achieve cannot be understood in any logical terms. I cannot see any tangible logical gain come to TSP due to this. I do see a hardening of Indian/Hindu stance. This has even created solidarity in the Indian state, where little existed before. The Jihadi calculation based on straight-line extrapolations will break down. It seems like a loose-loose situation for TSP. But then TSP has been habituated to make loose-loose propositions before.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 20 Dec 2007 01:08

Surinder,

There is a timeline you can use - page 3 of this thread where Summeet (mostly) and I have put up a list of major jihadi terrorist attacks beyond J&K.

Divide the between those before and after October 1999 - the date Musharraf seized power from Nawaz following failure in Kargil. The result is strikingly lopsided.

Even attacks within J&K between October 1999 and June 2002 (Parakram) became far more spectacular - the first suicide bombing, fedayeen attacks on army bases, bigger massacres etc.

As I said in an earlier post both a few pages back, Musharraf and Osama are damaging the prospects of the patient soft Islamists in non-Muslim majority societies. But Pakistan simply doesnt have any other cards to play against India any more.

Of course its possible that Pakistanis might decide the jihadis are a bigger threat to Pakistani survival/cohesion than Indian success and re-evaluate their choices accordingly, but that is fairly unlikely.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Dec 2007 04:57

Johann wrote:However inevitable Ayodhya might have been, for Pakistan it was an opening of a sort they had not had since Partition, given that Indian Muslims for the most part were satisfied with the status quo. Ayodhya is when Pakistan realised that it would be able to reach significant numbers of Indian Muslims beyond Kashmir, and win support from the wider ummah.


If it was inevitable. it only indicates a faultline that Pakistanis were trying to show and dhimmi Hindus trying to suppress don't you think?

Even on this forum we have had all sorts of statements of sentiment made that were always there and it did not require a Pakistani rocket scientist to understand that there were certain structural and adjustment problems with some Muslims when Indians, Hindu and Muslim were hollering it out loud enough.

The existence of a problem irredentist group of Muslims is well known. Pakistan's "discovery" was not discovery at all. Pakistan's problem has been to get them to rebel massively so that Pakis can come and rule India.

What is exciting and new in this day and age is not that there are social fault lines in India, but the admirable manner in which the Pakistan "Jewel of Islam" state is run.

Ayodhya was no gift to Pakistan. It was a warning shot across the bows of the ummah and other Indians alike that if Islam the religion can be taken to such great lengths to prove a point, taking Hinduism to equally great lengths is equally feasible.

Whether Muslims destroy India, or Hindus destroy India, when it becomes clear that India's destruction is the common denominator, it ceases to matter (Occam's razor) - Hindus will themselves contribute to India's destruction and take India down on their terms and not on Pakistani terms or some Islamic terms. And they will take disgruntled Muslims down with them. Ayodhya and the Godhra aftermath were a perverse warning signal that if Pakistan or whoever wants to use Islam to destroy or dominate India it will not be tolerated lying down.

Note that people have not been able to "take Afghanistan down" or even take Pakistan down. Let us see how India is taken down by Pakistani realization of something via Ayodhya.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 20 Dec 2007 06:01

JwalaMukhi wrote:An interesting take on effects of islamism and colonialism on Indic sytems by Prof.S.N.Balagangadhara... (Warning: not for light and quick reading)

http://colonial.consciousness.googlepag ... sciousness


Thanks Jwalamukhi. The article reveals a deep thinking analytical mind and has much going for it. However I believe the Prof's bitter adversarial tone at the end is suicidal if I try to use such an article to give gyan to macaulayized dhimmis.

People who think so clearly and deeply must not get tempted into taking cheap shots at dhimmis or Macaulay-putras because they (the latter) get angry at the personal references and deliberately fail to understand. This problem has been a constant characteristic of modern Indian thought that seeks to throw new light on existing fossilized thought processes.

But I loved the following description, which is true:

The framework that the British introduced did two things. Firstly, that framework secularized the Christian framework. For instance, it recast the nature of Indian traditions in terms of religions; it described Hinduism as a variant of Catholic Christianity and Buddhism as a variant of Protestant reformation.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 20 Dec 2007 07:52

Shiv,

There is a certain degree of determinism about the whole thing.

Once you see the dynamics of a system or a set of systems you have a good idea of what will happen and in what sequence, but it is much harder to know when an event will happen.

I've said it here a number of times - Pakistan was an act of pessimism and retreat, a recognition that democracy in the *long term* would not allow for the survival of dar-ul-Islam within India.

The consensus of the Indian ruling classes at the time of independence was a determination to prove Pakistan wrong by demonstrating that Muslims would lose nothing from independence and democracy, even if that meant preserving elements of dhimmitude.

The result was that it was largely the pessimistic and the opportunistic that left at partition (Punjab and Bengl apart where things had their own bloody dynamic). Muslim migration to India between 1950/Republic day and 1965/war and border closing, there was a steady drip of Muslim migration rather than a mighty flood.

Pakistan had no idea when 'Hindu Hawks' would forcefully challenge dar-ul-Islam within India, or the 'holy trinity' as you describe them. For that matter I dont think those within the trinity was expecting it when the gauntlet was thrown down at Ayodhya.

Pakistan is not the cause, but in chemical terms it has deliberately acted an accelerant in the 3-cornered conflict between 'Hindu Hawks', dar-ul-Islam in India, and the 'trinity'.

As I said in previous posts, Pakistan is not going to gain much from accelarating this conflict - it is in far too wretched a state to benefit from any drag on India, and India is a big enough place that conflict may not blot out the sun much more than the bloody civil wars of the counter-reformation slowed down Renaissance Europe.

All the same in places like UP, Bihar, Bengal and Assam, things will not be like Gujarat. The machinery of the state will be lucky to survive conflict - which is why I believe the public in those states will be unlikely to vote for Modi like figures, at the very least until social conflict between jatis reduces. Even so, given the demographics, confrontation in these states will be far tougher than Gujarat where large numbers of 'Muslim doves' like the Bohras meant that the cycle of escalatory violence didnt go very far.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 20 Dec 2007 09:19

SwamyG wrote:My point is that the individuals still found opportunities to splinter out from their group and form different groups. Once a group broke out, then all the group dynamics you describe came back into picture. One reason why I believe most of the Indians do not see it odd for individuals in a political party to split and form splinter groups. They take it as "Chalta hai" {in tamil: sagajam appa - meaning: just normal}


So very true; I was about to add this POV to Shiv's brilliant analysis when I saw that you had beaten me to it.

You could always start your own group; that was okay!! The concept of understanding that we need to be one group first and foremost was a learning gifted to us by British through their pillaging actions.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Dec 2007 09:30

Shiv wrote:Ayodhya and the Godhra aftermath were a perverse warning signal that if Pakistan or whoever wants to use Islam to destroy or dominate India it will not be tolerated lying down.




Ayodhya and post Godhra are responses of a society that says " We are tired of exchanging land and rights for peace. We will exchange peace for peace only."

I think the trinity doesn't accept this.
Last edited by ramana on 20 Dec 2007 21:22, edited 1 time in total.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Postby shaardula » 20 Dec 2007 10:07

The Secular State and Religious Conflict: Liberal Neutrality and the Indian Case of Pluralism
S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob De Roover, Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap, Ghent University, Belgium
The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 15, Number 1, 2007, pp. 67–92
online: http://heathenfaqs.googlepages.com/jopp1.pdf

there has been some thought in the forum about indian thinking. Here is a paper which analyzes the issue of conversion and secularism, neutrality and liberalism of the Indian state.
#1. the paper establishes that in the formulation of neutrality by Indian state, indian thinking has been ignored.
#2. in the formulation of neutrality by the indian state, the indian state has picked a side, i.e., it is not neutral.
#3. indian state cannot remain neutral - as neutrality is currently defined.

Here are some paras from the article to give you a flavor of the article
The secularists are not as neutral as they think they are. Their plea for conversion indicates that they have made their choice. (i.e, by deciding to be neutral they are not neutral)
Let us now summarise the four choices the Indian secular state has to make.
(a) The ‘Hindu traditions’ and the ‘Semitic religions’ are phenomena of the same kind, or they are not.
(b) As such, they are religious rivals, or they are not.
(c) As rivals, they compete with each other regarding truth or falsity, or they do not.
(d) They can do that because some religion is false, or they cannot because no religion is false.

In each of the four cases, these claims are those of the Semitic religions and the Hindu traditions respectively.

Each of these assumptions carves the universe up into two exhaustive partitions, because, in each case, one statement is the logical negation of the other. So, what should a liberal state do in such a situation? What choices are open to it, if it wants to remain neutral and secular?

If we accept this principle while framing our account of state neutrality, the proposition that the state ought to be neutral implies that the state can be neutral. Thus, on this construal, liberal neutrality is obligatory only if the state can be neutral toward the different religious and cultural traditions in a society. However, the choices that the Indian state confronts are logically exclusive. Furthermore, each term in the different choices represents a different point of view: the Semitic or the pagan, which means to say that the state cannot choose between these alternatives without sacrificing the very principle of state neutrality. However, the Kantian dictum, that ‘ought’ logically implies ‘can’, generates the following valid theorem: ‘cannot’ logically implies ‘ought not’. This means that the Indian state ought not to be neutral with respect to religious conversion in India because it cannot be neutral.

Nevertheless, it is an empirical truth that theories of state neutrality have hitherto obliged the Indian state not to be neutral. The post-independent Indian state implemented a series of reforms to ‘the Hindu religion and its law’, while it did not interfere with Islam and Christianity[24]. This suggests that some interpretation of ‘neutrality’ and ‘liberalism’ is at stake here. We think this to be the case. Theories of state neutrality that interpret this notion to mean neutrality of justification force us to compromise the notion of a neutral and liberal state. Such interpretations either generate odd conclusions or try to defend indefensible positions.


Indian thinking poses a challenge to the theories of the west (like liberalism, secularism, state neutrality etc) and to the Indian state (because it is based on western theories) since these theories have evolved out of the western notion of religion. That is, these secular theories are based on the western definition and experience of religion. Where as pagan and non-book multipolar multi centric religions like hinduism cannot be captured either by that definition or that experience. The problem ofcourse is serious and grave because India is the ground where semitic religions and living Indian traditions are in contact and thus in conflict.

This paper uses an entirely western framework to bring the conflict of indian thinking with western theories to the 'western' minds. That is, the way it is posed, the problem is appealing to the western mind. here are two systems which are diametrically opposite to each other, how to theorize is appealing to the intelligencia(western mind).

But at the same time, I am worried that there is a danger that ultimately all arbitration will happen on the basis of western ideas and theories. So what happens if the data(indian thinking) becomes too problematic for the model (western theories?) Will they change the model? Will they discard or 'massage' the data? The problem is if they respect this data they will have to break a whole lot of models (read the paper).

If they don't do any thing about it then conversion remains legal and we will continue to have the same conflicts on the streets. The intellectuals will then continue to address this problem on the street by eliminating/ridiculing indian thinking as they have done so far.

one example is:
hindu says all religions are the true. then islam must be true, if islam is true then hinduism cannot be true. if you are not careful about the definition of the word true and the subject to which it is applied when hindu says true, then you can easily conclude that hinduism is an illogical religion and hindus duplitious.

this whole thing is problematic only to western theories because they are solving the problem of western religions which are about truth of their religion. in western terms truth of religion is all about sanction of god, is it word of god or not is their problem. we have no such problem. when we say all religions are true it means all experiences of religion are true and that true means it must have occured it does not mean it IS. our theology is based on does it. chipa tha kya kaha kisne dhaka tha? hein kisiko nahin pata, nahin hein pata. only later does a hypothesis follow, hiranya garbha ...

before you jump in and say hey, but that is a very advaitic point of view, let me say that despite there being p different ideas about what is and what is not, the framework of the debate has always been set by advaitic ideas and in the absence of brainwashing our people are conditioned to those ideas naturally irrespective of whether they are literate/educated or not. the problem now is that pagan/advaitic framework has been discarded in favour of something else, of which most people have no clue. when people talk in that framework we feel ashamed and diffident.

an example of this is value that is placed on religions vs animalism. a very western distinction. my doddappa uber orthrodox madhva performs elaborate rituals with all the taratamya to 'vedic' gods and without ever batting an eye lid and with no confusion whatsoever goes to invoke his family spirit for solace and advice. i am even making this point because that i make that distinction between the two forms, my doddappa does not even think about.

How to conduct the debate in indian terms in conditions sensitive to indian thinking.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Postby shaardula » 20 Dec 2007 13:09

ok just discovered this guy is prolific.

http://balagangadhara.org/

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 20 Dec 2007 13:16

shaardula wrote:How to conduct the debate in indian terms in conditions sensitive to indian thinking.


Brilliant Shaardula; sometimes I think we north Indians have ceased to be Hindu even. Guys in the south bless yourselves for being far away from Delhi and Calcutta (not to mention...)

I wish we had dharma gurus in the north who could propound and spread Indic philosphys once more.
Last edited by Sanku on 20 Dec 2007 14:02, edited 1 time in total.

Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 529
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Postby Abhijit » 20 Dec 2007 13:27

sanku, sunk, have you? i suggest you remove your gratuitous remark. it doesn't add to the discussion.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 20 Dec 2007 13:35

Abhijit, I don't think he meant it in a bad way... In any case, Sanku, I think you are not right in that bleak comment about Hindus in North India. My feeling is that the next great explosion of Hindu civilisational revival will come primarily from northern and central states. The south will continue to hold the fort of tradition. Of course, this is just a gut feeling.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 20 Dec 2007 13:54

JE Menon wrote:Abhijit, I don't think he meant it in a bad way... In any case, Sanku, I think you are not right in that bleak comment about Hindus in North India. My feeling is that the next great explosion of Hindu civilisational revival will come primarily from northern and central states. The south will continue to hold the fort of tradition. Of course, this is just a gut feeling.


Thanks JEM; I did not mean it in a bad way; I have seen both north and south and envy the hold of Dharmic religion and preserved beauty of pre holocaust days in areas which held out.

I do hope you are right brother on the revival issue.

MohanJ
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Contact:

Postby MohanJ » 20 Dec 2007 16:39

shaardula wrote:ok just discovered this guy is prolific.

http://balagangadhara.org/


Many know the Prof. from way back. He and perhaps, Rajiv Malhotra and Koenraad Elst are the present vanguard doing priceless work.

There are others to know, there's a list of speakers at this URL that many might find interesting.

JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Postby JwalaMukhi » 20 Dec 2007 21:29

shiv wrote:Ayodhya and the Godhra aftermath were a perverse warning signal that if Pakistan or whoever wants to use Islam to destroy or dominate India it will not be tolerated lying down.

Note that people have not been able to "take Afghanistan down" or even take Pakistan down. Let us see how India is taken down by Pakistani realization of something via Ayodhya.

Very important point. Paki's have been taken to school enuf times and they are unwilling to learn. It is for their handlers, that the cost for using Islam should be raised to forego that option.
A fall out which is going to be 'innocent till proven guilty' which has been enjoyed by Islam in India will have the tables turned. [/u]

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 20 Dec 2007 21:53

indygill wrote:After Sultanate era the second phase of Islamism was carried out by great Sufis Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi & shah waliullah and there followers.

Now since late 19th century there is a third phase of Islamism. In here also great Sufism has played a major role

With changing times and ground realities in 1879 a new Sufi Muslim revivalist movement started and it was called Deobandi Islam. We can call this the third and present Phase.

Phase one was literally sword, I think Hindus countered it.
Phase two was more in terms with Relgious war which Hindus failed to counter
Phase three is where we need to learn from previous mistakes

From Phase two onwards we can see that concept of Jihad and pure Islam is very much indigenous to India and role Sufis and Sufism have played is very much evident. Infact contrary to accepted notions they have infact divided the society and can be blamed for partition of India and present day conflicts.

At present in the third phase it is Jihad insitigated by Deband Islam

Taliban and SIMI prescribe to Deoband Philosphy of
“Allah is our Lord, Quran is our constitution, Muhammad is our leader, Jihad is our way and Shahadah is our desire".



During the Sultanate phase- Mameluke and Chagtai, it was Zawabit(Barani's concpet of Sultan makes the laws) that overrode Shariat. However with the defeats and gradual reduction in Sultantate power due to Maratha and Sikh resurgence, it was the religoius types Shah Walliullah and his disciples -Deobandi and it morphisms that brought the Islamic struggle to the forefront. That is what explains their primacy in TSP as an equal to the Army and Amrika. While the higher vehicle was the Aligarh Movement, the lesser vehicle was the mullahs that midwifed TSP emergence with the British playing the OB-Gyn caeserian on Bharat/Hindusthan/



Thanks Indy for bring this insight to the fore.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 20 Dec 2007 21:59

You can find some of S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob De Roover's articles in IF.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Postby shaardula » 21 Dec 2007 03:58

thanks for the links. i found that paper at URA's blog.

lot of reading to do.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 21 Dec 2007 04:06

SwamyG wrote:You can find some of S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob De Roover's articles in IF.


Is IF down past few days or what? Been unable to access the forums.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 21 Dec 2007 05:37

shaardula wrote:The Secular State and Religious Conflict: Liberal Neutrality and the Indian Case of Pluralism
S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob De Roover, Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap, Ghent University, Belgium
The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 15, Number 1, 2007, pp. 67–92
online: http://heathenfaqs.googlepages.com/jopp1.pdf
<snip>
This paper uses an entirely western framework to bring the conflict of indian thinking with western theories to the 'western' minds. That is, the way it is posed, the problem is appealing to the western mind. here are two systems which are diametrically opposite to each other, how to theorize is appealing to the intelligencia(western mind).

But at the same time, I am worried that there is a danger that ultimately all arbitration will happen on the basis of western ideas and theories. So what happens if the data(indian thinking) becomes too problematic for the model (western theories?) Will they change the model? Will they discard or 'massage' the data? The problem is if they respect this data they will have to break a whole lot of models (read the paper).
< snip>
How to conduct the debate in indian terms in conditions sensitive to indian thinking.


Shaardula. Interesting points, and while I try and come to grips with the paper itself, one thing springs immediately to mind on reading your words.

For any debate to rise above being nonsense there has to be jargon or commonality of terminology.

For example in the first few pages of the paper I found use of the word "tolerance" and "toleration"

Here again this is an English word that is being applied to fit an Indian mindset. I had a debate about this on another board and I will quote a part of my own post and the reply that was made to that part of my post

My words:
I feel no shame in saying I am a Hindu. But am I tolerant? If I search within the Hindu thoughts that I was brought up with, I do not find any rules telling me to tolerate any particular human or type of behavior. Oh yes a respect for all life has been instilled into me and a degree of compassion for misfortune and poverty. But blind tolerance? No. Tolerance has been taught to me in school and if I tolerate it is because I have either been taught that it is right, or because I have learned that tolerance is essential under some circumstances. But I have simultaneously learned that tolerance is not a good thing under other circumstances.


The reply:
The word "Tolerance" is in fact alien to the Hindu psyche as it implies a condescension towards others and other paths. What comes naturally to the Hindu character is respect for all points of view and approaches in life as well as the acceptance of the validity of all possible pathways to the experience of Truth.

The words "Hindu" and "Hinduism" are themselves not of native coinage. "Hinduism" does not represent any one single strait-jacketed path as much as it encompasses literally myriads of possibilities -- as diverse as there are people.

All religions that came to India have not only prospered but have been heightened and deepened by the contact with the Indian psyche. ( "Tolerance" has too negative a connotation here for what has happened over the centuries.)

As a matter of fact, if anything, the "tolerance" of the Hindu has proved to be almost suicidal to itself!

I think we need to make a distinction here between what we mean by religion as distinct from the "culture" and the "civilisation" of a people.


Should we not first spend time laying down the terms of the debate, akin to the preamble of the 123 agreement that laid down specific meanings of words?

What is tolerance?
What is religion?
What is dharma?
What is secularism?

A lot of people post opinions on this issue, but a working definition, at least for us on this forum needs to be agreed upon to avoid nuances in meaning.

Indian culture, as I indicated in the article on an earlier page moves and makes space for new and different thought processes. In one sense this is the fundamental basis for defining the Hindus as "tolerant" - i.e his ability to move and make space for all and sundry. However that tolerance does not extend to allowing his own freedom to be a free thinker and do what he wants to be restricted in the name of religion or any other alien code.

So "tolerance", like my learned friend on another board indicates is not a good word to use. Traditional Indian culture "respects" differences, but does not necessarily tolerate imposition of restrictions.

However we come up with another problem word: a word I had once commented upon in another context - i.e the word "respect". We need to define clearly in order to use it in the context that I have done above.

Indians use "respect" in two senses. I will illustrate this by quoting a passage from some thoughts I had penned elsewhere in 2000

The dictionary meaning of the word respect includes "to regard, consider, take into account, to feel or show esteem, deference or honour to". However, the word "respect" is [also] a bad translation of the word "maryada" - which is what Indians mean when they speak of respect. "Maryada" is quite distinct from "respect". The dictionary defines maryada as "limit, boundary, propriety of conduct, decorum decency, social code, custom, rank, station, dignity."

Culturally Indians are taught to hand out maryada wherever we go. Maryada is given to anyone, and is an Indian form of etiquette, to be given and received. Respect is an English word, and by definition is not given to everyone (unlike maryada).


My usage of the word "respect" is the English dictionary meaning.

What is termed as "Hindu tolerance" is respect for all points of view and approaches in life as well as the acceptance of the validity of all possible pathways to the experience of Truth. . It is the "making of space" for other points of view. "Hindu tolerance" must not be misconstrued as the licence to have one single ideology forced down Hindu throats.

In fact "Conservative Hinduism" may be one of the free-est forms of liberalism that has evolved on earth. And Indian Macaulay-ite liberals, tied down as they are by either dhimmitude or by "secularism in a Christian framework" are less liberal and more fundamentalist then they imagine.

Semantics may be everything.

Amitava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 03 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: New Jersey, USA.

Centre’s ultimatum to Taslima

Postby Amitava » 21 Dec 2007 09:04

Centre’s ultimatum to Taslima

Statesman News Service

NEW DELHI, Dec. 20: Driving her further to the wall, the Centre has debarred the controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen from returning to her adopted city of Kolkata and from coming out in public or freely meeting people even in the Capital, her current heavily-guarded “safe houseâ€

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Postby asprinzl » 21 Dec 2007 09:05

I am already seeing one positive result of this thread. The Pakistan thread is kinda slowing down.
Avram.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Postby shaardula » 21 Dec 2007 11:11

shiv, i agree and i am really heartened that you chose the word tolerance to explain this problem. that is a very problematic word. tolerance is meaningful and defined only in terms of religions which fancy word of god. tolerance is only meaningful when i am convinced my god is the only one. I am not convinced about about that. But as a hindu I refuse to accept there is one truth about god. a madhva dooDe is not tolerating a sharaNa, he is living with him with all that it entitles. you can read it in indic texts, when sharaNas gained prominence hordes of banTas from the coasts landed up on the krishna basin up north. no effect. they came, they went back to the coasts in the south. puss. secularists look at this and have no clue what to make of it. it pisses them off no end because nobody uttered the word tolerance and the sharaNas were challenging the vedas way back when.

now dvelving into the nuances of the word/concepts is one way to go. but the problem is, even if you come up with a comprehensive dictionary of what all these words mean in the indian context, in an actual debate, the meaning relevant/expedient to western conceptions will be used. as long as you continue to say hindu religion irrespective of your dictionary, what is understood is, another religion like christianity or islam, even if you present a 3 pages of your definition of religion. on the other hand jihad is easily distinguished from crusades, even though both amount to the same thing.

i think the way forward is to stop saying hindu religion and use hindu dharma, for example. insist on using indic terms even if it amounts to loss of dialogue for the moment. that is fine. the points to be driven is exactly what balagangadhara lists: hindu dharma is not the same as western religion, it is not in a competetion to western religion, we are not interested in assigning truth/falsehood value to religion.

now in debates with westerners use a compendium of indian terms while belting out indian terms, but in debates with indians, never ever use the compendium. force them to the streets. force them to go to the streets and understand what the man on the streets instinctively even if crudely understands. say on BRF, you start using exclusively indian terms. if anybody doesnot undertsand then he will have to apply his mind to his own real context(even what his mom is talking about - mayy mele pragne illva? dont you have pragna on your body?) and context in which you used the word to understand the meaning. what this will do is break all sorts of complexes.

one way to control the debate is to assert what our own world view is and not let them impose their world view on us.

example:
i am an uber iconoclast, i believe in nirguna brahman. now this concept is so well developed that neither the idol nor the non-idol completely defines what that one god is. what defines nirguna brahman is a not just this, not just this, not just this principle. understand that? too bad if you dont.

i refuse all your definitions, all your limitations. infact i cannot understand your getting pissed off by cartoons. if he is really nirguna, then how does reducing him to cartoons matter?
i refuse to sympathize with you on principles of tolerance, i refuse to criticize you on principles of liberalism. i choose to see your problem in terms of nirguna brahman and i fail to understand your dilemma(even though i know why you have your chaddis in a twist)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 21 Dec 2007 14:19

shaardula wrote:now dvelving into the nuances of the word/concepts is one way to go. but the problem is, even if you come up with a comprehensive dictionary of what all these words mean in the indian context, in an actual debate, the meaning relevant/expedient to western conceptions will be used. as long as you continue to say hindu religion irrespective of your dictionary, what is understood is, another religion like christianity or islam, even if you present a 3 pages of your definition of religion. on the other hand jihad is easily distinguished from crusades, even though both amount to the same thing.

i think the way forward is to stop saying hindu religion and use hindu dharma, for example. insist on using indic terms even if it amounts to loss of dialogue for the moment. that is fine. the points to be driven is exactly what balagangadhara lists: hindu dharma is not the same as western religion, it is not in a competetion to western religion, we are not interested in assigning truth/falsehood value to religion.


I have some serious issues with this solution and I will try and explain why with some clarity. Note that even Balagangadhara has not offered this as a solution.

Let me start with a rhetorical opposition to what you say, but I will follow that up with more substantial logic.

Never withdraw into your own territory and allow your adversary to fight within your domain. Take the fight into his territory and defeat him there. Even if it means making up new words and definitions, make him understand in HIS language. Do not allow him to treat your language like gobbledygook and have his way anyway.

Let me relate a little story as a more substantial example of why I strongly oppose what you suggest.
shaardula and shiv are strangers who happen meet each other on the street one day. Shiv looks at shaardula and says "You are an evil person. Your bearing and demeanor are hostile to me".

Shaardula, who is not even thinking about shiv is surprised.

But shiv turns around and punches shaardula, demanding an apology and a change in shaadula's "disgusting behavior". A deeply offended and confused shaardula begins to argue when a policeman/judge appears and acts as arbitrator.

He says: "Both of you are fighting. Stop fighting, shake hands and agree that both of you are right in your own way. If you don't do that I will arrest both of you."


Is the policeman/judge wrong? Why is he wrong?
Let me answer that:
  • shaardula had no fight with shiv
  • shiv picks a fight and shiv has a problem with shaardula
  • The policeman may have brought peace, but both shiv and shaardula cannot be correct. One has to be wrong. Shaardula's innocence cannot be equated with shiv's belligerence


After being punched by shiv, and after being accused of being in a fight that shaardula did not want to be in, insult to shaardula is being added to injury by declaring that shiv is "also correct" and blameless and free to keep doing his thing.

If shaardula decides to "withdraw" and declare no contest, he is making a mistake. He is in it whether he wants to be in it or not. Making a tactical change now is like a raped woman suddenly saying that she was not raped.

Replace "shaardula" above with Hinduism
Replace "shiv" above with Islam/Christianity
Replace "Policeman/Judge" with "secular Indian government" (or Secular British colonial masters)

-then you will start seeing what I mean.

Hindus may not consider themselves a religion and may not have had a fight with other religions. But other religions have picked a fight with Hindu dharma in general and have declared it an "adversary religion". There is no withdrawing now. You have to fight to clear your name and have your meaning understood.

There are other technical problems apart from the withdrawal saying "we have no fight"

If you say Hindus have no religion, then a Muslim/evamgelist can say, "OK fine. In that case you should have no objection to my giving religion to religion-less Hindus under constitutional freedom of religion. If Hinduism is not a religion, we are not hurting YOUR religion by conversion. But we do have a religion and therefore you are hurting our religion by opposing us. YOU are guilty of religious war and religious discrimination. Not us!"

This is the self goal being scored by confused Hindus.

Of course Hinduism is a religion. But it is a much broader and deeper religion than any other. It may not have an adversarial relationship with any other religion. But any other religion that considers Hinduism and "adversary" automatically means that Hinduism must have an adversarial relationship to survive and keep its wide and deep tenets. If Pakistan attacks India, we cannot say "We have no fight". We do have a fight and we have no option but to fight, despite the smear on us.

Do not try to escape the religion tag. it is a mistake. It is precisely this mistake that made some Brit once remark that Hindus have nothing to protect. When the time comes for you to rise and take a stand, it is wrong to withdraw and move the goalpost so people can take over territory you have evacuated.

Remove this needless confusion from your mind shaardula. Your dharma is not to try and hunt for historical justifications and rhetorical peace. Your dharma is to fight to win over something that has been patently unfair to your viewpoint

Hindu religion it is for me. If you oppose my belief you are opposing my religion and I will get you into a religious war.
Last edited by shiv on 21 Dec 2007 15:39, edited 2 times in total.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5388
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Postby niran » 21 Dec 2007 14:33

shiv wrote:
Do not try to escape the religion tag. it is a mistake. It is precisely this mistake that made some Brit once remark that Hindus have nothing to protect. When the time comes for you to rise and take a stand, it is wrong to withdraw and move the goalpost so people can take over territory you have evacuated.

Remove this needless confusion from your mind shaardula. Your dharma is not to try and hunt for historical justifications and rhetorical peace. Your dharma is to fight to win over something that has been patently unfair to your viewpoint

Hindu religion it is for me. If you oppose my belief you are opposing my religion and I will get you into a religious war.


I dunno about shaardula, but you cleared a few misconception for me.Thank you very much Sir.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 21 Dec 2007 15:00

I just love parables and physical analogies. Remember the "gold leaf electroscope" from your school physics book?

Here is a picture:
Image

The metal conductor sticking out of the bottle has two gold leaves hanging at the bottom. The leaves normally hang, touching each other in a "namaste" when the metal conductor is electrically neutral. "Electrically neutral" does not mean without any electric charge.

This is shown by bringing an electrically charged object near the conductor in the bottle. Some charges in the metal conductor are repelled by the charge in the charged object, and the repelled charge flows to the two gold leaves that then repel each other and stop doing namaste as in the picture.

Imagine the conductor in the bottle as being Hinduism. The charged rod is Islam or Christianity. There is something in both that repels something in Hinduism. That repulsion is what is opposed by Islam/Christianity, and it is that repulsion that is sought to be removed.

If you deny that there is religion in Hinduism, you are in effect discharging the electrode by grounding it, so that the gold leaves fall back and do namaste even when the charged rod of Islam/Christianity is nearby.

That will only allow the charged rod to touch the electrode in the bottle, pass its own charge to the electrode and to the gold leaves.

Does anyone see the analogy?

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 21 Dec 2007 19:25

Shiv wrote:
Imagine the conductor in the bottle as being Hinduism. The charged rod is Islam or Christianity. There is something in both that repels something in Hinduism. That repulsion is what is opposed by Islam/Christianity, and it is that repulsion that is sought to be removed.


IMHO, the "something" is the "acknowledge that our god is better than yours or you are asking for a fight" mindset.

For example, one of the first notions put forward by a proselytizer who seeks to transform an atheist/non believer is the "unshakeable logical foundations" of "Pascal's wager": "if there is no god and you worship a god, you lose nothing, but there is a god and you do not worship, you are in for eternal damnation". The subtext/underlying assumption here is that (a) "god" here only refers to the christian god (b) the only choices are worshipping this god or not worshipping this god.

A classic example of arguing via false choices.

Hinduism breaks the foundations of this line of navel-gazing thinking by throwing in a third option into the mix: "what if there are multiple gods and you are worshipping the wrong one?". Christianity and Islam's answer to that is "there is no such thing..of course, our god is the only one and your gods are nothing". There is a basic disrespect for the sensibilities and sensitivities of Hindus in these religions, which comes to the fore when they come around hinduism because the existence of polytheism negates monotheism (from the standpoint of the monotheistic believer, who then has to deny the other in order to be internally consistent), whereas monotheism does not negate polytheism (and can be folded into a polytheistic beliefs).

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 21 Dec 2007 20:05

vsudhir wrote:
SwamyG wrote:You can find some of S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob De Roover's articles in IF.


Is IF down past few days or what? Been unable to access the forums.


Looks like the discussion forum is down, they appearing to be revamping the site.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 21 Dec 2007 20:15

The past gurus and philosophical leaders have debated each other, and did not necessarily yield space to other thoughts without any resistance. They were not indifferent to each others' point of views, they strove to prove that they were right and their own way was the "best".

Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Postby Sadler » 21 Dec 2007 20:24

shiv wrote:
Hindu religion it is for me. If you oppose my belief you are opposing my religion and I will get you into a religious war.


I fervently hope that from your lips (or post) to the ears and eyes of millions of hindus worldwide. Although not much of a dancer, i'll dance a jig the day i see this realization dawn on the world's hindus as they stop taking BS from the "alleged" abrahamic faiths and learn to retaliate in kind. For that is the only surefire way of stopping these onslaughts by islam and a section of christians (and i stress "section").

skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

Postby skher » 22 Dec 2007 01:46

If you deny that there is religion in Hinduism, you are in effect discharging the electrode by grounding it, so that the gold leaves fall back and do namaste even when the charged rod of Islam/Christianity is nearby.


Hinduism is an assimilative philosophy and survived the tide of time because it is a philosophy and not a religion.

Effectively,there are no defined gods,no angels and no clerics.It is a personalized way of worship where just you and your beliefs exist.

For this reason; Hinduism is not organized,regulated by clergy and doesn't have a conversion ceremony.
Conversion is by virtue of birth.

Islam can survive peacefully,only if its doors are as open as others.
The doors are currently manned by politically minded clerics,with little interest in their religious or academic duties.

PS: Extremists and fundamentalists regardless of their "religion" want to turn back the clock to 12th century.
Why?
It was the Age of the Crusades,where fleeing Arabs re-established their base by annexing sub-continental territory and undertook massive forced conversion.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 22 Dec 2007 02:23

Hinduism is an assimilative philosophy and survived the tide of time because it is a philosophy and not a religion.


Wrong. Hinduism has survived because it is a philosophy AND a religion which its adherents believe in strongly and BECAUSE its adherents defended their right to believe in it, to the death, many many times.

Let nobody tell you otherwise. This business of "oh hinduism is not a religion" is psyops conducted by the great purveyors of western spirituality in their one up manship.

Effectively,there are no defined gods,no angels and no clerics.It is a personalized way of worship where just you and your beliefs exist.


There are defined Gods, and there are defined angels. But you can worship God in any other way as well.

For this reason; Hinduism is not organized,regulated by clergy and doesn't have a conversion ceremony.
Conversion is by virtue of birth.


And how do you think Hinduism originally spread? People did convert. The advent of Islam put paid to that and drove Hinduism into a shell.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests