Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 3

mangesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 20:00

Postby mangesh » 09 Jan 2008 19:09

Sanju wrote:
mangesh wrote:Many top level people may want to stop these kind of mails, but fielded as charity mails, any opposition even from a top manager can get his feet burning when blamed as an RSS fanatic.


That is not a difficult thing to do. For one, classify ANY of these mails as "Chain Mails" and request not to propagate the same as these have potentially harmful viruses/trojans in them. I have great results with this approach.


Sorry for OT.
Hmm, No they are not chain mails. Instead they are legitimate group
announcements done by infiltrated admins and HRs . They get support
from informal ch-groups working inside the campus of many companies.
With such social support from a minority people, it is difficult for any
afraid hindu manager to oppose it. They even keep many hindu freshers
who are interested in organizing social events to act as collectors of
funds. These freshers and other many hindus dont even understand what
is being done.

Check it out with ur friends in different IT companies in chennai
and bangalore to see how co-ordinated this is running in most
companies.

Feeling that this is felt by my company alone, I asked to my brother
about this, and he said that this is normal thing in their company (reputed
big one) where admins give all admin-contracts to faith-based-groups!!
and fielding ch-charities and only to have access for charity donations.
He says, nothing can be done about it.. :(

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jan 2008 19:22

mangesh wrote:Watch Bangalore IT companies, internal charity and celebration mails, mainly driven through some HR, Admin guys infiltrated.
The recent converted ones have their names retained to confuse hindus
and enable more cultural infiltration among hindus, so these people are
used to do these activities.


This is off topic, and I am asking that we put an end to it. But to quell speculation, I will post stats from a study in Bangalore

1) 'Software Engineers"
This sample turned out to be quite homogeneous in terms of religion and caste: 88 per
cent of respondents were Hindus, while only 5 per cent were Christians and 2 per cent
Muslims.


2) BPO/IT enabled service group
With regard to community, 67 per cent were Hindus, 9 per cent Muslims, and 24 per cent Christians. Other observations support the surmise that there is a large proportion of Christians in the BPO workforce in Bangalore, due to the requirement for English fluency (which Christians are more likely to have). The industry has been particularly attractive to Anglo-Indians and other Christians from lower middle class families (of which there aremany in Bangalore), who have the requisite cultural capital (more specifically, good conversational English with little ’mother tongue influence’ or accent) but perhaps lower educational attainments and few other employment opportunities.


Those who want to know the source need to email me on bennedose at hotmail youknowhwhat.

No further discussion here please, or this message will go along with others.

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

Postby Abhijit » 09 Jan 2008 23:31

Shiv:
Hindus are masters of the profound and blind to the obvious. The profound Hindus will not survive.They do not have anything to protect. They are too well protected by their profound philosophy. Indian secularism thrives on such timeless and unprotectable philosophies while Hinduism dies. Only the stupid Hindus, who have vulnerable Gods can survive.

Amen to that (pun intended). This is precise why I was unimpressed with all the maha gyan given by S Valcan and especially his lament that people were into festivals without knowing the significance of the philosophy. I, on the other hand, am extremely happy with the pomp and gaiety and the massive participation in the Hindu festivals. We can always bring back lost philosophies (or I don't really care much if we lose them in the process) as long as the professed and visible Hindu Dharma is intact and thriving.

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

Postby JCage » 09 Jan 2008 23:52

Abhijit wrote:Shiv:
Hindus are masters of the profound and blind to the obvious. The profound Hindus will not survive.They do not have anything to protect. They are too well protected by their profound philosophy. Indian secularism thrives on such timeless and unprotectable philosophies while Hinduism dies. Only the stupid Hindus, who have vulnerable Gods can survive.

Amen to that (pun intended). This is precise why I was unimpressed with all the maha gyan given by S Valcan and especially his lament that people were into festivals without knowing the significance of the philosophy. I, on the other hand, am extremely happy with the pomp and gaiety and the massive participation in the Hindu festivals. We can always bring back lost philosophies (or I don't really care much if we lose them in the process) as long as the professed and visible Hindu Dharma is intact and thriving.


Valkan was a very intelligent individual, who unfortunately displayed that characteristic "indian" trait of knowing who a true Hindu was and who wasnt. His contempt for all those who believed in "various entities with improbable shapes", those who stood up against the California book nonsense, those who were aware of and excoriated the Raj..were remarkable. In effect, a highly "enlightened" Hindu who fell into the age old trap of believing that he knew more than the other dhimmis around him and that they were wrong and he was correct and promptly dubbed all those right of center as being either jingoistic or fanatical. But he had very valid points at other times and was correct about the need to understand the deeper traditions and reasons. While some, like you are happy with the festivals, there are others who wish to intellectualize- they need to be made aware of the depth Hinduism has to it. Different things for different folks.

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

Postby JCage » 10 Jan 2008 00:24

[quote="ShauryaT"]What I seek to do is differentiate and not generalize. The question is, is the label of religion, the best way to accomplish the same?

It is more than just labels and terms. I also seek to make a case that this differentiation of labels, will help setup new frameworks. These terms are more than semantics for they form defining frameworks, frameworks which can help or negate a debate, some times just by its position in the organizing framework, even before an argument is made.

Just for clarity’s sake and to check my sanity levels, I looked up wiki for the definition of “religionâ€

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Jan 2008 03:15

The ONLY way to combat these bacteria is to hit them directly with medicine and surgery that affects them directly, without affecting the whole significantly. There is no alternative to being adversarial towards a process that cannot take on the whole, but can bring down the whole by entering weak, unprotected areas and spreading.

Unless Hindus have a direct adversarial strategy towards other religions in which they claim that their Hindu religion with its zillion armed Gods are under threat and require human protection just like Allah is under threat and requires protection, Hindus have nothing to protect.

The complex and comforting philosophy of a "Hindu way of life" has been raped and torn asunder down the years and cannot now be protected. It is oh so easy to argue that the Hindu way of life included the "egregious social system and other terrible practices". If you say that has all changed now, the next question is "If that can change, why not something else?" So what the hell is this "Way of life"?

Hindus are masters of the profound and blind to the obvious. The profound Hindus will not survive.They do not have anything to protect. They are too well protected by their profound philosophy. Indian secularism thrives on such timeless and unprotectable philosophies while Hinduism dies. Only the stupid Hindus, who have vulnerable Gods can survive.



Shiv,

First, thank you for penning your thoughts. I do not think we differ in, what we want the actions to be. The active defense of hindu ways is non negotiable. I have made my effort to study the loss of Hindu India and cannot be blind to the obvious.

The exercise to define terms, better suited to the Hindu model is driven from a need to do “justiceâ€

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Jan 2008 03:22

JC: One long post for the day is enough for me. :) I will digest your post and reply. But, I fear, we maybe talking past each other.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Jan 2008 04:40

Pulikeshi wrote:
The word religion is decidedly linked to the organized religions framework and hence ill suited for Dharmic ways.


Do not make the mistake of saying that Hinduism is not organized.
See, another example of a term, borrowed from the context of the organized montheistic faiths and we immediately get into a debate of what Hinduism is?

Are we not tired of this game? We need better terms and contexts.

I think we both know that Hinduism does not have a governing central organization but organizes itself well, to local needs of communities, large and small.

I will reply to your other comment later. Got to go now.

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

Postby surinder » 10 Jan 2008 05:06

shiv wrote:Unfortunately, ONLY the Hindu religion has fostered and protected Hindu philosophy. No other religion finds it necessary to remember or propagate the timeless truths of Hindu philosophy among humans.


Sikhism has done it and still does. Sikhism has made enormous efforts to protect and foster Hinduism and its philophical heritage.

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

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2008 06:46

surinder wrote:
shiv wrote:Unfortunately, ONLY the Hindu religion has fostered and protected Hindu philosophy. No other religion finds it necessary to remember or propagate the timeless truths of Hindu philosophy among humans.


Sikhism has done it and still does. Sikhism has made enormous efforts to protect and foster Hinduism and its philophical heritage.


Fair enough. But this is an interesting comment, because it shows how a faith (Sikhism in this instance) can sit comfortably with the title "religion" and still protect entities that do not require God.

If I may use an analogy, Allah does not need the Kaaba. Allah can exist without the Kaaba. But Islam chooses to protect the Kaaba as a symbolic holy structure (It is Islam's form of idol-worship).

So the tag "religion" encompasses human behavior that goes beyond mere belief in God to folklore, habits and cultural history of the people who follow that religion.

Christmas itself is complete cooked up nonsense, because Christ was not born on that day and the festival immortalizes a former pagan ritual.

It is only some Hindus who worry about the "religion" tag, and by doing so they fall into what I see as a needless attention diverting trap. In order to understand this trap, you have to approach and view Hindus as a Muslim, or as a Christian missionary of some centuries ago.

If you were born into Islam or Christianty in the early era and were brought up as a devout religious person, you would see humans as clear black and white.

Only some people will be saved by God. You have to be a good Christian/Muslim to be saved by God.

Anyone who does not accept this God and is not a good Muslim (or Christian) HAS NO GOD.

He who has no God has no religion. He who has no religion MUST be saved. My religion (Islam/Christianity) demands compassion. I simply MUST save anyone who has no God.

For me the answer to the question "Does this person have religion" should be YES only if he is a Christian (or a Muslim). If not, he is Godless and must be saved. This is programmable and can be gamed, so clear is the rule.

Both Islam and Christianity have this clear, easy to understand "digital" 1 or 0 answer to the question of religion.

Initially, there was only Christianity that organized to give people God under this 1 or 0 paradigm. Islam's biggest success was in breaking violently into the world and establishing itself as a "religion" by force, despite the earlier presence of Christianity.

These two religions came into violent conflict, and until the West became "secular" it was difficult or impossible for one of these to survive alongside the other in the same geographic area.

When both these religions met Hindus, they found people "without God". Deeper examination found Hindus to have false Gods. The only way Christians could "explain" Hindus to themselves was by going back to their books and coming up with the answer "pagan". The only way Muslims could explain Hindus to themselves was to go back to their scriptures and find that these were "kafirs". In both cases Hindus had no religion, they were Godless and needed to be brought under (an Islamic or Christian) God.

By the time Islam and Christianity "met" each other again in India, they had already fought enough battles to understand that there could be more than one religion. They both understood that other religions had to be fought because theirs was the only true religion. The other was always false.

In India, Islam and Christianity met a mix of people who sometimes fought and sometimes did not fight. Those Hindus who fought in the name of some God had to be opposed because they were following a false God. Those Hindus who did not fight but accepted Islam or Christianity had to be "saved" because they had no God.

This "mixed" behavior of Hindus could not be given one label as one religion. This is what led to the idea that Hinduism was not one religion, or was, at best multiple religions.

If we can accept the story so far as being reasonably representative of the truth, we can move on to what Hindus felt when faced with all these saviors.

Hindus never defined themselves as a "religion" and so could not ay "Yes we have a religion". This was quite convenient for the saviors who had to save Hindus.

However the one common denominator of all saviors who came to India, whether of an Islamic flavor or of a Christian flavor, they were disruptors. They disrupted and destroyed old social and cultural structures while they claimed to rescue and save.

Because both religions were predatory, and sought to change everyone and remove everything that existed, Hindus had no answers. Hindus had no single banner or single God to rally around. For too many centuries, Hindus had already evolved as people who mostly did not fight over God, and at the very least had never developed rules that asked for fighting if Gods were not similar.

But Hindus did survive. Although they did not have a single God or a single banner, and although they could not describe themselves as a single religion, and although Muslims and Christians could not identify a single Hindu religion, Hindus survived because they have a common set of beliefs of right and wrong. That common set of beliefs of what is right and what is wrong is Hindu Dharma. Hindus protected their Dharma, either by fighting, or by Hudaibiya. Hindu Dharma is Hindu religion.

It is a convenient trap to say Hindus are not one religion. From the Christian and Islamic viewpoint a group without a religion MUST have a religion forced down their throats.

Hindus who fail to realise that the word "religion" merely means "The belief you will fight for" and "the belief you will impose on others" will flounder in the neverneverland of the Godless.

The single Hindu religion is Dharma simply because
1) that is what Hindus have fought to preserve
2) that is what will not go away
3) that is what Hindus agree to impose on others.

I think the nature and boundaries of what Hindu Dharma is has been defined by Pulikeshi earlier. But Just because Hindu Dharma is not a male humanoid like the Muslim or Christian Gods does not make Hindu belief any less of a religion.

Religion does not mean God. It refers to belief. It is belief, and not God that makes the Kaaba and Christmas sacred. Similarly it is the belief in Dharma, and not any particular God that makes Hinduism a religion. The definition of the word religion==God was broken forever when Christianity and Islam accepted each other as religions. Two Gods. Two religions. Therefore religion is not restricted to one God.

It is important in this world to have religion, whether or not you have God. Your religion is a red flag that tells others that there is something you will fight for and kill someone else over. It is a complete waste of time to argue whether Hinduism is a religion or not when the vast majority of Hindus show behavior that is characteristic of any religion - i.e they will fight and kill over their beliefs and they will seek to hold and impose those beliefs over and above any new information fed to them.

Let us please put this "Is Hinduism a religion?" question aside and look at the consequences of Hindu and Muslim religionists interacting with each other.

JMT

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1510
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Postby Pulikeshi » 10 Jan 2008 10:03

Shiv,

Could not have explained it better!
We called our belief Sanathana Dharma, and that is our religion.

Dharma evolves, it is not static.
Each and every one of us has the responsibility to defend, challenge and ensure the evolution of this Dharmic path.

Dharma is Sanathana (eternal) only if it is defended!

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Postby derkonig » 10 Jan 2008 10:18

birather pulakeshi,
Great post.
Defend your faith.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Postby prashanth » 10 Jan 2008 13:33

Wonderful post Dr.Shiv.

Dharma is the golden string that binds hindus together. Mahabharata and Ramayana emphasize Dharma and not any god in particular. Thus, Dharma can be regarded as a constitution tailored for the well being of mankind. The gods in Hinduism are merely gaurdians of Dharma.
India should be proud of itself that it has founded a religion whose basis is the betterment of the humankind.
Im keeping this post short since this in a terrorism related thread.

joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Not all Christians believe this way

Postby joshvajohn » 10 Jan 2008 14:14

I can agree partially with what has been commented by Shiv on Christians. I have been born into Sixth Generation Christian family. I can make a case that many of the institutionalised Christians (so called mainline) do not want other religious folks to join into Christian fold.

Ofcourse there are a few charismatic or other para groups that trumpets about their faith and even converts one set of Christians into another set of Christians saying their version or denomination can only lead to heaven or whatever.

Many of such groups get space into the television and make funny claims of miracles and demonstrations in public. We need to realise in spite of doing this for more than three centuries India has only 2.7 percentage of Christians only (may be a bit more 3 percentage). In my earlier posts I have asked a ban or curb on such misuse of freedom in the television channels.

When I was in Bangalore I had to call Citi cable channel and tell them to stop this nonsense which they did. One may mistakenly identify this kind of televison Christianity as the Christianity of India.

Ofcourse many of the missionaries who established in 16th century until 19th century they too had a kind of negative attitude towards non-Christian. But many Indian Christians such as A J Appasamy (who emphasised Christianity to follow Bakhti Religious mode); Keshub Chandra Sen (one of the forerunners of Brahma Samaj) and many other theologians developed indigenous theologies that helped many of the Christians to indianise Christianity to some extent.

But Gandhi was not happy with some of these inculturation as well. When he visited Thiruppur near Vellore where a church is built like a temple, he said 'Do not cheat Hindus'. He was not in favour of Christianity taking the local forms and cultural elements and thus did not want Christians to confuse local people.

What many established churches and Christians would not like to convert people into their fold as it might increase competition for their jobs in their institutions. In many ways Christianity as institutionalised religion (some) in India is not a better religion than other religions in terms of exploitation, corruption or even caste system.

Christianity also did not come to India only from the West rather it was there even from the first or second century Common Era and was brought from East!

Christianity is undergoing a kind of stage where even the so called mainline churches are feeling a bit of difficulty with these so called fundamentalist Christian movements which is similar to any other religious fundamentalism. They make enormous impact that poses threat to the mainline churches as well to the basic thrust of all religions.

Some of the mainline churches are running schools and colleges for hundreds of years where we have not asked anyone to become Christians rather just provided services. Ofcourse there might be exceptions where some may have been converted which should be addressed as an issue. This in no way makes the mainline Christians a perfect beings rather to reduce a bit of generalisations here! There may be exceptions in different regions in India with the so called mainline churches!

It is an era where generalisations of other religions becomes a common factor in every country. This is what needs to be addressed. Thus the fundamental groups which tend to increase their numbers, play with their god, make other enemies should be identified in every religion and thus expose them to the public as threats of the society.

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Postby Vikas » 10 Jan 2008 14:51

Shiv, Simply brilliant.Amazing clarity of thought.
Suddenly lot of historical stuff makes sense after reading your post.

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

Postby JE Menon » 10 Jan 2008 16:49

Reading these excellent posts, I was reminded of what a retired babu once told me... Speaking about Hinduism, I was wondering how it has managed to not be effectively wiped out - like pre-Islamic religions in the Middle East, the native faiths of Latin America, the native faiths of Europe, etc... He said, "chekka (meaning something like you little runt, but affectionately), you can't kill Hinduism because you can't catch it"... I thought then that it was a rather profound observation, and I still do.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 10 Jan 2008 16:58

JE Menon wrote:He said, "chekka (meaning something like you little runt, but affectionately), you can't kill Hinduism because you can't catch it"... I thought then that it was a rather profound observation, and I still do.


By no means Hinduism is dead JEM; but many of its limbs have been chopped off never the less and the process of killing it has also changed now; instead of actively fighting Hinduism its being implicitly suppressed by allowing adversarial ideas (including Mackaulism) to flourish at is cost.

So you still cant catch Hinduism and kill it; but you can poison the fountain head at which the rivers from which it drink emerges.

As you already know I am given to rather bleak outlook towards the health of Indic systems as time evolves.

But this will be not death during the course of natural evolution as per Darwin but changes by extra-terrestrial intervention a la A.C. Clark (Space Odyssey)

mangesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 20:00

Thanks

Postby mangesh » 10 Jan 2008 17:17

Shiv, thanks for that excellent post.
Also I am sorry for previous OT posts.
I understand what u are saying.

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

Postby JE Menon » 10 Jan 2008 17:18

I'm not disagreeing Sanku, just posted that anecdote cause I was reminded of it upon reading the posts.

I have no doubt that Hinduism's basic principles have to be defended from the poisoning of the fountainhead as you put it...

I am not entirely sanguine about its future under the label "Hinduism", but I also believe that there are indications of a renewal with global implications. The conditions globally are right for a renewal of the ideals espoused by the Hindu religious ethos...

And that, to a large extent is because of the increasing power of reason in the global discourse, enabled by the availability and rapid transferability of information. When people find that "faith-based" dialogue tends to reach dead ends that can only be addressed by the via media of reason, by its very nature Hinduism will thrive. The people affected will almost certainly not call themselves Hindus. They may call themselves secular. If we look at the world, rather than just at India, the so-called "great" faiths are just another way to god.

Maybe Hindus need to start looking at the world as their intellectual playground, not just India. But for that some self-respect is absolutely critical. IMHO, we are not there yet. We're getting closer though.

dada
BRFite
Posts: 135
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 16:43

Postby dada » 10 Jan 2008 17:33

The reason why hinduism has survived the onslaught of islam is due to its nonlinear worldview (which has proved to be more resilient than the linear worldview of islam.

hinduism = N Dimensional concept
while
islam = 1 Dimensional concept

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Postby sanjaykumar » 10 Jan 2008 17:34

In fact the only true Christians are those who believe the bible is literal truth. Ditto for Muslims and the koran. When faced with pagans or Galilleo or any experience that requires intellectual processing, the referential bedrock is an old book. If there is disagreement then science or the kaafir or Aryabhatta's model of a heliocentric universe are simply wrong.

Hindus have for millenia payed little more than symbolic respect to the Vedas. Further, as it was not a program on how to influence people and win friends, there is little in the Vedas that is dogma in dealing with non-Hindus.

The middle-eastern texts were didactic, pedagogical (especially the koran) , authoratative and the fear of plagues or god's wrath through the agency of his proxies never far from the text, often explicitly so.

The Rg-Veda has a fascinating verse, that relating to space-time. The sages query 'what came before space-time?' and answer 'perhaps even the highest god in the highest heaven does not know.'


As I have stated religion tells us nothing about God but reveals much about men. So it is not easy to fight and kill for a god who may not know as apposed to a god who is self-assured about killing his own people

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

Postby shiv » 10 Jan 2008 18:43

OK. Let me try and get back on track after what might appear to be digression.

But the digression was deliberate. I have deliberately intended in this thread to try and encompass the factors that have led to a Hindu identity, because it is these factors that come into play when Hindus accuse Muslims of Islamic extremism.

If we assume (falsely in my opinion) that all Muslims in India are exactly alike, and are all intent on imposing sharia as per Quran and Hadiths, then the question of defining "extremism" would be easier. But we have to make some progress, so for starters let us first assume that ALL Indian Muslims are like this. Let us not bother about what percentages behave in a particular way.

Once you freeze the definition of Indian Muslims as a fixed and predictable constant "K" we are still stuck with the problem of Hindu variability regarding exactly what constitutes "Islamic extremism"

We have several areas of disagreement on what extremism may be.

Over the years I have come across several pointers towards what people consider as Islamic extremism

a) Being Muslim
b) Wearing Burqas
c) Collecting up in groups and showing hostility to non Muslims who pass through areas with such Muslim groups.
d) Tendency towards violent group action "They will riot"
e) Tendency to threaten unspecified but uncontrollable consequences if some Muslim grievances are not addressed.
f) Being remorseless killers of animals.
g) Being supportive of Islamic causes rather than national causes
h) Opposing attempts at secular social improvement (education/vaccination) with the excuse that these things are unislamic.
i) Demanding special rights and Muslims, and opposing certain other rights as being hurtful to Islamic sentiment.
j) Seeking spread of islam at the expense of Hindus.
k) Being non vegetarian and smelling different
l) Producing limitless children
m) Providing support for Muslims who later become terrorists, and then denying that the terrorist were Muslims, or that Muslims can be terrorists at all.

That is all that I can recall in one go, but as such the list is an interesting one because Hindus will really have to consider what they feel is Islamic extremism, and whether any consensus can be reached on extremism.

Above all, in an environment in which it is no longer necessary to be a dhimmi Hindu. Hindus need to ask themselves honestly whether they intend to tolerate Muslims at all. Is it going to be a crime, or at least against Sanatana Dharma to be Muslim in India?

That is why I put one particular definition of "Islamic extremism" as the first - i.e "Being Muslim". Certain comments that I hear suggest to me that some Hindus consider Islam a crime. I am not blaming them. After all Islam considers all non Islamic people as wrong and as non Islamic faiths as false. Is it part of our dharma to consider being Muslim a crime.

The question of defining what is Islamic extremism is redundant if being Muslim is itself a crime.

I suspect, without proof that the vast majority of Hindus will not consider it to be a crime to be a Muslim, but again the vast majority will have opinions on what is allowable for Muslims to enjoy peace among Hindus. This may be described as the demand for some sort of reverse dhimmitude, and if anyone wants to insist that this is the case, I am unable to dispute it.

But if we are to look for what is required for peaceful coexistence, I have also heard "solutions" like "Uniform Civil Code" and "Being Dharmic". These solutions have to be considered along with "solutions" to the accusations b to m listed above and any others. In particular we have to try and explain to ourselves, if no one else, whether "solutions" to the list from b to m does not contain a licence for Hindus to behave in a particular way and not Muslims.That is, even the list of grievances should be addressed dharmically. And of course, "Uniform Civil Code" is a vexed issue, and dharma is a not a fixed point. Some clear guidelines for UCC needs to be brought up that do not come and give anyone a surprise bite in the ass at a later stage.

mangesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 20:00

Re: Not all Christians believe this way

Postby mangesh » 10 Jan 2008 19:23

joshvajohn wrote:I can agree partially with what has been commented by Shiv on Christians. I have been born into Sixth Generation Christian family. I can make a case that many of the institutionalised Christians (so called mainline) do not want other religious folks to join into Christian fold.

Ofcourse there are a few charismatic or other para groups that trumpets about their faith and even converts one set of Christians into another set of Christians saying their version or denomination can only lead to heaven or whatever.

Many of such groups get space into the television and make funny claims of miracles and demonstrations in public. We need to realise in spite of doing this for more than three centuries India has only 2.7 percentage of Christians only (may be a bit more 3 percentage). In my earlier posts I have asked a ban or curb on such misuse of freedom in the television channels.

When I was in Bangalore I had to call Citi cable channel and tell them to stop this nonsense which they did. One may mistakenly identify this kind of televison Christianity as the Christianity of India.

Ofcourse many of the missionaries who established in 16th century until 19th century they too had a kind of negative attitude towards non-Christian. But many Indian Christians such as A J Appasamy (who emphasised Christianity to follow Bakhti Religious mode); Keshub Chandra Sen (one of the forerunners of Brahma Samaj) and many other theologians developed indigenous theologies that helped many of the Christians to indianise Christianity to some extent.

But Gandhi was not happy with some of these inculturation as well. When he visited Thiruppur near Vellore where a church is built like a temple, he said 'Do not cheat Hindus'. He was not in favour of Christianity taking the local forms and cultural elements and thus did not want Christians to confuse local people.

What many established churches and Christians would not like to convert people into their fold as it might increase competition for their jobs in their institutions. In many ways Christianity as institutionalised religion (some) in India is not a better religion than other religions in terms of exploitation, corruption or even caste system.

Christianity also did not come to India only from the West rather it was there even from the first or second century Common Era and was brought from East!

Christianity is undergoing a kind of stage where even the so called mainline churches are feeling a bit of difficulty with these so called fundamentalist Christian movements which is similar to any other religious fundamentalism. They make enormous impact that poses threat to the mainline churches as well to the basic thrust of all religions.

Some of the mainline churches are running schools and colleges for hundreds of years where we have not asked anyone to become Christians rather just provided services. Ofcourse there might be exceptions where some may have been converted which should be addressed as an issue. This in no way makes the mainline Christians a perfect beings rather to reduce a bit of generalisations here! There may be exceptions in different regions in India with the so called mainline churches!

It is an era where generalisations of other religions becomes a common factor in every country. This is what needs to be addressed. Thus the fundamental groups which tend to increase their numbers, play with their god, make other enemies should be identified in every religion and thus expose them to the public as threats of the society.


I bow before u. Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54390
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Jan 2008 20:37

JJ's post and Rakesh numerous sallies are the reason why I say one should not use a broad brush stroke and clearly differentiate between the EJs and Indian Christians who have been there since the first century AD.

Knowing that there was eternal exchanges between the Kerala coast and the pre-Islamic Arabs, I wonder if the Kerala folks mistook the early Arab Muslims for a variation of the Arab Christians and allowed them 'mapilla' rights? It just didnt make sense to allow such dogmatic folks into the family.

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

Postby JwalaMukhi » 10 Jan 2008 21:50

ramana wrote:JJ's post and Rakesh numerous sallies are the reason why I say one should not use a broad brush stroke and clearly differentiate between the EJs and Indian Christians who have been there since the first century AD.


Ramanaji absolutely agree that there should no broad brush stroke and clearly differentiate. But an average Hindu is handicapped with the knowledge he obtains from the most vocal ones, including televangelists. The main idea with book based faiths is that either one accepts the book or does not, period (pl. correct me if this wrong). There may be people in that group who have broken the shackles and choose selective portions of the book and ignore the rest. This degree of freedom rings hollow with book based faiths, as it is anathema to question the book.

The freedom to pick and choose is expressly utilized in non-book based faiths (aka dharmic), even to the extent of rejecting faith altogether.

Given that Book forms the bedrock and edifice of book-based faiths, it is extremely disconcerting for outsider to believe the treatment of non-beleivers in those texts. The selective pick and choose by well meaning people is not very convincing when the most vocal of them tell the non-believers that salvation is through the book and ahering to it.

On the flip side, that understanding India has hindu roots (sorry and tough luck if people are not comfortable with it) and continues to be a hindu civilization, is necessary. Trying to mould India into a secular nation by divorcing the hinduism (which forms the bedrock) will not fly.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54390
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Jan 2008 22:01

Average folks are able to discern between Wahabi and Indian Muslim right? Same way give them time and they will.

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

Postby JwalaMukhi » 10 Jan 2008 22:28

Yes, guess so time will be the factor. To be sure, there are also Hindus who not only fail to condemn Wahabisim or EJism, but actively aid that process as it provides short term gains to be turncoats. What a complex mess. Agree, one thing is certain broad brushing is not only a recipe for self goal, but patently wrong.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 10 Jan 2008 22:34

Awesome discussion going on here.. Excellent posts and interesting povs from all around. Imho, a Hindu rennaisance is necessary and is already underway, as we speak. Hindus have started to reassert themselves and this is a welcome development.

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

Postby shiv » 11 Jan 2008 05:46

ShibaPJ wrote: Imho, a Hindu rennaisance is necessary and is already underway, as we speak. Hindus have started to reassert themselves and this is a welcome development.


This is the "raisin dieter" of this thread.

I noticed that there were a lot of Hindu grievances being aired while what was passing unnoticed was a blooming of Hindus "on the ground" with rising economic clout.

The combination of grievance + power is a dangerous combination. With Hindus being in the majority in India it is easy to miss the danger of the grievance + power combination, because as a Hindu the danger posed by Hindus will not affect you. For an equal equal - check how majority Muslims have handled their situation in Pakistan. Power brings reponsibility, that has been handled irresponsibly in Pakistan.

We need to chart out our future path with care, and we need to apply the word that we love most in charting our path : "Dharma". It is no means certain that we will be just if we do not see the truth.

If Hindus walk around with a chip on their shoulder they will collectively wreak revenge on everyone who is suspected to have wronged them.

If Hindus walk into the future with confidence that they are not a dead species, and that they are a force to be counted (as they are) they are more likely to want to be just and Dharmic.

The choice is ours. If we could stop celebrating the obvious Hindu renaissance in this thread and apply our minds to the grievances Hindus have about Islam and Muslims, perhaps we can gain better understanding of complex issues that have evolved over centuries, as we have done in the past few threads.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21155
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 11 Jan 2008 06:11

shiv wrote:
ShibaPJ wrote: Imho, a Hindu rennaisance is necessary and is already underway, as we speak. Hindus have started to reassert themselves and this is a welcome development.


This is the "raisin dieter" of this thread.

If Hindus walk into the future with confidence that they are not a dead species, and that they are a force to be counted (as they are) they are more likely to want to be just and Dharmic.

.


This is likely to be the outcome of Hindu struggle. Dharma itself calls for the protection of the week and righteous. The cruel treatment of Hindus by Islamic forces in the past are not as important as the current efforts to kill the Hindu renaissance in offing by the remnants of same Islamic forcers along with PSec crowd.
And if they succed in doing so , it will be tragic and unpardonable sin.Islam has its own lands , so does Christians. Dharmic people have onlee India. Lets hope time to take the last stand dont come and better sense prevail.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 11 Jan 2008 12:00

Shiv,

Afaik, Hindu religion never spread by sword, and Hindus are not proactive religious converters (in the recent past or at present). One reason of the delay in the rennaissance that I spoke 't has been due to the Hindu fatalistic beliefs in destiny that whatever has to happen willl happen and the oppresers/ invaders will face divine consequences of their wrongdoings.

The recent reassertion stems from the fact that finally, Hindus increasingly find their religion threatened and are pulling together to counter the mob mentality that they face (Islamic) or the gradual mothballing due to conversion. Agree that the majority will follow the 'Dharma', but we will also see a rise in Hindu extremism in silos to counter the virulent elements from the other predatory religions. Godhra/ Kandhmal were some instances of this; it is inevitable.

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

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2008 05:58

Cross posting from the Paki thread because some parts of the post are relevant here:

[quote]
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\01\12\story_12-1-2008_pg1_7
“India should play a bigger role. Being the bigger power in the region, [it] carries a larger responsibility because any upheaval, any Balkanisation, any Talibanisation, any warlord-like situation in Pakistan would directly affect India.â€

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

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2008 06:05

ShibaPJ wrote:Shiv,

Afaik, Hindu religion never spread by sword, and Hindus are not proactive religious converters (in the recent past or at present). One reason of the delay in the rennaissance that I spoke 't has been due to the Hindu fatalistic beliefs in destiny that whatever has to happen willl happen and the oppresers/ invaders will face divine consequences of their wrongdoings.

The recent reassertion stems from the fact that finally, Hindus increasingly find their religion threatened and are pulling together to counter the mob mentality that they face (Islamic) or the gradual mothballing due to conversion. Agree that the majority will follow the 'Dharma', but we will also see a rise in Hindu extremism in silos to counter the virulent elements from the other predatory religions. Godhra/ Kandhmal were some instances of this; it is inevitable.


Shiba you are telling history the way it has usually been taught.

"Hindus are weak. Hindus are non violent. But only now, under extreme provocation, they are fighting a bit"

How about looking at the same thing from a different angle.

Hindus were fighters, perfectly capable of waging war and being violent. They just did not unite and fight over religion. That led to their eventual subjugation from islam that attacked Hinduism in areas that Hindus were not equipped to cope with. Hindusism went "underground" into non violent mode and survived and actually forced changes in islam. And after a few centuries, Hindus have once again gained the political power they lost and are now showing that they too can slaughter and massacre as well as the next guy.

The question is - can we analyse history honestly and be honest both about violent, disruptive Islam and the mythical weakness of Hinduism?

i am willing to accept any argument so long as it explains facts as we see them.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Jan 2008 09:26

Pulikeshi wrote:
At the same time, What I am saying is the muslim or Christian is as much a Hindu as anyone else in India. The job here is to shed the inhibitions of the Muslim or Christian that by being a hindu, they are less Christians or muslims.


Says you, but what do they say? In fairness, why should a Muslim or a Christian say they are Hindu, only because they are citizens of India?
I say that is unfair requirement to impose of fellow citizens.
Isn’t this fear of being imposed used by the minorities to justify their special status in the first place?
Does Social Dharma require an imposition of Hindu sensibilities on fellow citizens?


Is India a land of Hindus (the religion)? or is India a land of multiple religions with a common culture? or is India a land of a synthesis of cultures and religions? Or is India a land with a wounded civilization of multiple nations assembled as a state through forces of history? or is India a Hindu (the culture) land?

Which of the above best represents India and what trajectory we want India to be in, for the future?

What kind of India do we want? An India that is permanently divided amongst religions and castes, which will continue to be the case on the path we are on, even if fair laws, such as the UCC are passed or an India that pays lip service to such alien notions of religions and foreign imposed classifications of castes and defines its own ways?

It is often said that “trueâ€

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Postby prashanth » 12 Jan 2008 10:57

shiv wrote:

The question is - can we analyse history honestly and be honest both about violent, disruptive Islam and the mythical weakness of Hinduism?

i am willing to accept any argument so long as it explains facts as we see them.


IMO One cannot conclude that Hinduism was a weak, non violent religion throughout the history. King Ashoka showed otherwise.
But what really happened is that India had a long period of peace before the advent of islam and indians might have adapted themselves to peaceful life. Some barbaric tribes such as the Huns were assimilated into Indian culture.
The sudden onslaught of islam with all its barbarism and cruelty in the shape of Ghazni, Ghori,Timur and Mughals, awakened the native Indians from the deep slumber. India had by then seen many peaceful religions such as Buddhism, Jainism. Consequently the native Indians ,kind of ,surrendered to the invaders.

At that time Islam was at its heyday and the divided Indian states could not stop the attack. Some, like Vijayanagara kingdom did actually put some resistance.
The mindset of Islamic rulers was to convert the entire native populace into Islam forcefully, as the religion permitted it. And the invaders effectively used brutality conquer a a large part of India. This went on for 5 to 6 centuries.

The advent of europeans changed the order. The british dismantled the islamic empire with the help of the Hindus, the native Indians .Hinduism, though subjucated by islamic rulers, survived under the protection of british, and its own.

Islam is in a different situation now. The long period of conquests is over. Today, it is the numbers and technology that gives power. Islam has neither of these. Thus Islam has now gone into protective mode.
Today's muslims are acutely aware of the history. History teaches them to use violence and force, just as Ghazni, Ghori,Timur and Mughals did,
to protect their religion. Hindus had done exactly the opposite in the medieval ages, so today they have numbers. Unfortunately, muslims haven't taken a cue from this. The result is Godhra etc....

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4410
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

Postby Mahendra » 12 Jan 2008 11:16

The advent of europeans changed the order. The british dismantled the islamic empire with the help of the Hindus, the native Indians .Hinduism, though subjucated by islamic rulers, survived under the protection of british, and its own


BS..
The islamic empire was all but dismantled by the Marathas and the Sikhs, there were some exceptions but to claim that the Britsh rid India of Islamic rule is entirely in-accurate.
Hinduism, though subjucated by islamic rulers, survived under the protection of british, and its own

The Brits never provided any protection to hindus/ism. Thy just didnt discriminate between Hindu/Muslim when looting.

The Hindu is a hindu's greatest enemy.our history is riddled with instances where a hindu sided with an invader just to settle scores with another hindu(mostly a relative) a hindu is internally as brave/meek as a muslim. The only difference is something which is external... ie the relegious sanction for muslims to use any means to convert non peelievars.
PS what do you mean by
the native indians

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

Postby surinder » 12 Jan 2008 11:45

prashanth wrote:The advent of europeans changed the order. The british dismantled the islamic empire with the help of the Hindus, the native Indians .Hinduism, though subjucated by islamic rulers, survived under the protection of british, and its own.


Prashanth:

British did not take India from the Muslims, British took India from the Hindus & Sikhs.

It is sad to see even Indians & Hindus repeat it. One should know the history of your own nation. Pakis love this error, because that takes away some of the shame of loosing to the Hindus/Sikhs. Don't feed the Paki lies.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Postby Rahul Mehta » 12 Jan 2008 12:47

.... Let us briefly look at the state of affairs in the so called greatest democracy, the United States. Although the state from its inception, separated the affairs of the state from the church, it was well recognized that politics could not be separated from religion. ... The Christian religion and its influences plays an important role in the American way of life. .... If the mild version of American Secularism, the President takes oath, with his hands on the bible with a member of the clergy by his side and most politicians, assert that they believe in every word of the bible, and except for a very limited direct public space, the private space practices the largely Christianized influenced American way of Life.


Everyone MUST read above mentioned points 4 times.

.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 12 Jan 2008 15:09

One factor worries me. How come BR has no muslim member ?

Love to listen to a muslim member's view point.

While we analyze the disease, what about the carrier/patient ?

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

Postby vsudhir » 12 Jan 2008 15:36

deleted
OT
Last edited by vsudhir on 12 Jan 2008 17:08, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest