Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 3

Locked
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Post by shaardula »

to shiv

this is in response to your comments about my post a few days ago.
while i agree that it makes sense not to paint ourselves into a corner, the intention of my post was only to be assertive about the superiority of the hindu system. a lot of BRFites have spoken about the distributed, multi central basis of hinduism. to me that is the fundamental principle worth fighting for and saving from the holiburtons of one book religions.

i see the intelligencia's liberal theories and raise hinduism of my and my ancestors following, even the most casteist- me and my x-community version of it. sugendra swamy in the midst of the most theoretical of battles still can talk with equanimity and indifference about islam and christianity. ditto his bitter rival vishwesha theerta. nothing in the one book system comes even close to this.

hindusim is more liberal than the most liberal theories of the world.

my point is, take this point to the liberal intelligencia of india. challenge them with facts of hindu trends and muslim outliers(akbar). this should happen on the 9 clock talk show.

we are beating ourselves unnecessarily on no unified hindu theory. it does not matter. hindu division is nuanced. if it were as universal as western theories made them out to be, why do you think "divisions" still exist, despite all the 100 year propoganda? is it for lack of trying or tact?

there p-many principles that are accepted by hindus of all stripes and streams that are well in variance with the theories of western religions. fight on those.

shaurya: thanks for your post. i was looking for details and your post provide me with them.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

ramana wrote:Shiv, More power to your pen. Keep it going. next you should develop how Hindu dhimmis feed the Hindu rage and need to be re-educated for the good of the nation.

Your oil droplet theory is well documented in every little Muslim community in the US. Muslims have grievances real or imaginary against non-Muslim society. In Northern California there was case of a missing female medical professional who just vanished. There was a huge search and rescue effort but of no avail. Meantime Muslim notables would say the police were not doing enough because she was a Muslim and a woman. Turns out the lady drove off into a pier as she was disoriented. After that no apology or thanks to the police for diverting their resources from fighting crime(its high murder rate) to search for a person who shouldn't have a driving license. there was thanks for the community for raising a hue and cry.

A Hollywood pot boiler "The Kingdom" has a good five minute intro to the problems of KSA which is the Islamists attacking the moderates for not being Islamic enough.
Dead right ramana. Hindu dhimmi behavior - i.e the Hindu dhimmi liberal is instrumental in aggravating Hindu rage. the liberal does not understand his own behavior and telling him about it only causes anger, which is what makes it so difficult to talk to the existing HISI/Hindu liberal dhimmi

Since it is relevant here, let me once again link the images that compare true liberal behavior with Hindu dhimmi liberal behavior, and how Hindu dhimmi liberal behavior invariably ends up being critical of Hindus and never critical of Muslims. The fear of criticizing Muslims was originally pure dhimmi fear, but it is now "fear of upsetting our Muslim brothers". Funnily, these Hindu liberals have no fear of upsetting their Hindu brothers.

Image 1: The true liberal will criticise both Hinduism and Islam
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... altrue.jpg

Image 2: The Hindu Liberal Dhimmi will criticise Hinduism freely, but fears criticizing Islam. Nowadays the fear is to "avoid upsetting our Muslims brothers" (Will they revolt?)
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... himmi1.jpg

Image 3: When faced with a mixed group of Hindus and Muslims, such as India, the Hindu liberal dhimmi faces conflict, because praising some aspects of Hindus may "upset our Muslim brothers". The fraud or pseudoliberal therefore plays it safe by freely being critical of Hindus and being full of only praise for Islam
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cy ... himmi2.jpg

The important thing is that Muslim grievances or rage when "our Muslim brothers" are upset can be translated into crowd action. Ramanas description of what happened in the US is one such example. Another example is the crowd whipped up for the cartoon controversy. The liberal dhimmi fears such mass action and tries to soothe Muslim sentiment rather than condemning anything that may need to be condemned (like crowds calling for the death of a cartoonist or minister offering a reward for a killing).

On the other hand, the liberal Hindu dhimmi does not fear upsetting his "hindu brothers". When his Hindus brothers undertake mass action they are roundly criticized. The Hindu dhimmi liberal fears Hindu crowds but thinks that being scathing and critical about their sentiment is the right thing to do, whereas he is always uncritical of Muslim sentiment.

The liberal Hindu dhimmi treats his Hindu brothers as "real brothers" because it is OK to get angry and chide someone in the family. The same liberal Hindu dhimmi treats his "Muslim brothers" like guests. He calls them "our Muslim brothers" but treats them like guests and refuses to be critical of them - lest one's "mehmaan" be upset.

The total fraudulence of the attitude of the "Secular Hindu Intellectual" is laughable.

Unfortunately this is only half the story. And it is already complex.

The other half of the story is the behaviour of Muslim society when outnumbered by non Muslim kafirs. (such as India, Europe or the US)

Muslims collect in groups or ghettos like oil droplets in water. Some Muslims are able to enjoy the freedoms that kafir society allows, while others can stay within the Muslim ghetto and pretend that they are in pure holy dar ul Islam. But because they live in kafir society with kafir rules, it is easy for Muslims to constantly harbor a chip on their shoulder. they are guilty because they are living in impure kafir society. The very society they live in, whose fruits they can use and enjoy whenever they want is criticised as being impure and imperfect and a therat to Islam.

That creates the one common rule for ALL Muslim groups who live in kafir areas outnumberd by non Muslims. That rule is "Complain Complain Complain. Grievance Grievance Grievance"

Muslim society in kafir land is ALWAYS considered under threat - so Muslim society is ALWAYS complaining that Muslims are being ill treated. Never mind that all those Muslims in Kafir land are reaping any benefits that kafir society offers. Stillthey MUST complain complain complain.

And in India when Muslims complain complain complain, the secular Hindu dhimmi intellectual says "Oh. Our Muslim brothers are upset!!! It's us stupid Hindus who are upsetting our Muslim brothers. Give them whatever they want and suppress any desires YOU may have"

How long to these morons think Hindus are going to do this?

Are Muslims in India our brothers or our guests? If they are our guests, then they must be leaving soon no?

If they are our brothers they have to behave like our brothers and put up with Hindu farts just like Hindus put up with Muslim farts.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

shaardula wrote: sugendra swamy in the midst of the most theoretical of battles still can talk with equanimity and indifference about islam and christianity. ditto his bitter rival vishwesha theerta. nothing in the one book system comes even close to this.

hindusim is more liberal than the most liberal theories of the world.

my point is, take this point to the liberal intelligencia of india. challenge them with facts of hindu trends and muslim outliers(akbar). this should happen on the 9 clock talk show.
With respect shaardula - I believe you are one step behind.

Notice that you have yourself created a small degree of confusion by using the same word "liberal" to describe two different sets of people.

You first say:
hindusim is more liberal than the most liberal theories of the world.
Then you say that the Hindu liberal intelligentsia must be challenged:
my point is, take this point to the liberal intelligencia of india. challenge them with facts of hindu trends
This is a mistake.

Only Hinduism can really liberal but does not demand liberalism as a rule. The people whom you call as "Hindu Liberal Intelligentsia" are NOT liberal

Therefore you must not use the same word for both.

First remove the confusion in description by saying that:

1) Hinduism, and real Hindus can be really liberal (under some conditions - I will explain this below)

2) The people who like to call themselves "Liberal Hindus" are not necessarily liberal. They are "dhimmi liberals" or the Hindu Indian Secular Intellectual (HISI)

You are saying that we must "confront" these dhimmi liberal/HISI with examples of how Hindu scholars are really liberal.

The problem with confronting them like this is that they will dismiss you as a fundamentalist. They genuinely believe that they are liberal. But they are liberal only towards criticizing Hindus. They will not confront or criticize Muslims.

They will become angry when they understand that they have been biased in this way, and they will try and show that you are a fundamentalist by pointing out behavior of Hindus in killing Muslims and saying that Hindus are not liberal.

This is exactly what has been happening every time well meaning Hindus such as yourself try to "confront" HISI dhimmi liberals with the truth.

We have to get past this stage. We cannot remain stuck at the phase when we keep trying to "show the liberal truth about Hinduism" to Hindu secular dhimmis (HISI) who have no intention of seeing the truth. Do not try to compete with jokers on their ground.

We need to understand that we too cannot keep on bleating "Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal.Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal." forever. The more time we waste doing that the more angry Hindus on the ground are getting.

And angry Hindus are NOT behaving in a liberal manner. They are behaving in a communal manner.

When angry Hindus behave in a communal manner, the fundamental pillar of your argument to confront "dhimmi seculars - i.e that "Hinduism is liberal." is totally destroyed and the Dhimmi seculars will laugh at you and say "You bloody Hindus. You break down a Masjid. You kill thousands of Muslims. And you say you are liberal? Bugger off. You don't even know the meaning of the word liberal"

Do you get my point?

The fundamental point shaardula is not that Hinduism is liberal. It allows all sorts of thought processes. Both liberal and conservative, secular and communal.

It is wrong to get into a "Mine is bigger than yours. I am more liberal than you" argument with Hindu dhimmi seculars.

Just point out that they are not liberal themselves. But do not try to outdo them in being "liberal". There is nothing in Hinduism that asks you to outdo anyone in being "liberal".

Hinduism is Hinduism. It does not want to get into a fight with anyone. But if Hindus feel that others are picking a fight, the same Hinduism gives them the justification to fight. If some Hindus do not recognise this, then they, just like the dhimmi seculars do not understand their own background.

Hindus will fight when needed

Muslims will always fight

Together we have a fine mix don't we?

What kind of solution can be reached without making up lies about Hindu behavior or Muslim behavior?
Last edited by shiv on 06 Jan 2008 09:01, edited 1 time in total.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Muslims in India are neither brothers nor guests. To be guests require invitation and Islam consider kaffirs unclean , lesser mortals not worthy of acceptance . For proof, one just have to look at the minority treatment in islamic lands and the charter of right for Dhimmis under Khalifa .

They are unfotunate stranded people , stranded by accident of history. The byproduct , leftover, remnant of Islam's violent past in India. They are wating for way to unite with Ummah .They cannot feel complete living among kaffirs . Operating system I.e Islam compels and drag them to get attached with Ummah which is non existent. Having Living example of Islam Pakistan next door dont help either.

The best way out if for them to become part of whole Indic society /system but having nothing spiritually sacred in India is big impendiment. One way is to go back and find roots in pre islamic past in Indic community . This require inward outlook, indo centric attitude.Islam again forbid this, India can be easily sacrificed for the sake of Mecca not VV.

Soon they are going to come under stress of havinng to choose either assimilation , identify with india or join Ummah. Partition of 47 demand answer to this question, Ambugity in this matter in unhealthy for the future of India. We are talking about our own children. We can leave them at the mercy of blood thirsty doctrine and practices . Not worthy of us to deceive our grandkids and rob them of life bliss by consciously leaving the burden of Jihadi problem on them.
Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Post by Sumeet »

While our Doc & other esteemed contributors to this particular thread produce brilliant analysis day after day, our leadership continues to embarrass us day after day


Taslima, repent, apologise to Muslims: Dasmunsi

[quote]
Kolkata: Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen must apologise with “folded handsâ€
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Sumeet wrote: "The comments made by her in the book in question (Dwikhandito) were uncalled for.
Even if the rest of the world chooses to be stupid, let us try not to be stupid.

Could someone please tell me what this lady wrote that got Islamic knickers in such a twist?

Recall that just a few weeks ago people were killed in bomb blasts conducted in courts by Islamic extremists taking revenge on lawyers as a group.

I see no widespread political remembrance of such atrocities.

But one woman says something and fundoos in Kolkata rioted and this minister gives us his mast-ur-bhashan.

What the hell did she write? If you don't tell me I won't know and what if I choose to say the minister is lying. He hasn't read the comments, and he doesn't know so the issue is a lie. it's all made up to persecute a woman.

Why the hell should I believe the minister who could well be lying an act that all ministers resort to for political gain.

We are all educated. I bet my left testimonial that most of us are better educated than the minister. Let us judge for ourselves. Tell us what she wrote. Someone please write to the paper and ask them to tell us that before quoting some political lightweight.

PS I have posted a comment. Peope please go and post your views.
Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Post by Sumeet »

shiv wrote:
Sumeet wrote: "The comments made by her in the book in question (Dwikhandito) were uncalled for.
Even if the rest of the world chooses to be stupid, let us try not to be stupid.

Could someone please tell me what this lady wrote that got Islamic knickers in such a twist?

....................


What the hell did she write? If you don't tell me I won't know and what if I choose to say the minister is lying. He hasn't read the comments, and he doesn't know so the issue is a lie. it's all made up to persecute a woman.

Why the hell should I believe the minister who could well be lying an act that all ministers resort to for political gain.

We are all educated. I bet my left testimonial that most of us are better educated than the minister. Let us judge for ourselves. Tell us what she wrote. Someone please write to the paper and ask them to tell us that before quoting some political lightweight.
Shiv,

Pages 49,50 were alleged to carry "direct disparaging" remarks about Prophet. Bengal's communist govt banned it in 03.

Eventually ban was lifted in 2005 by Kolkata HC. This is what they had to say:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/23taslima.htm

But the Kolkata High Court lifted the ban Thursday, saying the book did not 'deliberately outrage the religious feelings of any community,' The Statesman newspaper reported.

The court said the writer, without naming any religion, had made general observations in her book that religion was the root of all social ills and that she had never intended to specifically insult Islam, The Statesman said.
So constitutionally there is nothing wrong with the book in general and those pages specifically. Otherwise Kolkata HC would never lift the ban.

A point to note with regards to this, that in oct-nov period during Taslima controversy the dhimmi congress govt and their CPI-M allies pressured her into taking those pages off from her book. They resorted to methods of goondagiri and blackmail because they couldn't challenge her in court. Had they done that they would have lost the case. Court had already announced its verdict and upheld the book in light of our constitution. So the only way left for UPA to once again establish its secular credentials was to resort to unlawful way. And Dasmunsi is doing nothing more than going one step beyond what has already been done treading this unconstitutional path.
Last edited by Sumeet on 06 Jan 2008 20:46, edited 1 time in total.
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

Post by derkonig »

Sumeet wrote: Indian Secularism = Anti Hindu + Appeasement & Super Sensitivity towards Muslims & Christians Don't care/worry attitude and/or neutral towards Sikhs, Jains & any other followers of indic religions
there, now it is fixed...
just look at all the falling-over-themselves over the "riots" in Kandhamal in Orissa. Nevermind, that all the problems were caused by christians & christians alone, its hip to blame hindus & Sangh Parivar..yes add that to the definition of sekoolarism as well..ya gotta deride & defame any & every nationalist.[/b]
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

Prem wrote:New meaning of Dharma is Bharat Raksha
( it contains all the social , religious,political and economic issues . Just like Porus ,Alexander diologue )
Prem,

Not quite! Again you are talking about personal Dharma still.

My suggestion is to look beyond the person. I ask the question:
"Is Indian Secularism Dharmic*?"

This I ask not in the religious sense. The question I ask is does Indian Secularism sustain * society?
That is the question for Indian society (irrespective of religion) to find an answer to.

In continuing to ask questions regarding the exclusivity of Islam or other book religions from a Dharmic point of view,
we can then come together as a society to describe the contours of acceptable behavior.

IMHO such a discussion has not taken place in a open and free manner in India. The silence of the Hindu intelligensia in difference to the "pseudo-secular" Hindu intellectuals will only result in extreme action by the Hindus at the grassroots to emerging forces of Islamism and Evangelicals.
This is what we see on the ground today. We need to break this silence and provide a more constructive channel to have open debates.
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Get more islamic informers

Post by joshvajohn »

Appoint more islamic informers - particularly part time and also make sure that all the hotels in main cities have informers.

Another place is slums one needs to have more community policing like people around the corners who would inform the policing system.

Our policing system should also be watched as we have informers and helpers within our own system. Wrong information should be sent and find out who is transmitting within our systems. They should be immediately transferred from the main cities.

It is also essential to get informers from drivers auto and cab drivers.

If we have a solid multiple informers network and block inside informers to terrorists many of the bomb plans may be curbed.


It is also essential to take a list of those who have been to special places in Muslim countries for longer term being trained by a few groups. Keep an eye on them.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

I have deleted all posts not relevant to the topic of this thread.

The discussion of Islamic extremism in India has not arisen out of thin air but is a result of evolution of forum opinions to start seeing existing problems where problems were denied.

That is not so say that other problems may not exist.

However as long as nobody is capable of bringing in issues in a manner that does not sound partisan, those topics will not survive. That is tough and I will delete any further attempts to derail this thread.
Get your arguments right. Be fair. Don't whine. and post in the Indian interests thread if you like.
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Post by prashanth »

We need to understand that we too cannot keep on bleating "Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal.Hinduism is liberal. Hinduism is liberal." forever. The more time we waste doing that the more angry Hindus on the ground are getting.

And angry Hindus are NOT behaving in a liberal manner. They are behaving in a communal manner.

When angry Hindus behave in a communal manner, the fundamental pillar of your argument to confront "dhimmi seculars - i.e that "Hinduism is liberal." is totally destroyed and the Dhimmi seculars will laugh at you and say "You bloody Hindus. You break down a Masjid. You kill thousands of Muslims. And you say you are liberal? Bugger off. You don't even know the meaning of the word liberal"
Well said!

One should not care an iota of what the dhimmi Hindus say. Welfare of people is much more important than secularism. Never mind if one is not given a visa to the US.
Anyway, what is this secularism the dhinmmis are striving for?Are bomb blasts and mob violences symbols of secularism? Why not call spade a spade?
The dhimmis will not realize the malaise until it hits their bottom.Let the dogs bark and heavens wont be ruined because of them.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

prashanth wrote: One should not care an iota of what the dhimmi Hindus say. Welfare of people is much more important than secularism. Never mind if one is not given a visa to the US.
Anyway, what is this secularism the dhinmmis are striving for?Are bomb blasts and mob violences symbols of secularism? Why not call spade a spade?
The dhimmis will not realize the malaise until it hits their bottom.Let the dogs bark and heavens wont be ruined because of them.
Here is a slightly edited version of an article I wrote for my alumni website forum where active debate on any issue is allowed.
Hindus are also experiencing new thought and new views. Nathuram Godse and his views were expressed milliseconds ago compared to the centuries of history of evolution of society.

Godse's views, IMO have not been consigned to history, but (and mark my words) have actually become stronger. I can see it and feel it in the way people talk, and in the way violence is being used. Both Babri Masjid and the post Godhra riots were examples of that, and in my view it would be gross negligence to dismiss them as a flash in the pan.

Part of the reason for such anger is the active suppression of debate at a national level (as opposed to this board). For example, a minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi has asked Taslima Nasreen to apologise "with folded hands" for what she said in her book.

Any educated person would like to know what she said, so we can judge for ourselves. He will not say. But we can depend on the fact that a High Court judgement ruled that her words did not intend to hurt religion and the book was unbanned. I would classify Shri Munshi's statement as "less than fair" to an individual in his anxiety to be fair to the Islamic rioters of Kolkata. This is not "equidistance from religion". This is deliberate support for a religious view with a motive - perhaps electoral.

The concept that a government can remain "equidistant" from religion does not stand up to scrutiny in a society that is bound by a mixture of adversarial and non adversarial religions. Amartya Sen may have spoken of an ideal, but even the implementation of such an ideal requires open and honest debate and deep understanding of issues that the highest office bearers of India do not seem to have.

For example, the Indian constitution allows the freedom to practice and propagate all religions. This means that those who want to propagate their faith have the right to do so.

But what of those who do not want to propagate their faith? What about faiths that do not call for active propagation? Two answers can come for this question.

a) They can start propagating their faith. But this means that they have to change the tenets of their faith. Why should one faith be asked to change its tenets and not another? This is a bad solution, therefore the second answer seems more appropriate:

b) If a faith does not want to propagate itself, its members are welcome to be as they are and not propagate their faith.

Fine. This seems like a fair judgement.

Now let us look at faiths that seek to propagate themselves. A faith gets propagated only by getting new converts. That means people who do not belong to the propagating faith have to be made to join the faith as new converts.

In India the two religions that actively seek propagation are Islam and Christianity. The largest mass of people who can form new converts are Hindus. So Islam and Christianity MUST get converts primarily from Hindus. That seems fair and reasonable.

Now look at this a little deeper. The act of conversion requires the rejection of all other Gods as false, and the rejection of all old rites and rituals as false, and the acceptance of an Islamic or Christian God as the only true God.

In other words the India constitution legally allows any Christian evangelist or Muslim to demand that Hindu Gods be declared as false as part of conversion.

Luckily for India, Hinduism does not ask for the conversion of Muslims and Christians.

But guess how many "secular" Indian people, minorities and government react to any Hindu calling Allah a false God, Mohammad a false prophet and being similarly "disrespectful" of the Christian God? Speaking like this is "Blasphemy" or "Persecution of minorities".

In other words, in India,  as per the Indian constitution it is legal for Christians and Muslims to demand from Hindus the declaration that their Gods are false as part of conversion. A similar declaration by some Hindus about Christianity or Islam is "communalism" or lack of secularism.

This is how Hindus become "communalists". Indian secularism is far from being equidistant from all religions. The Hindu in India is required to bear a heavier burden of secularism than the Christian or Muslim. It is a misconception to imagine that our brand of secularism is equidistant from all religions when secularism is not required at all from islam or Christianity in this matter. Only Hindus are required to be secular. This is not secularism.

I think most educated people in India do not understand this, and even debate about this is disallowed as the right wing's "Hindutva" brand of communalism. I personally believe that such wearing of blinkers is the result of widespread and real dhimmitude.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:Luckily for India, Hinduism does not ask for the conversion of Muslims and Christians.
Seen from the narrow prism of the definitions of Hinduism as a religion the above is true. If one sees, Hinduism not from the narrow prism of a religion, but as enunciated by Justice Verma in the 2002, Supreme Court decision, Hinduism should be seen in its widest forms as a "way of life", for the people of India.

Hinduism at its broadest definitions seeks and demands of Muslims and Christians, an adherence to this national way of life. The rejection of this national way, which creates theological issues for the practitioners of Islam and Christianity, is what creates conflict zones between communities in India.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:Luckily for India, Hinduism does not ask for the conversion of Muslims and Christians.
Seen from the narrow prism of the definitions of Hinduism as a religion the above is true. If one sees, Hinduism not from the narrow prism of a religion, but as enunciated by Justice Verma in the 2002, Supreme Court decision, Hinduism should be seen in its widest forms as a "way of life", for the people of India.

Hinduism at its broadest definitions seeks and demands of Muslims and Christians, an adherence to this national way of life. The rejection of this national way, which creates theological issues for the practitioners of Islam and Christianity, is what creates conflict zones between communities in India.
I will not seek to prove or disprove this viewpoint.

But I see this viewpoint as:

a) A weakness, or loophole in Hinduism that has previously got Hindus into their current rut and promises to push them further down that road in the absence of self destructive violence.

b) The view is unrepresentative of those Hindus who wish to, and are free to see their faith as a religion and their Gods as sacrosanct, never mind that their view is a mirror image of Islam or Christianity.

The viewpoint expressed by Shaurya makes Hinduism a non adversarial "broad way of life" in the midst of well demarcated adversarial religions and is a dead end viewpoint IMO, no matter how correct it may be. It leaves the door wide open for the well developed rhetoric and argument of other religions that has pushed Hindus into their current whiny-violent rut.

If that is real Hinduism, it will not survive the particular onslaughts it faces and there is need for pessimism for those who see it this way, in the absence of coercion and violence, given our current laws.

However I believe there are enough people who like their own Gods and ways to make this viewpoint only one of many, and not the only one. It is only those people, for whom Hinduism is a distinct religion, whose Gods and whose religion are under threat by Indian secularism.

Indian secularism currently offers great protection for Hindus who offer the weak argument that Hinduism represents "an adherence to this national way of life." Every man and his uncle now claim that his way is the national way of life. So anything goes. Including the propagation of every religion that wants to do that.

If you see Hinduism as an adversarial religion like other adversarial religion, you have a case. Anything more iffy and less well defined than that like this "way of life" business is just and excuse for argument, criticism and gradual erosion. I'm serious.

We need a new dharma to actively protect, not float in broad definitions that everyone can argue about. And Hinduism does not disallow that, fortunately.

My own views.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:a) A weakness, or loophole in Hinduism that ha previously got Hindus into their current rut and promises to push them further down that road in the absence of self destructive violence.


The above assertion would not be true, if we seek to bifurcate the political state of the Hindu nations as compared to the social state and structures of the Hindu masses.

It is the social structures of Hinduism that saved this land from the utter route, we suffered. I can refer to material to prove this statement. If Hinduisms social structures were as weak as its political and governance structure, I shudder at, what would be the state of Hindu society today.
b) The view is unrepresentative of those Hindus who wish to, and are free to see their faith as a religion and their Gods as sacrosanct, never mind that their view is a mirror image of Islam or Christianity.
Not quite. Bhakti Yoga is a valid from of a way to salvation. Just because Hindus worship some idol, does not make them exclusivist and totalitarian as Islam or Christianity would define it. We should not make the same mistake of equating the two systems based on forms of worship and the absolute reliance on faith.

Hinduism and Islam, both seek dominance in seeking to control the ways of life of its peoples. Although these ways and systems are usually diametrically opposite to each other.
The viewpoint expressed by Shaurya makes Hinduism a nin adversarial religion in the midst of adversaral religions and is a dead end viewpoint IMO, no matter how correct it may be.

My own views.
Appreciate your views. In my view, Hinduism would be naturally adverserial to the systems of Islam based on theological differences and its approaches to way of life systems.

What I seek to do is not get locked into the debate of one religion over the other. The concepts of Hinduism, in my view are larger than the views of religion as defined by Islam and Christianity and hence should seek to be true to its own definitions of what they are as opposed to be locked down to the definitions of the opponents.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

ShauryaT wrote: What I seek to do is not get locked into the debate of one religion over the other. The concepts of Hinduism, in my view are larger than the views of religion as defined by Islam and Christianity and hence should seek to be true to its own definitions of what they are as opposed to be locked down to the definitions of the opponents.
ShauryaT & Shiv,

As always with Hinduism as is the case with law – it depends! :mrgreen:

You are both correct and imho both talking in parallel. Take the following example:

1. Question: Borat asks Karat, “Is Rama better or is Jesus better?â€
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Pulikeshi wrote:Consider that this difference started from the days of Zoroastrianism.
I would like to know more about this aspect, if you have some references on or off line. Thanks.

Also, I have made a post in the Indian Interests thread. Would like to know your thoughts. If we can manage to stay above this debate of religion, then the evolution of Hinduisms/Dharmic thoughts at a societal level can be explored out there, admins permitting.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:Luckily for India, Hinduism does not ask for the conversion of Muslims and Christians.
Seen from the narrow prism of the definitions of Hinduism as a religion the above is true. If one sees, Hinduism not from the narrow prism of a religion, but as enunciated by Justice Verma in the 2002, Supreme Court decision, Hinduism should be seen in its widest forms as a "way of life", for the people of India.

Hinduism at its broadest definitions seeks and demands of Muslims and Christians, an adherence to this national way of life. The rejection of this national way, which creates theological issues for the practitioners of Islam and Christianity, is what creates conflict zones between communities in India.
Shaurya, if I may say so, you too are looking at it from the western POV of what constitutes a religion vs a "way of life". IOW, this is again a problem because in essence by seeking this way of life as a definition of Hinduism, we are diluting what it means to an average Indian, from a stand alone religion in its own right, to a fuzzy "way of life" which nobody really understands or cares about.

Second, by denying Hinduism is a religion, we automatically put it on a weaker footing vs religions which are organized and recognised as such. This tactic was used to great effect in California by Witzel and co. By putting in claims that Hinduism was a disparate collection of practises and the views of those who objected to the textbooks were the views of "some" but not all.

In fact, if you pay close attention to this issue, you'll find that the biggest propogators of this "not a religion" business are sociologists and depictions of those who attempt to find any common strain in Hindu culture as "upper caste hegemony" and similar bigoted attacks on any larger Hindu history and civilizational memory.

Who defines what religion is? Why should we stick to the western depictions of religion alone! Hinduism, if you said was a religion and a way of life- it would be correct. But not the latter, and not the former.

Third- it is entirely possible for a Hindu to claim that Christians and Muslims acknowledge the Hindu imprint in Indian society without having to resort to generics about "way of life". If Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs can freely admit that the US is indelibly influenced by the Protestant work ethic, than the Indian Muslim and Christian can also recognise the Hindu imprint in Indian civilization.

What has to be recognised is that Hindus are not concerned with forcing Hinduism down the throats of fellow Indians, but want a secular code of conduct which acknowledges the formers right to recognise their history without being dubbed communal and the latter to abide by dharma, or simply a code of ethics, such as not pushing for conversion at the expense of Hindus etc.

While I agree with your last two sentences to some extent, I would still point out that falling into the trap of "not a religion" is the last thing we should do.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Post by JwalaMukhi »

One very important aspect in the present setting is the emergence of an idea that islamism in India can be tackled. This discussion although as many have pointed may not offer any solutions, it has already breached an important psychological barrier that there can be solutions for islamism in India and has highlighted the much needed hope. This is a crucial breakthrough and a paradigm shift that is already taking place in India as eloquently put by Shiv: that substantial number of Hindus have realized there is 'life outside dhimmitude'.

As in any area if emergence of a certain breakthrough is imminent, it is impossible and foolish to stop it by artifical means. Some examples such as be it scientific realm or an athletic competition it is hard for the first person to breach a barrier which has been thought of hitherto as impossible. Once the breach occurs and especially when it is a positive breach, in a very short order of time many more will consistently cross the barrier. Pretty soon the barrier ceases to exist.

The take home message is there is widespread realisation that 'tackling of Islamism in India' is possible. It is also being recognized not tackling it is not an option. The argument is about forms the solutions may take to tackle. Arguably, the solution could emerge either in this generation or could take couple of more generations down the line, but neverthless, solutions will be tried. However, the current generation is in an unique position to provide the tools necessary towards that solution. It is already clear 'appeasement' technique will just skew the solution to be an unpalatable brute force technique.

Using the analogy as already pointed on this forum, the monkeys inside the dhimmi cage have witnessed, some have breached the dhimmi-cage confines by taking a section of cage wall down. Worse, they have shown cage keepers and cage builders life outside dhimmitude is exhilarating. It is upto the cage keepers/builders to embrace the emerging change and retrain in other occupations. Prior to that sensible among them will open the cage gates so there is orderly exit of occupants of the cage, else they risk being victims of ensuing stampede.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by 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€
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Post by putnanja »

X-Posting from internal security thread, as some of the article is related to the discussion going on above...

Local factors led to Kandhamal violence
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

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.
It is not a “Hierarchical Bureaucracyâ€
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

now that we are here, why not identify what are the traits or marks of an Indian and a Hindu? In other words what is expected of a Indian by the Hindu? And what is expected of the world by aHindu for those not in India?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

I am travelling. Will respond in a day or so.
Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 802
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Post by Santosh »

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?
There is no need for Muslim or Christian to say that they are hindu. They just need to follow the minimum basic code of conduct that is required by all citizens of India. So if India decides that there should be Uniform Civil code or no religion based reservations or no conversions or 2 children per couple or whatever, it should be obeyed and enforced strictly. You may be whoever but you are not bigger than the state. The problem is some of these may be in conflict with the code of some of the religions. This is further aggravated by sickular intellectuals who muddy waters by saying that these are requirements of hindu society. No, these are requirements of the Indian society.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

RaviBg wrote:X-Posting from internal security thread, as some of the article is related to the discussion going on above...

Local factors led to Kandhamal violence
Kandhamal is primarily about access to scarce state resources - via the reservation quotas for SC/ST. Every government job, college place or NREGS contract that goes to a member of one group is one less for the members of the other group.
Last edited by Gerard on 09 Jan 2008 08:19, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

ShauryaT 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.
Shaurya this is the weak spot, the "Achilles heel" if you will, of your undoubtedly enlightened view.

Allow me to insert a medical analogy.

I may be a sentient, enlightened being. As a whole, I may be beautiful to look at and equally beautiful in behavior. I may be kind and generous. I may be wise and benevolent towards all nature.

But if I am wounded in an accident that inoculates deadly spores that cause gangrene under my skin, the "wholeness" and "all encompassing beauty" of my being is not recognized by the gangrene causing bacteria. They will use my own body tissues to multiply and grow and produce toxins that serially affect other parts of my body. While this happens, my "wise and benevolent mind" may continue to look upon my own suffering, and the serial disruption of my own life processes with detached cheer, and accept that the gangrene causing bacteria are life forms just like me and have as much of a right to both stay alive and be what they are as I do.

Eventually, I die. The bacteria don't. My thought processes theoretically don't die with me, though they could. But the concepts embodied in my wise thought processes are timeless and totally true. They will exist whether I am dead or not.

Apply this analogy to Hinduism.

The thoughts you express are timeless. They will survive without Hindus. Indeed without humans. They are eternal truths. But these eternal truths needs to be protected and nurtured among humans, in an environment in which religions act as bacteria that erode and break down one small, undefended area of the whole, and gradually spread to take down the whole.

Hinduism may be bigger and wiser than individual adversarial religions, but the tenets of those religions do not know and do not care, like gangrene causing bacteria. They attack and do their job unmindful of the damage being caused to the whole structure.

Your view seems to be aimed almost at convincing the bacteria that joining the whole and becoming one with the whole is best for them. But the bacteria are doing just that in a way that you do not anticipate. They will bring you down anyway. The bacteria are saying: "Whether you become us, or we become you makes no difference to YOU. But it makes a difference to US, so we will do what we need to do".

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

Post by shiv »

Some additional thoughts that followed from my reply above.

Hindu Philosophy embodies timeless truths that do not call for or require protection. Truth survives by itself, in the absence of anything. Even humans are unnecessary for the truth to stand by itself. But Hindu philosophy merely supplies the arguments to show other humans why this is correct.

On the other hand, the Hindu religion requires protection like any other religion. The religion is people dependent, because beliefs are people dependent.

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.

Those who find solace in Hindu philosophy without actively recognizing the role of the Hindu religion in fostering, nurturing and propagating Hindu philosophy are on a suicidal path. They are unwittingly hand in glove with the same secular Hindu forces who are suicidally degrading Hindu knowledge and custom.

I just wonder if the mass murder of the militant followers of the Hindu religion in history led to the survival of Hindu thought mainly as timeless philosophy. Hindus, as a survival mechanism, instead of being killed for their practices agreed that the practice of religion was less important than the great thoughts.

In fact this is why Indian secularism, which is suicidal for Hindus has followed from dhimmitude just as surely as night follows day.

India secularism does not protect Hinduism the religion, and it considers Hinduism a "way of life" or a timeless philosophy that is somehow "above and beyond" mundane things like religion.

Nothing could be better than that attitude for religions like Islam and Christianity to continue their way unhindered. Nothing could be more suicidal for Hinduism the religion. And when Hinduism the religion dies, the philosophy that it nurtured will be forgotten until someone re-discovers it.

So the threat from islam and Christianity no longer comes from without. It come from within. Those religions have done their job in killing the protectors of the Hindu religion. All we have left now are secular people who survived, and who deny that Hinduism is a religion, and see it as a timeless all encompassing philosophy.

This view is both cowardly and suicidal. It does not call for the active protection of the only religion that respects Hindu philosophy. Indian secularism follows Indian dhimmitude as a natural and logical consequence. And as a result Indian secularism too fails to protect the Hindu religion, while accepting the right of other religions to protect themselves.

When the guardians of the faith were killed off, leaving only bearers of the philosophy, it would only be a matter of time before the philosophy and knowledge too followed the religion into the dustbin of history.

Hinduism would be dead if it were not for the survival of a few who are brave enough to stand up and call their faith a religion that needs support and protection, rather than drawing comfort sans action in the truisms of the philosophy.
prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Post by prashanth »

Santosh wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote: 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?
There is no need for Muslim or Christian to say that they are hindu. They just need to follow the minimum basic code of conduct that is required by all citizens of India. So if India decides that there should be Uniform Civil code or no religion based reservations or no conversions or 2 children per couple or whatever, it should be obeyed and enforced strictly. You may be whoever but you are not bigger than the state. The problem is some of these may be in conflict with the code of some of the religions. This is further aggravated by sickular intellectuals who muddy waters by saying that these are requirements of hindu society. No, these are requirements of the Indian society.
I share your opinion bro.
People of all religions have to abide by basic code of conduct and uniform civil code.Law of the land is supreme and higher than all religions.

If there is a conflict between any religion and these codes, the religion has to be suitably modified. History has shown this. Turkey has shown this to the islamic world. Protestants have shown this to the Christian
world.
Today all Hindus oppose the sati system, most of them oppose child marriage and other such malpractices. Thus Hinduism has adapted itself to the current situation. On the islamic front the contrary is true. We see new rules made by mullahs for Imrana and for Sania mirza's doctors. These people are running a parallel government and making rules that causes disharmony in the society.
...2 children per couple or whatever, it should be obeyed and enforced strictly.
Even before this, laws that restrict a man to one wife has to be enforced strictly, for all religions. Polygamy is the root cause of poverty and extremism among muslims. When there are too many children, parents naturally cannot care for each of them. Left to fend for themselves without proper parental care the children grow up to become criminals. And it is very easy to recruit such people for extremism. (let us for now disregard the peculiar and concerning case of glasgow terrorists).
asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Post by asprinzl »

Doc,
I think seriously that Hinduism must resort to propagation. I also think that in ancient times, the whole population of what is now India could not have become Hindu instantaneously. It had to have started somewhere and propagated from there on to the rest of the land and beyond. That has the the logic.

Also, the population of South East Asia, were introduced to Hindusm and Bhuddism by Hindu missionaries. So, it would be wrong to say that Mission Work is not in the blood stream of the Hindu.

I think, the Hindu became too complacent or comfortable closed his/her doors after that and forgot about continuing the mission work. The Hindu need not look to far to provide for himself. The land had plenty and provided bountiful. If not for all but at least to a significant size of the population. And then came the barbarians.

Its time to resuscitate the engines of propagation and active conversion.

A system cannot forever be on the defensive. Eventually, those who are carrying out offensive military operations against the defenders would break through.

Finally, I think there has to be a brand new direction to take all this forward. That is Political Hinduism. Leave behind all the dharmis, softy-mofty after world stuffs behind. Let the preachers, sadhus and gurus worry about that. The present and the future requires cold calculative realism firmly grounded in the material world. Bring the informed and ignorant masses together under one banner. Also, break down the barriers of the Islamic ghettos. You cannot fight Islamism without "Liberating" the ignorant Muslims who are under the suffocating grip of the resident Mullah. The Muslim had to be taken out of his ghetto, cleansed of the "bad influence" and given new life.

You cannot have a better front line soldier for your cause other than a Muslim rescued/liberated from the Ghetto. For this you need active, sustained and sophisticated Mission/Propagation work backed by solid money, psychologists and PR. I beliebe that inside every IM is a Hindu waiting to come out.
Avram
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Post by Pulikeshi »

We are in a the market for faith :mrgreen:
This means we need to create a strong brand –

See Jerry Rao’s article [url=http://www.mphasis.com/newsroom/jerry_column.asp] “In Market for faithâ€
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Why US muslims live in peace (Jerusalem Post)

This extract seemed particularly relevant to identity politics of the subversive kind in the Indian context.
Second, the US maintains maximum, if not absolute, separation between religion and state, making religion an individual matter. That means there is no room for Muslim-religious demands. In Europe, even in those states that do not have an official religion, religion is still very influential - perhaps with the exception of France - in the areas of education and public life.

Third, the United States has a tradition of individualism: It is the individual that stands alone facing government; the individual pledges his allegiance to the flag and the constitution when he becomes a citizen; the individual can conduct a dialogue with the government on his own and has no need for an intermediary, such as the Muslim Councils established in Britain and France.
Fifth, multiculturalism is recognized in both cultures, but in the United States, the concept is limited to certain specific areas: tolerance, recognition of other cultures and of the need to have affirmative action and diversity in education and employment. In Europe - and especially a short time ago in Britain, Holland and Scandinavia - multiculturalism has been translated into group cultural rights, which isolate the immigrants from the majority population.
The fifth point is coded into our constitution itself leading to the vagaries of the 'asymmetric secularism' we see today. Collective rights for muslims as muslims and not merely as individuals becomes the crux issue. No such constitutional rights are granted to the majority btw. Its desirable not to have any for any group, ideally.

Of course, some yamrikis had different ideas about the real answer to the article's title question:
Why the muslims live in peace in the United States?

2nd Amendment.
The one city where they have a sufficient percentage of the population is Detroit... not exactly a haven of peace and understanding.
mangesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 20:00

Post by mangesh »

shiv wrote:Some additional thoughts that followed from my reply above.

Hindu Philosophy embodies timeless truths that do not call for or require protection. Truth survives by itself, in the absence of anything. Even humans are unnecessary for the truth to stand by itself. But Hindu philosophy merely supplies the arguments to show other humans why this is correct.

On the other hand, the Hindu religion requires protection like any other religion. The religion is people dependent, because beliefs are people dependent.

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.

Those who find solace in Hindu philosophy without actively recognizing the role of the Hindu religion in fostering, nurturing and propagating Hindu philosophy are on a suicidal path. They are unwittingly hand in glove with the same secular Hindu forces who are suicidally degrading Hindu knowledge and custom.

I just wonder if the mass murder of the militant followers of the Hindu religion in history led to the survival of Hindu thought mainly as timeless philosophy. Hindus, as a survival mechanism, instead of being killed for their practices agreed that the practice of religion was less important than the great thoughts.

In fact this is why Indian secularism, which is suicidal for Hindus has followed from dhimmitude just as surely as night follows day.

India secularism does not protect Hinduism the religion, and it considers Hinduism a "way of life" or a timeless philosophy that is somehow "above and beyond" mundane things like religion.

Nothing could be better than that attitude for religions like Islam and Christianity to continue their way unhindered. Nothing could be more suicidal for Hinduism the religion. And when Hinduism the religion dies, the philosophy that it nurtured will be forgotten until someone re-discovers it.

So the threat from islam and Christianity no longer comes from without. It come from within. Those religions have done their job in killing the protectors of the Hindu religion. All we have left now are secular people who survived, and who deny that Hinduism is a religion, and see it as a timeless all encompassing philosophy.

This view is both cowardly and suicidal. It does not call for the active protection of the only religion that respects Hindu philosophy. Indian secularism follows Indian dhimmitude as a natural and logical consequence. And as a result Indian secularism too fails to protect the Hindu religion, while accepting the right of other religions to protect themselves.

When the guardians of the faith were killed off, leaving only bearers of the philosophy, it would only be a matter of time before the philosophy and knowledge too followed the religion into the dustbin of history.

Hinduism would be dead if it were not for the survival of a few who are brave enough to stand up and call their faith a religion that needs support and protection, rather than drawing comfort sans action in the truisms of the philosophy.
That was an excellent post, that clearly articulates the reality.
Sad, but true.
mangesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 20:00

Post by mangesh »

asprinzl wrote:Doc,
I think seriously that Hinduism must resort to propagation. I also think that in ancient times, the whole population of what is now India could not have become Hindu instantaneously. It had to have started somewhere and propagated from there on to the rest of the land and beyond. That has the the logic.

Also, the population of South East Asia, were introduced to Hindusm and Bhuddism by Hindu missionaries. So, it would be wrong to say that Mission Work is not in the blood stream of the Hindu.

I think, the Hindu became too complacent or comfortable closed his/her doors after that and forgot about continuing the mission work. The Hindu need not look to far to provide for himself. The land had plenty and provided bountiful. If not for all but at least to a significant size of the population. And then came the barbarians.

Its time to resuscitate the engines of propagation and active conversion.

A system cannot forever be on the defensive. Eventually, those who are carrying out offensive military operations against the defenders would break through.

Finally, I think there has to be a brand new direction to take all this forward. That is Political Hinduism. Leave behind all the dharmis, softy-mofty after world stuffs behind. Let the preachers, sadhus and gurus worry about that. The present and the future requires cold calculative realism firmly grounded in the material world. Bring the informed and ignorant masses together under one banner. Also, break down the barriers of the Islamic ghettos. You cannot fight Islamism without "Liberating" the ignorant Muslims who are under the suffocating grip of the resident Mullah. The Muslim had to be taken out of his ghetto, cleansed of the "bad influence" and given new life.

You cannot have a better front line soldier for your cause other than a Muslim rescued/liberated from the Ghetto. For this you need active, sustained and sophisticated Mission/Propagation work backed by solid money, psychologists and PR. I beliebe that inside every IM is a Hindu waiting to come out.
Avram
Your post seem like a correct step towards the future. With 99% of hindus only interested in making their living, the world will lose such a tolerant culture and religion. There are organisations that are doing this globaly, but not with an idea to convert-in-its-current sense. They should be given more support.

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.

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.

The main purpose is to legitimize one religion and its celebrations among corporate hindus. The second aim is to collect charity money for orphanages(most orphanages 100% are not orphans, instead just 20% or less) from hindus to enable conversion in rural bangalore. The modus-operandi is use hindu money for hindu conversion and self money to establish the system. We should be surprised to know that this missionary gang involves 80% of IT-engineers and students.


As usual once legitimized with little opposition, everything even future Corporate culture will be pseudo secular.

These are not de-centralized activities, instead done with full guidance, funds and programs.

I am sorry to bring this up as it is slightly OT. But it hurts to see it all happening right in front and helplessly watch, clearly aware of the way they have done it successfully in kerala.
I see, a major conversion lobby working in Bangalore, centered around IT companies and some colleges for money and work, and the conversions are done on poor inside villages of karnataka and North-indian workers who are in blr for construction works.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Johann »

Shiv,

Dharmic religions dying? Do you really believe that?

If anything Hinduism and Buddhism seem to have been more alive and engaged with the world of living people in the last 150 years than they have been in a long time.

Obviously there are major challenges - but dying?!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Johann wrote:Shiv,

Dharmic religions dying? Do you really believe that?

If anything Hinduism and Buddhism seem to have been more alive and engaged with the world of living people in the last 150 years than they have been in a long time.

Obviously there are major challenges - but dying?!
Johann I do not recall writing anywhere that Hinduism is dying.

I stated that it would have been dead if it had not been for Hindus who treated Hinduism as a religion and fought.

However - one statement I made sums up my thoughts on Hinduism in India and my posts have generally revolved around the causes of that.
current whiny-violent rut.
It is difficult to say a lot of things on topics that cause a lot of heat. There is conflicting information on many things, and I have to try and say things that seem evident and are difficult to dispute in my own view. If I can reach a balanced view in my own mind, what I write is likely to be seen as a reasonable view.

I don't think Hinduism is dying. But there is a sense of being "had", or or having been hoodwinked/misunderstood/misrepresented in some way among many Hindus.

When this translates into violence, the violence then becomes justifiable as a response to a grievance. This is what I mean by a whiny-violent rut.

If a large enough proportion of Hindus go this way it will be difficult to bring sanity until after some mayhem and massacres have occured. So I believe it is important to place a hand on the Hindu pulse and look for bees in bonnets (to use that expression again).

Part of the problem lies within collective Hindu psyche with its overlay of dhimmitude and Macaulayism. People often end up believing what they WANT to believe rather than what is true or correct.

The effects of Islamic extremism on the Hindu psyche is greatly dependent on the particular filter through which the Hindu views that extremism. And like the six blind men (of Hindoostan) examining an elephant it appears to me that all the views being expressed (secular and rightwing) have some truth and some myth in them. Anger at the other group and misunderstanding is leading to effects down the line in which Muslims can sometimes only be horrified spectators.

More on all that in due course.
Last edited by shiv on 09 Jan 2008 18:48, edited 1 time in total.
Sanju
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 14 Aug 2005 01:00
Location: North of 49

Post by Sanju »

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

Post by Johann »

Thanks Shiv - I misunderstood your meaning when you said
Indian secularism thrives on such timeless and unprotectable philosophies while Hinduism dies

When the guardians of the faith were killed off, leaving only bearers of the philosophy, it would only be a matter of time before the philosophy and knowledge too followed the religion into the dustbin of history.
There are historical parallels for the separation of bhakti from gyan, or worship from philosophy.

The Greek/Roman religions died - but the high regard, and high value content of Greco-Roman philosophy and sciences meant that they didnt go the same way.

Today the number of people whose world views are shaped by that philosophy, who regard it as part of their identity is actually larger than it was.

Socrates lives, while Jupiter is dead, and Jesus who replaced him is dying. Antigone is still performed in Greece in Greek, while Pilgrim's Progress is an oddity.

The one thing that those who are grounded in it ought to do is maximise the broadcast of dharmic/vedantic philosophy and classical culture- after all that isnt about conversion or worship, but something deeper and broader.

A century and half ago India started to come out of its shell, and actively share what it had with the widest possible audience at home and abroad. That is what classical Greco-Roman culture did, and that is why it has survived death itself.

Personally, I dont think Hinduism is going the way of the Greco-Roman paganism precisely *because* it is not as tied to the survival of the state.

Both Hinduism and Judaism survived and adapted to the loss of state-sponsorship.

But Hindu philosophy and classical culture are essential keys to long term survival and propagation of Indian civilisation,even more than shrines in every home and men willing to take up arms to defend them.
Locked