JE Menon saar,
there may have been a time, when Hindus used to think that primarily it is the responsibility of the individual himself to ensure his spiritual awakening. The Guru can only help those, who have the curiosity and motivation for spiritual upliftment. Spiritual Knowledge cannot be forced into other people. A worldview totally and diametrically different from the rote-learning
madrassa education. So there was little proselytization from the Hindus.
However, since Christianity and Islam have been on the scene, the dynamics have changed, the rules of the game have changed. Faith has become less of a question of spiritual awakening than a question of identity politics.
Your faith is now your identity. May be with the Hindus earlier, basing one's identity on one's faith was not needed because the various sects could live with each other, accepting the variations in world view between them.
JE Menon wrote:I'm saying change the rules of the game. The time is right. Instead of playing by the same tired old rules, what India can offer is a different way of looking at the game. This is what we have been traditionally good at, persuading by the power of the idea and example. And the idea that all religions/faiths must be treated with the same degree of respect is a powerful one, especially in this reason/science driven world.
What your are referring to were the old rules.
Earlier a shop could open somewhere in some by-lane, and the shopkeeper used to think, anybody who needs flour and soap would come over and buy. He does not need to go out and tell people to buy.
Now the paradigm has changed. It is about vigorous marketing of one's products. One wants to inform the consumer about the product, entice him to buy it, tell him where he can buy it, tell him that the product is the best in the world, so it is only this product he should buy.
And that is exactly what Proselytization is: vigorous marketing of one's faith.
One can put "proselytization" back into the tooth-paste tube, only as likely as one can put back the concept of marketing today. The competitive nature of the market would not allow you to ban advertising everywhere in every form. Should the human unlearn how to run, forcing the human only the luxury of walking?!
When we rant against the "exclusivist" nature of the Abrahamic faiths, we are in fact whining against the use of the marketing principle (albeit in an extreme way), "our product is the best money can buy"! This is only a marketing strategy to push through ideological identification. Faith itself has become secondary to "ideological identification", a tool whose usefulness is restricted to keeping the flock together in the bond of "ideological identity".
It is the proselytizers who are attuned to the new ways of the world - Marketing what one has! And they continue to grab market share! Hindus on the other hand, keep on whining the way the little shopkeeper in the bylane does not know what hit him and he protests about the changing world. The ways of the shopkeeper are dead. There is no going back.
Now the shopkeeper may have precious treasure to give away, but without similarly marketing his offerings, not many people are going to get interested, To our good fortune, not all Hindus have remained passive. Many are aggressive in promoting their schools of 'faith'!
What I have been
saying is, that we
force the Abrahamics to slash their marketing budgets by forbidding foreign funding of religious groups in India, across the board.
JE Menon wrote:The apple analogy while attractive is not accurate. Apples can't change their minds, have doubt, use reason. And one they fall, they cannot get up and walk into another basket.
The apples who have wings of freedom, are perhaps those in developed countries of the West, where the basic needs of the populace has been looked after, and they have time to devote to spirituality. With the economic setbacks, even that assumption may not be valid anymore.
How many apples are allowed to walk around in Islamic countries. Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in most Islamic countries. Even in India, apostasy can mean hard social consequences for the fallen believers.
Besides it may not even be that, that is stopping people from looking at Hinduism. I used the word "apples" because the concept of free will is a bit over-hyped. Free-Will has long been chained through the aggressive use of psychological tools of education, job market requirements, political chicanery, identity politics, media, wagerah, wagerah! Acharya garu can say a lot more on that. We are all ideological prisoners of the environment that has been created by the rich and the powerful.
This is not supposed to be whine. I am just saying that there is far less freedom of thought for humans to make their minds looking at the merits of the idea, bringing us all closer to becoming apples than we would assume.
I wrote a
piece earlier on why "marketplace of ideas" cannot function properly.
RajeshA wrote:It can prove somewhat disorienting if one tries to map "marketplace of devotional ideas" with "marketplace of products"!
"Devotional Ideas" in general have a very different nature than products.
Instead of cost of production, perhaps one needs to talk about the cost of enticement. If the human being was just an intellectual machine accepting and rejecting ideas based on their merit, one could speak of a "marketplace of ideas"! However human is far from being simply an intellectual machine, he is a whole system which evaluates acceptability of something based on his physical, social, monetary, professional and other needs as well.
As such the whole process of acceptability of an idea, becomes subjugated to other considerations.
The best one can do is to try to minimize the enticement that is directed at the non-intellectual and non-emotional needs.
It is in fact the "marketplace of products" that corrupts the "marketplace of ideas". As the individual lives in both marketplaces at the same time, it is difficult to shut out the "marketplace of products" from the "marketplace of ideas". This intertwining of marketplaces however make the isolation of the two marketplaces difficult, and one has difficulty at restricting the enticement, that is directed at the non-intellectual and non-emotional needs.
JE Menon wrote:Shift the paradigm is what I'm saying, and put yet another positive check mark on our civilisational account, rather than playing a game in which we neither set the objectives, nor the rules nor can choose the referee.
The only thing we have going for Hindus in India is that we are still a majority.
Basing our confidence on our ability to show the richness of Dharmic thought, would be very premature. In the scheme of things it is only a minor advantage. At the most a Dharmic endowed with the depth of the wisdom in his philosophy can feel perhaps more satisfied in his faith and would not feel the impulse to convert. That makes it a defensive strategy. Considering the cultural attrition that has taken place in the Hindu society over the past several centuries, the rooting may not be strong anymore, and the richness of the Hindu thought may not even suffice as a defensive strategy.
As an offensive strategy it is a zero, without the paradigm of proselytization to support it. Either we proselytize or we will be proselytized.
It is not true that we have no control over objectives, rules or referees.
The
objective is to have most people who identify themselves with the Dharmic thought and are averse to leaving it.
The
rules can be redrawn. It is only important that the new rules are made using the appeal to universal values which can be justified using arguments of constitutionality, fairness and liberalism.
"Law for Protection of Indigenous Culture", and
"Law of Restricting Foreign Funding to Religious Groups" are two examples.
The
referees can be appointed anew, for that depends on our power to do so. The more power Indics will have, the easier it will be to appoint referees. Getting control over Indian media is a first priority.
JE Menon wrote:Boss, what you are saying is you would rather play their game, proselytize, in which we have neither advantage nor much in the way of actual support.
It is either proselytize or die as a faith.
If the whole world was to become flooded, we will be forced to learn swimming. I am saying we not only learn swimming, we grow our own gills and fins.
