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

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 13 Nov 2014 12:17

This may be OT or not: can someone point to the need/trigger for Bhakti movement?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Nov 2014 12:26

^^^

One guess to make sure that Hindus don't convert under the pressure from Islam. Following the loss of PR Chauhan.

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 13 Nov 2014 12:36

^^ but it did start from the deep south where the pain may not have been felt as acutely?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Nov 2014 12:53

^^^
Remember the Madauri Sultanate. Add to the fact the Sufi Islam needed to be countered.

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 13 Nov 2014 13:16

Thank you , will read about it. Though the initial reflexive question is what is there in Sufi Islam that Hinduism lacked.
Pejorative could mean either
1. Hinduism is a potent force that was a cause of fear that must not be awakened.
2. It is a derisive that it could mean all the talk of nationalism means not a lot unless it could be backed up by force.
Still in a fog which could it be
If this is meandering from the purpose of the thread I will stop digressing.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 13 Nov 2014 13:44

^^^
FYI
SandeepWeb( The Rediscovery of India) has a nice piece on the Madurai Sultanate available online.. The sources are Madura Vijayam/Majumdar/Krishnaswami and Batuta's literary works.

Comer · Post by **Comer** » 13 Nov 2014 14:49

Thanks Neela.
"rearming Hinduism" by Vamsee Juluri seems promising by the blurb.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 18:21

shiv wrote: Bectorji, if nothing will come of it then no one needs to pay any attention to this discussion.

Yes I agree - I feel the people on this thread are blameless, the fault is entirely mine - I thought the discussion was going somewhere completely different. I jumped the gun. My apologies - it is just that old habits die hard.

shiv wrote: But may I point out a contradiction in your post above? You ask that we must start with a blank slate. A blank slate means that there is no "previous state" that one could reset to from that blank slate. But in the very next sentence you are saying that people who reset the knob will find that the knob returns to the previous state. How can you start with a blank slate under the circumstances?

Yes - I realise the resistance in India to "blank slates", but given that all verifiable sources of information point to 100 fold increase in the population density in the landmass called India, I submit to you that all previous ideas of nationalism (toxic or otherwise) are insufficient.

Most of these notions were conceived in a time or place where the population density was much lower, competition for resources was limited and there was an element of self-reliance in the economy that provided a means of continuity. It is not possible to translate these ideas into the present time.

Today one is faced with a very different situation. The economy is shifting from agriculture to industry. Traditional social security mechanisms which provided for simple things like child care and elder care are gone. The family unit is broken although no one will come out an openly say it.

Despite all attempts to pretend the opposite, one is left with an increasingly transactional form of association where people invest in something over a short term and disinvest in it when it becomes expedient. The timescale between investing and disinvesting in something has become quite short. It is difficult to get people to put their energy into things over a long timescale. This makes it very difficult to do any kind of meaningful investment in long term infrastructure.

Given this backdrop - one might be able to get people to invest in detoxifying "Hindu Nationalism" over a short timescale but this will cost a lot. A simple way to do it would be to create an even more toxic brand (such as the one Col. Purohit was developing or the Anand Margis) and allow the natural horror that comes from such a thing to drive investors towards the detoxification stance, but this will be short term only perhaps a fraction of a decade at most. Beyond that the knob will spin back to where it sat before. This may be possible - but a few words of caution - it is difficult to estimate the cost of this kind of thing. Also some brands like Anand Marga may be unavailable due to licensing issues (I have great difficulty imagining that the sons of the mother will sign that over for any price). The only one who can claim some success in such a strategy are the angels of Aabpara chowk but even they will admit that the word "success" can mean completely different things in this context.

I do not wish to be disruptive, but there is a cost benefit analysis that can't be erased from view.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Nov 2014 18:23

now its poorohit..

leopards, spots..

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 18:26

Regarding patriotism and all that. My views are no secret. So people want to suspect the source it is understandable.

Suspicion is healthy but honestly the only thing that should matter is whether something makes sense.

Even without the toxicity of the hyphenation, the dehyphenated term is superior from the perspective of a diaspora and advantageous from the perspective of a multi-ethnic multi-cultural democracy.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Nov 2014 18:28

Harpal Bector wrote:Suspicion is healthy but honestly the only thing that should matter is whether something makes sense.

Short-term or Long-term?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 13 Nov 2014 18:47

Fact is that in one world, there are many exclusive ideologies that have become super cults by outright genocides, slavery, worldwide colonialism and such ideas. Slaughter and mass ethnic cleansing are for all to see. If certain exclusive ideologies are turned to blank slate, it won't affect rest much at all. In fact, the world will be much better place without webs of mutual exclusivity. Till people think such ideas are misplaced, world will not be better unless slates wiped clean somehow.

Indians need to carry out several steps:
(1) Give very hard and repeated jhapads to terrorist munna of super cults ie paki jihadis. Break their back. Publicize it very well to break idea of sadism and masochism at other's cost. No need to worry about bigots who can't call out super cults as super cults.
(2) Indians can do very well with what we have. Invest in RnD in core areas - such as engines (many such core areas).
(3) What would the world be without nuke weapons? By this time Indians would have smashed rabid dog - munna paki- of super cults. Instead the super cults are giving protection and support very openly to terrorist rabid dog that has acquired nuke weapons somehow. There is another way to look at this. In a tangential example, we should consider navigation as scientific knowledge completely independent of good squads, pirates, super invaders and other such temporary weeds on the way. We need to change our way of thinking to finish off rabid dogs super cults as soon as possible.
(4) Keep our way of life completely out of question/deals in dealing with super cults which cover power greed. Use only statecraft to deal with it and keep it there. No use comparing what is not comparable.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 13 Nov 2014 19:06

Most of these notions were conceived in a time or place where the population density was much lower, competition for resources was limited and there was an element of self-reliance in the economy that provided a means of continuity. It is not possible to translate these ideas into the present time.

Today one is faced with a very different situation. The economy is shifting from agriculture to industry. Traditional social security mechanisms which provided for simple things like child care and elder care are gone. The family unit is broken although no one will come out an openly say it.

Despite all attempts to pretend the opposite, one is left with an increasingly transactional form of association where people invest in something over a short term and disinvest in it when it becomes expedient. The timescale between investing and disinvesting in something has become quite short. It is difficult to get people to put their energy into things over a long timescale. This makes it very difficult to do any kind of meaningful investment in long term infrastructure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Nov 2014 19:59

Harpal Bector wrote:
Yes - I realise the resistance in India to "blank slates", but given that all verifiable sources of information point to 100 fold increase in the population density in the landmass called India, I submit to you that all previous ideas of nationalism (toxic or otherwise) are insufficient.

My personal view of this is that this is nonsense. Indian "nationalism" has actually grown in the last 40 years during which time the population has grown. By 600 million. So the suggestion you make that the people born since independence were born with no link to the past and represent "clean slates" is tripe. Your grammar and diction are superlative and praiseworthy - but they only serve as a tattered veil for the rubbish you are trying to pass off as fact. I recall it started with you saying what "Capt Verma said to me". Now I am just beginning to wonder about that. I should have guessed when you started with namedropping

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 20:30

shiv wrote: My personal view of this is that this is nonsense. Indian "nationalism" has actually grown in the last 40 years during which time the population has grown. By 600 million. So the suggestion you make that the people born since independence were born with no link to the past and represent "clean slates" is tripe. Your grammar and diction are superlative and praiseworthy - but they only serve as a tattered veil for the rubbish you are trying to pass off as fact. I recall it started with you saying what "Capt Verma said to me". Now I am just beginning to wonder about that. I should have guessed when you started with namedropping

Nationalist sentiment should grow with the population. That makes sense to me. What is difficult to say is whether the rates of growth of nationalist sentiments and population are the same. As resource constraints increase due to rising population density, the rates of growth of population can outpace the rate of growth of nationalist sentiments.

You don't have to take my word for this but there are no known growth or development models of population densities exceeding a certain number and parts of India's cities are already at those densities. Something new has to be cooked up - that much is clear to everyone -- and yes that is going to be a new form of nationalism.

This hypenated term you are proposing to revive as a nationalist expression is expensive given its past associations. If you are that keen to do it, the only way I can think of doing this is the way I disclosed to you above. I am sorry if you are unhappy with the proposed solution. If you don't like it then the only alternative I see is a "blank slate" approach.

Regarding Capt. Verma's words, I mentioned his name because I don't want to take credit for something he said. I can't do this even if I want to because he said the exact same thing to Nagpur's representative in Delhi on the day before. The only reason I gained insights into his perspective was because he related an account of his conversation to me as we drove to the airport. I think this was the same day I caught a flight to visit you. I am not name dropping - I am remembering a time when things were different. Clearly a lot has changed when you accuse me of name-dropping.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 20:31

RajeshA wrote:
Harpal Bector wrote:Suspicion is healthy but honestly the only thing that should matter is whether something makes sense.
Short-term or Long-term?

Both. Why believe when you can question?

Trust no one - take content only and discard the wrapper.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 21:57

Arjun wrote:But what makes Shri Harpal Bector ji think that social reform of the 'Hindutva' type cannot actually be an aide to this effort ? After all, the 'Hindutva' laboratory of the last decade - Gujarat, has performed far better on growth and other parameters as well as on the parameter of controlling riots over the last decade than has the rest of India.

I was told repeatedly that Gujarat's economic performance has been attributed to Modiji administrative skills not to 'Hindutva' ideologues running around the place. The evidence in support of this is strong - there were no major communal flareups after 2002. Modiji personally pardoned a young Muslim boy who threatened to kill him after the Godhra Ahmedabad violence. In the run up to the 2014 election when one famous voice in the Hindutva spectrum spoke out of turn, Modiji told him to refrain from speaking as it was derailing his message. Many prominent Muslims in Gujarat defended Modiji's handling of the state.

I am certain that a strong positive sense of nationalism will aid in economic development.

I remain unconvinced that resurrecting this old "Hindutva" brand will provide a good starting point for that positive nationalism. This "Hindutva" is an old brand it is too costly to bring it back. My suggestion is to just let it go in to the pages of history and come up with something new.

For example it "Moditva" or "Modi-ism" and it will be a smoother ride.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Nov 2014 22:19

Harpal Bector wrote:
Harpal Bector wrote:Suspicion is healthy but honestly the only thing that should matter is whether something makes sense.
RajeshA wrote:
Short-term or Long-term?
Both. Why believe when you can question?

There is no need to either believe or to question or to doubt. What we have are concrete precedents - Afghanistan, Pakistan and more and more Bangladesh as well. All Hindu earlier and inheritors of a rich culture. All black holes now. What you prescribe is the slow but steady route to making India another Pakistan.

Very often secularists like to make comparisons, comparing Hindu Nationalism with Talibanism, and claiming that Hindu Nationalism would lead to the same thing, same result. Where is the precedence for that, other than some purely irrational equal-equal by a class dependent on Muslim political support?

Harpal Bector wrote:Trust no one - take content only and discard the wrapper.

and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Nov 2014 22:34

Harpal Bector wrote:This hypenated term you are proposing to revive as a nationalist expression is expensive given its past associations.

Let's just say that under the stewardship of Secularists, the country has been partitioned, there have been umpteen communal riots in what we have left, and we have mostly followed a Nehru Rate of Growth, except for a short while under PV Narsimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Moreover our security environment was hardly heart-warming.

So what exactly are Secularists good at?

It is in fact extremely expensive for India to have secularism!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Nov 2014 23:09

So first we are told, by Shri Bector -

1Bad bad Hindutva = Taliban
2. Bad bad Modi. No good pilot
3. India funds go down because of Modi/Hindutva
4. Makes claims Hindu nationalism is flawed because Hindus and nationalists are different; Hinduism belongs to TSP, Indonesia etc (lol!) and brings in references to "cults of Hinduism" and what not to demonstrate his ultra special secoolarism

Then he gets an equivalent of

to his assertions

Oops!

So now its bad bad Hindutva but not so bad Modi, but good good Modi-ji and bad bad Hindutva.

Are yaar, even Sardesai didn't flip within a few posts.

Perhaps what Bectorji truly fears is that if India becomes strong & prosperous under Hindutva, it will become the de facto popular association de jure for Indian citizens as versus the Nehruvian-INC model he likes? Hence the visceral dislike of "toxic Hindutva" and the cults of Hinduism etc.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 23:27

RajeshA wrote: Very often secularists like to make comparisons, comparing Hindu Nationalism with Talibanism, and claiming that Hindu Nationalism would lead to the same thing, same result.

Okay, let me see if I can word it differently.

Lets say the "seculars" have created all these problems and wasted all these resources. Let us also say that "Hindu Nationalism" was never a problem and these "seculars" made it all look bad just to make themselves look good.

Also lets say one wants to reset everything. There is only one problem which I am pointing towards, the reset button or knob has a lot of feedback built into it - if one pushes it - it will push back.

Does it make sense of the fantastically superior non-"secular" people to expend their energies to play with this knob? do the non-"secular" people want to waste more resources on this artificial problem that the "seculars" have created?

Why spend more energy on this reset button/knob when the only thing it does is prove how awful "seculars" were - something that is anyway taken as being axiomatically true?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Nov 2014 23:34

Itni khujli kyun? Let the seculars get their comeuppance. Let Hindutva become popular. What goes of anyones chacha? Unless one is part of the secular types and cant tolerate it.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 13 Nov 2014 23:55

Karan M wrote:Perhaps what Bectorji truly fears is that if India becomes strong & prosperous under Hindutva,

No - my concern is that the opposite will happen, that this emphasis on claiming failed brands from the days of old will only alienate potential investors inside and outside India and reduce the prosperity. If what you describe happens then good - more power to you, Shiv and Modiji.

When resurrecting an old brand there are a million ways to get it wrong. With a new brand, people have lesser expectations and they are more forgiving.

Karan M wrote: it will become the de facto popular association de jure for Indian citizens as versus the Nehruvian-INC model he likes? Hence the visceral dislike of "toxic Hindutva" and the cults of Hinduism etc.

As I said earlier, the INC model (like other models that predate it) is unlikely to be very useful in today's India. The electoral verdict speaks directly for this. Whether I like the Nehruvian-INC model or not doesn't seem relevant in light of this reality.

I don't care for a toxic term like Hindu Nationalism but I have no dislike of cults of Hinduism or anyone else. If you find the cult term offensive then I am happy to use another term you find more acceptable in its place.

As far as my comment about Col. Purohit goes, I don't know how many people are aware of this but multiple army officers have testified under oath that Col. Purohit was attempting to infiltrate a terrorist group that was reviving an old brand extremist brand. It is difficult to disbelieve the sworn testimony of dozens of serving army officers before a court of law. Also a letter has been sent to Modiji indicating that this infiltration had been sanctioned by the designated authorities at the time. Evidence at this time points to Col. Purohit having acted within the limits of the law as he was given to understand it. From whatever is available as evidence right now the "Abhinav Bharat" brand is even less attractive than "Hindu Nationalism".

Juxtapose "Abhinav Bharat" against "Hindu Nationalism" and people will naturally say ... "Hey... that Hindu Nationalism... not so bad... at least is isn't Abhinav Bharat... right".

That way Shiv can have his cake and eat it too.

Otherwise just create a new brand and the public will come to it as long as the administration runs smoothly and the economy grows.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 14 Nov 2014 00:06

Karan M wrote:Itni khujli kyun? Let the seculars get their comeuppance. Let Hindutva become popular. What goes of anyones chacha? Unless one is part of the secular types and cant tolerate it.

The contention is that back when they were powerful the "seculars" beat up "Hindutva" types - so now the "seculars" deserve what is coming to them?

But then people will ask - how are the purveyors of "Hindutva" any better than the "seculars"? if all they are doing is repeat the "secular" mistakes of beating up their own countrymen?

The "secular" model failed because it didn't attract enough investors. Why will the "Hindutva" model succeed where the "secular" model failed - if the Hindutva-vadis behave exactly like the "secular"-vadis did?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Nov 2014 00:07

Somehow the Hindutva brand does not seem to have deterred Modi from getting a rockstar reception in the US, making the USG sit up, let alone harmed his perception in Japan, China etc which regard him as a tough, credible leader & his party as powerful. The Australians last one heard were busy entreating India to buy their Uranium. Russian press is aglow about "India's Putin".

Sorry, but all this toxicity stuff, this dislike of Hindu nationalism etc is your creation, its your fear, your worry, your projected claims onto other folks. Others don't care. Its all about money. They will and have done business with Deng Xiao Ping, multiple other "leaders" in the first world with real blood on their hands.

Nobody gives a darn about Abhinav Bharat apart from the left in India & nobody trusts the farcical claims made on its existence etc from the third rate UPA and its rent a cop apparatus either. Its very likely Shri Purohit will get released and a curtain drawn over the matter so that people don't know how the INC attempted to subvert Indian institutions and nearly succeeded. Its bad for morale to know that such worthless curs were in charge and did all this.

And then, its only "make in India" and "clean Ganga" and so forth, while the leftist-JNU cabal is uprooted systematically from every sphere.

That too, will happen. In short, nobody gives a darn about Hindu nationalism as long as India gives them a good ROI. Which the Hindu nationalists who came to power know all too well. Since they ran a campaign that beat the Delhi Sultanate hollow and knew exactly what to do.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Nov 2014 00:10

Harpal Bector wrote:
Karan M wrote:Itni khujli kyun? Let the seculars get their comeuppance. Let Hindutva become popular. What goes of anyones chacha? Unless one is part of the secular types and cant tolerate it.
The contention is that back when they were powerful the "seculars" beat up "Hindutva" types - so now the "seculars" deserve what is coming to them?

But then people will ask - how are the purveyors of "Hindutva" any better than the "seculars"? if all they are doing is repeat the "secular" mistakes of beating up their own countrymen?

The "secular" model failed because it didn't attract enough investors. Why will the "Hindutva" model succeed where the "secular" model failed - if the Hindutva-vadis behave exactly like the "secular"-vadis did?

Who are these people apart from you? People in India couldnt care less about what happens to the purveyors of fraud secularism. As regards their "own countrymen", most of these idiots were busy carrying lotas for foreign govts and NGOs. what goes of anyones uncle if they lose their influence and get whats coming to them. The NYT and economist can get a few rudaalis.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Nov 2014 00:17

>>>No - my concern is that the opposite will happen, that this emphasis on claiming failed brands from the days of old will only alienate potential investors inside and outside India and reduce the prosperity. If what you describe happens then good - more power to you, Shiv and Modiji.

Who says its a failed brand? Must be the same spinmeisters who were sitting in their ivory towers, counting their thirty pieces of silver once the party they had sold their skills to, would again come back to power. But it didn't. Now they are busy trying for selfies with the new power structure.

>>>I don't care for a toxic term like Hindu Nationalism but I have no dislike of cults of Hinduism or anyone else. If you find the cult term offensive then I am happy to use another term you find more acceptable in its place.

You dont care for the term because you find Hindus doing nationalism toxic. Others don't. Perhaps, you might realize this. As regards finding the cult term "offensive" and your constant attempts to draw an equal equal between Hindu nationalism and the Pakistanis, I find it more amusing than anything else because it reflects your thinking. And that sort of thinking, reflects insecurity & intellectual dishonesty to the extreme - since everyone and his dog knows the kind of murder and mayhem the Pakistanis do & have done, and the native Indian reaction is not even a fraction, if that. To vilify the Hindu political consciousness while ignoring the atrocities & history of Islamic rule in India, whom the Pakistanis seek to emulate with their over the top hatred of Hindus and desire for hegemony, whilst drawing tenuous parallels with the Hindu groups may be oh-so-sophisticated, but it merely revels in Dalyrymple style brazen silliness. It also serves the purpose of demonizing Indians and Hindus.

Its that of some pretend scholar attempting to talk down to the heathens and their silly and primitive ways, with their oh so silly "cults" and what not.
Wiki says In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or other social group with socially deviant and novel beliefs and practices..
Socially deviant. And so, we are supposed to take your references to the "Cult of Rama", Cult of Shiva, Cult of Murugan etc seriously? Yeah, you can claim you meant no offence, but somehow, you have enough command of the English language to write oodles of sophisticated claims about "the angels of Aabpara" (yeah, the angels who murder and mutilate non Muslims) and then slip in references to cults and what not.

In short, you are behaving exactly like the Doenigers and Witzels with their assumed air of superiority & the Mishras and Roys who loudly proclaim "oh lookie I am brown but I ain't like those primitive browns". Oh Hinduism is not some real unified faith. Its just a group of different cults. Dont take these guys seriously, they are as bad as 'em Pakis, extremists, deviants all. Thats the exact symbology your posts are littered with.

You have internalized all the stuff the Doenigers and Witzels churn out and are merely regurgitating it.

Hard to take anything you say seriously, when you litter your posts with such stuff.

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 14 Nov 2014 00:33

Dear Karan,

You sound so sure of yourself and so full of hope. You must be right.

Because if you are not - then things are going to be really interesting.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Nov 2014 00:37

Harpal Bector wrote:Dear Karan,

You sound so sure of yourself and so full of hope. You must be right.

Oh actually, I am not the one bringing in specious comparisons to ETFs, drawing dodgy comparisons to TSP & the Hindu faith etc. Boss, you are the one who sounded pretty sure - all I did was point out the contradictions in your claims.

As regards hope etc - I am just calling things as they are. Anyone would note what I said about the way things are re: realpolitik as cynical..

Because if you are not - then things are going to be really interesting.

Leave that to all 'em pesky Hindu nationalists who voted Modi-ji into power will ya? People get the Govt they deserve & asked for.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Nov 2014 00:42

Harpal Bector wrote:
Karan M wrote:Perhaps what Bectorji truly fears is that if India becomes strong & prosperous under Hindutva,
No - my concern is that the opposite will happen, that this emphasis on claiming failed brands from the days of old will only alienate potential investors inside and outside India and reduce the prosperity. If what you describe happens then good - more power to you, Shiv and Modiji. When resurrecting an old brand there are a million ways to get it wrong.

India 's good friend ,well wisher and geo strategic economic Hamid Gul also repeat this point on every possible occasion.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Nov 2014 01:01

Harpal Bector wrote:Also lets say one wants to reset everything. There is only one problem which I am pointing towards, the reset button or knob has a lot of feedback built into it - if one pushes it - it will push back.

Does it make sense of the fantastically superior non-"secular" people to expend their energies to play with this knob? do the non-"secular" people want to waste more resources on this artificial problem that the "seculars" have created?

Yes it does make sense to press the knob, because if we didn't, the thumb may not survive. This way it is only a little pinch on the thumb from recoil, figuratively speaking.

It makes perfect sense to spend enough energy now on the button, rather than wait it out before India turns into a new Pakistan. The cost of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan from 2001 to 2014 for USA has been around 740 billion USD, plus care for the veterans.

Had Afghanistan and Pakistan remained Hindu countries, this cost would not have been there.

So how much would be the cost of war if India were to turn into a Pakistan as per Secular recipe? You know it would be zero, because most of us would be dead or would have nothing in our pockets to pay for such a war! But somebody may have to pay!

Harpal Bector wrote:Why spend more energy on this reset button/knob when the only thing it does is prove how awful "seculars" were - something that is anyway taken as being axiomatically true?

So even though in your view the reason for Hindu Nationalism may be to "prove how awful "seculars" were", which I feel is awfully arrogant to think Hindu Nationalists are fixated on Seculars, for Hindu Nationalists the reason is to save Bharat from becoming a Pakistan.

So what do you think? What cost is too much to pay to save India from becoming another Pakistan, run by Islamic Jihadis, the ISIS types?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Nov 2014 01:08

Harpal Bector wrote:Juxtapose "Abhinav Bharat" against "Hindu Nationalism" and people will naturally say ... "Hey... that Hindu Nationalism... not so bad... at least is isn't Abhinav Bharat... right".

That way Shiv can have his cake and eat it too.

Otherwise just create a new brand and the public will come to it as long as the administration runs smoothly and the economy grows.

Comparing "Hindu Nationalism" with "Abhinav Bharat" is like comparing "Christianity" with "Glendale United Methodist Church". After all everything is only a "brand"!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Nov 2014 05:00

Folks I would like to bring about a course correction on this thread

the question was "WHY"? Why does Hindu nationlaism have a bad reputation.

Unfortunately Bectorji has chosen not to answer this question by resorting to obfuscation, saying (in effect) "Hindu nationalism is bad and therefore it is going to kill investment"

That is not an answer to the question. I have stated in the first post and in subsequent posts that Hindu Nationalism has a bad reputation. Supporters of the Congress party for instance are happy to propagate the idea that Hindu nationalism is bad.

But why? What are the reasons behind declaring Hindu nationalism as bad.

In Bectorjis case - he comes across as a political opponent who has no intention of saying why Hindu Nationalism is called bad. He is merely grateful that it has a bad name and wants that to continue. I now realize that if, by a stroke of fate, Hindu Nationalism was declared innocuous, it would take the wind out of the sails of the entire self-styled "secular" polity of India. I did not anticipate this problem when I started the thread. I did not realize that there is active opposition to the idea that Hindu Nationalism might not be toxic because an entire political class in India have put their survival on the single leg of declaring that Hindu Nationalism is undesirable. Without knowing why they did it.

The question was "why"? Why does Hindu nationalism have that reputation? Arriving at an answer to that question is important. if you don't know the cause of a malady, your treatment is going to be wrong. If you can''t say why Hindu Nationalism is "toxic" you may well be saying and doing all the wrong things and scoring own goals. For example I think that last election was a massive Congress self goal. The one leg they stood on, a leg that required Hindu Nationalists to be considered bad simply collapsed. Why did that leg collapse? Is Hindu nationalism really bad, or are its critics wrong

It is dangerous for the country to be left with no opposition party. But if the one opposition party is trying to stand on a broken leg I would be worried. So the question "Why does Hindu nationalism have a bad reputation" could come up with a positive answer for non BJP parties which they could use to defeat the BJP in a later election - if only they showed an ability to think, rather than obfuscate and beat a dying horse in the manner that Bectorji has done. I am sure BJP supporters would be happy at this sate of affairs, but I believe I have as good a chance of helping secular parties to sort themselves out if they could analyse and say why they believe Hindu Nationalism is "toxic". If Hindu Nationalism is not toxic, then the secular parties will have to move their bags to a new boat. But if it is toxic - they will be on a winning wicket. No?

Harpal Bector · Post by **Harpal Bector** » 14 Nov 2014 05:09

Dear Jhujar,

Gen.(r) Gul may be heavily invested in anti-India activities, but he is not a fool. That is possibly one of the most cunning and ruthless adversaries that India has ever faced. He has an exceptionally good ability to find thing that might hurt India's prosperity.

Dear RajeshA

I don't know if this revival is going to lead to all the things you are hoping for. in the past, many revivals have created exactly the kind of circumstances you seem to want to avoid but I'll give you the benefit of doubt - maybe this time will be different. Let us hope it is anyway...

Yes everything is a brand. If you want to make the differences clear to people, then you have to amplify the contrast.

That is where IMO "Abhinav Bharat" can come in handy. There is a running court case against them, that can be used to enhance the contrast with "Hindu Nationalism". As so many people have pointed out, "Hindu Nationalists" do not carry out terrorist attacks on Pakistan, but there is evidence that people using this "Abhinav Bharat" brand actually did carry out terrorist attacks - so a simple point of contrast is to bring that difference into sharp focus. And regarding Col. Purohit, a brave Army officer who was attempting to infiltrate this organisation and prevent it from carrying out its terrorism found himself mistakenly victimised by "seculars". Well today the "Hindu Nationalists" have prevented a miscarriage of justice by letting Col. Purohit go free... etc.. etc... It is a pretty compelling narrative.

Dear RajeshA, Jhujhar and Karan M,

I think I have the answer to my question.

I had asked if it made sense to revive the "Hindu Nationalism" brand as a template for the next fifty years of India's history given the negativity associated with the brand?

The answer appears to be - no - it doesn't make sense to revive it for that purpose but as a way to stick it to the "seculars" who love the "Nehruvian/INC" model, it is ideal to revive it - purely as a tool of cynical realpolitik. As Karan explained to me - no one but me is going to care if the "seculars" get beaten up.

I feel there could be cheaper ways of doing the same thing, but it appears after Modiji's landslide victory there is a euphoric perception among the people who like this "Hindu Nationalism" brand that this victory is entirely due to the popularity of the brand. I can see how that impression might come about and to date no experts have been able to tease apart how much of the victory came from what factor in the mix of issues raised in the election. So there is a desire to use this apparently very strong hammer to strike a nail of some kind and the "seculars" are as good a nail as any.

This means no one is turning any knobs in the cockpit just yet. And that means my concerns are misplaced.

I thank Shiv for letting me post the question on his thread. I would not have found the answer if I had not asked the question.

I will get back to watching Parzania now. I was in the middle of the court scene where Shernaz was testifying before the committee about the day her son disappeared. It is a very gripping movie, I stopped watching it to read this thread. Now I can go back and watch the rest of the movie.

After I am done watching Parzania I will watch that movie "Final Solution" by Rakesh Sharma.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Nov 2014 05:16

Harpal Bector wrote:
I thank Shiv for letting me post the question on his thread. I would not have found the answer if I had not asked the question.
.

There is no need to thank me. However I cannot echo your sentiment because you have asked a question, but have failed to answer the question I asked.

I put it to you that you will not answer my question because you are afraid of the answer. You prefer to let it remain unanswered.

This thread will continue while you watch your movie - a description of the movie scene was unnecessary rhetoric - people with powerful arguments usually don't need such buttressing, used as a "rubbing it in" tactic. Your opinions should be able to stand on their own sans the "While I enjoy a movie you may not like" statement. That is an indicator of your state of mind, but let us see.

Your obfuscation of my question suggests to me that Hindu Nationalism is not as toxic as you claim and you are unable to say why you call it toxic. That is what I have suspected for some time - but I will see where this thread heads.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 14 Nov 2014 05:30

Can the OT posts from this thread be move to some misc. thread. The nonsense of "angels of Aabpara" and the mythical prowess of a retired Paki general in hurting Indian prosperity is not related to the topic of this thread.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Nov 2014 06:02

I have a new hypothesis regarding "Why is Hindu Nationalism spoken of in a pejorative/derogatory sense?"

The answer is "Nobody knows. No one has thought about it recently. One group does not want the question examined. the other group accepts it philosophically"

Pakistanis, the Donigers and the Congress and other two-bit "secular" parties don't have any good reasons but are happy to continue to call Hindu Nationalism "toxic" or "bad" or whatever. They do not want to rock the boat. If it ain't broke don't fix it. They do not want to explore the question because they are afraid that the answer will go against what they have been insisting. But this is fine.

What is an order of magnitude worse, is that people who support Hindu nationalism are themselves unable to say why it has been given a bad name. They too have not explored the question and this group too are not going beyond the tactic of simply and reactively opposing Pakis, Donigers and Congressis, who are themselves unable to say why Hindu nationalism is bad. The supporters of Hindu Nationalism have simply accepted the accusation and some actually come up with rationalizations and explanations to prove that the accusations are correct, rather than applying themselves to disproving this egregious association of Hindu nationalism with murder and bigotry.

It seems to me that the situation is exactly like Prof SN Balagangdhra says. The British came into India and set certain terms of reference which were totally new to Indian thought. Indians had never been asked to explain things the way the British expected answers. That led to a British conclusion that there was something egregious about Hindus and stemming from that Hindu nationalism became bad. This was naturally a very good conclusion for the supporters of Pakistan

But it was the secular Hindus who also accepted this conclusion without dispute and sought to correct "Hindus" and applied corrections where no corrections were needed (eg by needless minority mollycoddling). This secularism angered some Hindus who were instantly labeled as "Hindu fundamentalists" by the Congress or "secular" people.

The people who were labeled Hindu fundamentalists did not dispute this. They too had colonized minds under the maya of our Macaulayite education system. They accepted the label and said "We have to be fundamentalist because Muslims and Christians are fundamentalist" . The Hindu groups have not had the foresight or the analytical power to go back in history and rip the accusation of "fundamentalism" from its roots. I see an attitude of acceptance. "Let it be. We don't care". I have been told on this thread that I also should not care. The analytical power to see our culture from our ancient viewpoint has gone. we are using term of reference set by the Brits to fight battles and don't know why those battles even exist. Secular and Hindutva are all examples of colonized minds unable to break free

I find this a pathetic state of affairs. Neither the seculars nor the Hindutvavadis have any clue why one is calling them bad and the other is accepting that label. How profoundly stupid.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Nov 2014 06:23

Let me point out another observation of mine - right or wrong.

The British or Americans, for whom English is a first language are excellent at rhetoric and in the use of their language to frame arguments that are difficult to refute - even if elements of the argument are lies.

An early generation of Indians were taught to use English like this. But along with the language came the attitudes - so it was these people who became "seculars". Of course there are some fantastic examples of Indians who are able to put English to effective argumentative usage and are still not pseudosecular. Viveknanda, Aurobindo and Subramaniam Swamy fall in this group.

But by and large the seculars of India have produced a far greater number of people whose facility in English far exceeds the ability of Hindutva supporters to argue in English. Maybe the explanation for this is simple. The language brings the attitude with it. So a person who studies "vernacular" (LOL what a silly colonial word

) till 4th or 7th standard typically finds it difficult to match the English skills of people who have been exposed to English from age 1. This "late English learner" group are also less likely to have colonial attitudes and more likely to have Indian attitudes. But in debate the seculars will thrash them.

(Pseudo) Secular spokespersons typically have fantastic ability in English. Arundhati Roy, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Manish Tiwari, Shinde. Even on BRF I find that people with so called secular views are able to pose arguments in English that easily turn the debate away from what is being discussed to something else, and then the proceed to utarify the chaddis of the "lesser competence in English" people whom they mock as chaddiwalas. I have observed this from time to time over that last 15 years. it is frustrating, but true and IMO reflects a fundamental flaw in our education. What is worse is that such people typically receive ideological support from outside India from native English speakers like Doniger and Witzel

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 14 Nov 2014 06:57

Shiv,"I find this a pathetic state of affairs. Neither the seculars nor the Hindutvavadis have any clue why one is calling them bad and the other is accepting that label. How profoundly stupid."

Sir, IMO, This has to be a matter of being trained to think that "nationalism" is bad in general, so of course, "hindu nationalism" is bad -- this has been the attitude of the so-called "liberal and secular" crowd in India for a long time. The fundamental premise these kind of "secular" people work on is that, all religious/cultural ideas are equally flawed and equally good, which is completely unfounded. Reality tells us that some religious and cultural ideas are more harmful (or more useful) than others, but one would have to view the outcomes of such ideas on the people practising those ideas to actually make guess as to which ideas are good (or bad) and which ones aren't.

But if you are one of those people actually trying to confuse the issue, you will start off by claiming that a complete and clean reset for a clean start is where it is at. But how is it even possible to disregard one's upbringing and all the people and connections and ideas that flow into us as children unless one makes a conscious choice to completely wipe out one's real identity and replace it with something that is "less troublesome in the big picture"?

Maybe a ramble but this is the subtext I read from the view of Mr. Bector (and others like him) -- why should anyone be apologetic for who they are, unless they care about what others think of them if they continue to be themselves?

If we look at the definition of nationalism, it says

"loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

If you read the definition, it applies to Japanese, Chinese, Americans and Brits and pretty much everyone, so why not people with a hindu cultural ethos (as opposed to those who pray to hindu gods).

Seems to me that once you go down the road of "all Indians are equal" (as we should in a constitutional republic) then Indian nationalism becomes different from hindu nationalism, if you consider hinduism a religion rather than a cultural concept. So it seems to me that the confusion here is that if you claim "hinduism is a religion" then "hindu nationalism" is different from "Indian nationalism" and that leaves out a lot of people who are of different religions. so if hindutvavadis claim hinduism is a religion in the western sense of the word, so they themselves distort the meaning of hindu nationalism, by being more emphatic that hinduism is a rigidly defined religion, as opposed to a way of life that is orthogonal to the concept of religion. I'll stop now and leave quietly.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Nov 2014 07:38

shiv wrote:
Harpal Bector wrote: Your obfuscation of my question suggests to me that Hindu Nationalism is not as toxic as you claim and you are unable to say why you call it toxic. That is what I have suspected for some time - but I will see where this thread heads.

He wants to define it by himself ,then impose and discuss from that point of view. His various analogies dont make any sense and utter irrelevant for Indiskas. How can nationalism wedded to the soul of soil for sons of soil by sons of soil be toxic to the land and its own people? Call it Dharmic nationalism if word Hindu gives the itch in deep down dark ditch causing rash on ass of secular Ass. Out of 67 years since transfer of power, 55 have been lost chasing ,selling political, social vaporware. India cant afford any more waste of time and energy. This cancerous Nehruvian secular cult will end now for Dharmic secular doctrine to take over India to rise as nation and ancient civilization. It enriches everyone and not destroy, except those with destructive designs.