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

[RajeshA]

Let me try and answer Shiv's original question.

The reason 'Hindu Nationalism' is so bad is because of the horrors that one tends to associate with Islamic Nationalism (Pakistan, ISIS and innumerable other examples) and Christian Nationalism (Spanish Inquisition, Goa & Portuguese atrocities, colonialism....).

This is a classic case of 'guilt by association'. One can either fight against this fallacy and prove that Hinduism is not as destructive as Islam or Christianity - or one can use a term that raises less hackles and is less likely to be brought into disrepute by association with the Abrahamic religions.

A small correction, if I may. This is not "guilt by association" because Hindu Nationalists were never associated with Islamists. "Guilt by Association" would have been for Muslims in general through their association with the others through the medium of Islam.

"Hindu Nationalism" is guilty according to Seculars through "guilt by concocted parallelism".

[Arjun]

"Hindu Nationalism" is guilty according to Seculars through "guilt by concocted parallelism".

Thanks. That's a better term.

[RajeshA]

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.

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 Ravana had a media management like the West and their chamchas in India have, then he could have even pushed through the notion that Rama was Adharmic and his war on Ravana was an unprovoked war on a peaceful kingdom.

Neither the Seculars nor Hindu Nationalists have an answer to why "Hindu Nationalism" is "toxic". The Seculars adopted the strategy of throwing enough mud so that some would stick, creating distorted history narratives, and basically managing through the media and education system what to ignore, what to highlight, and what to highlight in what fashion! The Hindu Nationalists don't have an answer to why the Seculars may objectively think that this way, other than that they have used the media to its utmost to push this line, and that they do so due to their agenda. So the only response Hindu Nationalists can give to this is to defend themselves in Secular-controlled media, to question the motives of the Seculars or to ignore the media and the message.

I guess it doesn't bother the Hindu Nationalists that the Seculars keep on calling them "toxic" because they feel it is only a matter of time before the Mayajaal that the Seculars have created, is going to be ripped apart, since their media monopoly is crumbling and sooner than later their media fortresses too would give way.

If the Seculars do not have any good arguments, they would resort to bluster and name-calling, and so the debate would degenerate into another version of wrestling with the pigs in the mud, and the secular referee would announce that the Hindu Nationalist lost the debate.

Another question is does it make sense to put the question to the wider public: "Now tell me, why am I bad"? It is an invitation for getting brick-bats. Some would oblige! But in order of one to escape any dirt on our white-shirts, we would have to be Raja Harishchandra. That is hardly what the Hindu Nationalist is aiming for. Surgery would make our hands bloody! So why give Seculars another platform, another opportunity to cry out that Hindu Nationalist, the surgeon has blood on his hands. Context be damned.

It is the foreign press and the Indian media which magnify the scorn of the Secular. Does debate of scorn imposed by the Secular with Secular referees bring anything?

[A_Gupta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_nationalism

The content is disputed. The dispute is over this:

"Hindu nationalism" can only mean defining nationalism on the basis of Hindu identity. The article's definition of "Hindu nationalism" as any "expressions of social and political thought" rooted in Hindu culture/religion is too broad. Does Girilal Jain actually give such a definition? Where? It is misleading to put all kinds of personalities like Raja Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda or Mahatma Gandhi as proponents of "Hindu nationalism". Raja Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda did not profess any "nationalism" and Gandhi did not base his nationalism in Hindu identity. So, this article confuses more than it enlightens. A serious surgery is needed in my opinion.

Does this help? Does this indicate the surgery that is needed (opposite of the objection). Briefly, "Hindu nationalism" is contracted to Savarkar/Golwalkar, and then found objectionable.
e.g., this article talks about Vivekananda's theory of nationalism:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifesty ... 893824.ece

[A_Gupta]

More of what you have to deconstruct and reconstruct:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8560.html

[harbans]

If one is looking why the "Hindu Nationalist" doesn't usually get good coverage refer to these points. It maybe one, two or a combination or all of them:

1. Failure to define in clear, simple unambiguous terms what Hindu really means.
2. Usage of rhetorical english.
3. People who struggle with 1 and 2 get played by the "Exception to the rule == the rule" arguments.

I tried explaining No 3 here, but one has to come to the realization that when someone points out that Islamists are marauding all over the world does not mean that one instance of a Hindu doing something similar doesn't imply HIndu radical == Islamic radical our own people mitigate the importance of this element by stating exceptions to the rule make the rule (which maybe true in a very different context). That is a losing preposition and argument. When confronting Islam and Xtian excesses, one must NEVER endorse point 3.

Point 2 isn't really much of a factor as compared to 1 and 3. The secular hyperventilation on "Saffron Terror" is purely based on the Pt 3 fundamental i have pointed out.

Another aspect is if requiring to define yourself means reading some book or treatise, trust me then you're not much worth defining. So it makes little sense to point out people don't know who they are cause they've not read Savarkar, VIvekananda or Gowalkar. That is a losing stance.

So think about the aspect when a Dharmic is trying to argue about Islamic excesses and is thrown the argument about Caste or Sati. or Sadhvi Pragya and is told all religions have a bad past. He/she ends up flummoxed but i've never seen a single debater saying exceptions to the rule do not define the rule. OTOH I have seen the contrary sadly.

[A_Gupta]

RajeshA,
Even Ravana we don't categorically condemn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Tandava_Stotram

In this version of Ravana's story, his battle with Rama can be interpreted as a pretext to attain death, and through death, liberation. Ravana's poignant cry in the final quatrain of poetry — "When will I be happy?" is echoed by modern man in his quest for earthly fulfillment and ultimate liberation from its bondage.

A compelling and complex personality, Ravana is for many Hindus a legendary hero, a scholar of immense intelligence and the devoted husband of one of traditional five perfect women, Mandodari.Ravana married Maya's daughter, Mandodari, who was a very beautiful & righteous wife. He had a son by her, named Meghanaada (which means the 'sound of the clouds' or the 'sound of thunder'). Meghanaada defeated Indra, the king of gods, and earned the title of 'Indrajit'. Ravana's great-grandfather was Brahma (God of Ultimate Knowledge). He {Ravana} had advanced knowledge of mathematics, science and Ayurveda.

[ShauryaT]

^^If the correct representation of our epics are not made we will continue to chase our own tail. Just look at the symbologies in the above - Maya, thunder, knowledge, lineage, a righteous wife but in the end what mattered is Ravana's Karma and his adherence to Dharma. He was a King, and the the fruits of the actions of this king were borne by him, his lineage, his kingdom and his subjects.

The condemnation of Ravana is complete and in dispute by only those, who have wavered from the "design intent" of these stories, usually under outside influences.

[RajeshA]

If one is looking why the "Hindu Nationalist" doesn't usually get good coverage refer to these points. It maybe one, two or a combination or all of them:

1. Failure to define in clear, simple unambiguous terms what Hindu really means.
2. Usage of rhetorical english.
3. People who struggle with 1 and 2 get played by the "Exception to the rule == the rule" arguments.

I tried explaining No 3 here, but one has to come to the realization that when someone points out that Islamists are marauding all over the world does not mean that one instance of a Hindu doing something similar doesn't imply HIndu radical == Islamic radical our own people mitigate the importance of this element by stating exceptions to the rule make the rule (which maybe true in a very different context). That is a losing preposition and argument. When confronting Islam and Xtian excesses, one must NEVER endorse point 3.

Point 2 isn't really much of a factor as compared to 1 and 3. The secular hyperventilation on "Saffron Terror" is purely based on the Pt 3 fundamental i have pointed out.

Another aspect is if requiring to define yourself means reading some book or treatise, trust me then you're not much worth defining. So it makes little sense to point out people don't know who they are cause they've not read Savarkar, VIvekananda or Gowalkar. That is a losing stance.

So think about the aspect when a Dharmic is trying to argue about Islamic excesses and is thrown the argument about Caste or Sati. or Sadhvi Pragya and is told all religions have a bad past. He/she ends up flummoxed but i've never seen a single debater saying exceptions to the rule do not define the rule. OTOH I have seen the contrary sadly.

harbans ji,

good points!

Much depends on being rhetorically strong! Somewhere I read, Rhetoric in fact used to be part of the syllabus in earlier days.

We really need to save "Hindu" from the realm of "religion"!

You have provided a good hypothetical scenario, which leads people to say "all religions have a bad past". This argument needs deconstruction. In a hypothetical situation if a Hindu organization attacks a bunch of Muslim goons, then what needs to be stated clearly about the attack is

1) The Hindu org has not attacked the Muslims because some scripture or beliefs or guru of the Hindus pushed them to do so.
2) The attack on the Muslims was not due to the different faith of the Muslims from that of the Hindus.
3) The Hindus attacked the Muslims because as Nationalists, the Hindus possibly felt that the politics of violence and subversion by the Muslim group was detrimental to the national cause.

In this case an attack from Hindus is due to politics. Faith plays no part.

On the other hand if Muslims attack Hindus, then

1) The attack is sanctioned by the Qu'ran and most probably was triggered by an initiative by some Mullah
2) The attack was due to Hindus being Kufr and doing Shirk

In this case an attack from Muslims was due to religion. And religion is first and foremost politics.

So we should reject any notion or claim that Hindus indulge in religious violence. We neither have religion, nor Hindus target others because of their faith beliefs.

Hindu guilt comes from being told that any violence against others is because of their religion, and Hindus knowing their values know, that their faith does not condone violence against innocents, and thus they have committed a sin. They buy the trope of it being religious violence and the other party being an innocent. In India we use the term "communal violence", but by that it is meant religious violence.

Hinduism, even if it is taken to be a religion, plays zero part in any Hindu on Muslim violence. Yes, Dharmic reaction to Adharma, self-defense, nationalism, rage (justified or unjustified) may play a part in Hindu on Muslim violence, but never faith. Faith should be kept out of this.

[A_Gupta]

The condemnation of Ravana is complete and in dispute by only those, who have wavered from the "design intent" of these stories, usually under outside influences.

I guess the story of Jaya-Vijaya came from "outside influences" then, no doubt some evil mlecchas. Since you can check the Purana for the accuracy of the following, I have no hesitation in quoting Wiki:

According to a story from Bhagavata Purana, the Four Kumaras, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatana, and Sanatkumara who are the manasaputras of Brahma (sons born from the mind or thought power of Brahma), visited Vaikuntha, the abode of Vishnu, to see him.

Due to the strength of their tapas, the four Kumaras appear to be mere children, though they are of great age. Jaya and Vijaya, the gate keepers of the Vaikuntha interrupt the Kumaras at the gate, thinking them to be children. They also tell the Kumaras that Sri Vishnu is resting and that they cannot see him now. The enraged Kumaras replied Jaya and Vijaya that Vishnu is available for his devotees any time, and cursed both the keepers Jaya and Vijaya, that they would have to give up their divinity, be born as mortals on Earth (bhuloka, or physical plane), and live like normal human beings. Vishnu appeared before them, and the gatekeepers requested Vishnu to lift the curse of the Kumaras. Vishnu says curse of Kumaras cannot be reversed. Instead, he gives Jaya and Vijaya two options. The first option is to take seven births on Earth as a devotee of Vishnu, while the second is to take three births as his enemy. After serving either of these sentences, they can re-attain their stature at Vaikuntha and be with him permanently. Jaya and Vijaya cannot bear the thought of staying away from Vishnu for seven lives. As a result, they choose to be born three times on Earth even though it would have to be as enemies of Vishnu. (This story is also used as a metaphor about the cost of committing transgressions in "The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna".)

In the first life they were born as Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha in the Krita Yuga, to Diti (daughter of Daksha Prajapathi) and sage Kashyapa who were killed by Vishnu taking the form of Varaha, a boar and Narasimha,a man-lion in the Satya Yuga.

In their second life they were born as Ravana and Kumbhakarna and were killed by Vishnu who descended as Rama in the Treta Yuga.

And in their third life as Shishupala and Dantavakra (in some places Dantavakra is replaced by Kamsa) who were killed by Vishnu who descended as Krishna in the Dwapara Yuga.

This is a very complex story, btw, you tell me the "design intent". How is the "condemnation of Ravana complete"? Ravana, Kumbhakarna are in Vaikunth with Vishnu forever.

[peter]

....
Hinduism, even if it is taken to be a religion, plays zero part in any Hindu on Muslim violence. Yes, Dharmic reaction to Adharma, self-defense, nationalism, rage (justified or unjustified) may play a part in Hindu on Muslim violence, but never faith. Faith should be kept out of this.

Why should faith be kept out? Hell it should be said that Hindus have always defended faith and if anyone hurts places of religion or innocents then Hindu faith demands that Hindus not let that injustice continue.

[RajeshA]

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.

This is a good query and one starts thinking.

There is this "1=> all" principle, as pointed out by harbans ji, that exceptions do not make the rule.

There is this Jew saying, but found in Qu'ran, which the Moderate Muslims like to point out as "in Qu'ran it says", and thus obfuscating that it is not meant for Muslims but for Jews

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.

Then there is the principle of Original Sin. Whole mankind is condemned because of Adam and Eve's transgressions.

We Hindus, for some reason, also have adopted such thinking, that Karma is not individual, but rather Collective. A Hindu's wrongful actions somehow smear his upbringing, his community, his faith everything, and all have to share in his dishonor. Perhaps at some point, Hindus were given collective punishment by the Islamic rulers and the British. Film Lagaan comes to mind. So all village elders ran to the Mai Baap and asked for forgiveness and scolded the person who had caused this transgression, so that the community may escape that collective punishment.

To some extent, Hindus feel collective shame because we think ourselves as a society, where a whole family and community are responsible for the good upbringing and imparting of values to an individual from that family or community, and any transgression by him, is like the failure of that family or community in their mission.

I think this thinking is somehow latent still with us. We feel responsible for the deeds of our brethren in faith.

Muslims and Europeans don't think like that. For Muslims, everybody's deeds are his own, i.e. a man is only responsible for his deeds and the deeds of those whom he own - his women, his daughters, his sisters, but not for the deeds of other men, i.e. unless they are against the Qu'ran. Their deeds are owned by them and them alone. However punishment on any Muslim is owned by the whole Ummah, and so the whole Ummah needs to retaliate - individual guilt but collective victimization. In modern Europe too, it is individual guilt. One is not responsible for the deeds of the others, and they are against collective punishment, at least in their societies.

Thus whenever any accusations are made against any Hindu, all Hindus start feeling collective guilt. Many who are well-versed in the issue, can defend the actions of the pronounced guilty Hindu, but most just shut-up and bow their heads in shame. But basically all buy into collective shame and guilt. Secondly as the accusation made is by calling the pronounced guilty Hindu as "Hindu", and thus a follower of the religion "Hinduism", an effort is made to smear the religion itself as guilty and allowing barbarism and violence.

That is the trap of "Hinduism" as a religion! It is easy to push the insinuation "Hindutvavadi" => "Hindu Nationalist" => "Hindu" => "follower of Hinduism", so any Hindutvavadi who is perhaps guilty of violence suddenly transforms into all followers of Hinduism share in the shame and guilt of that action.

So we then start feeling guilty for being followers of "Hinduism" as well.

These are chains we have put around ourselves, and need to free ourselves from.

1) The act of some "Hindutvavadi" is his own.
2) He does not represent, in fact, he cannot represent, all of Hindutva!
3) So Hindutva does not share in his guilt.
4) So other Hindutvavadis do not share in his guilt.
5) Neither his actions nor that of any Hindutvavadi have anything to do with their faith, with "Hinduism".
6) No follower of Hinduism, "Hinduist", is responsible for what Hindutvavadis do, one is faith, the other politics.
7) Teaching values to an individual may be the responsibility of the whole Hindu community, but since Macaulayists have destroyed Hindu education system, Hindu Samaj can hardly own up any responsibility.

[RajeshA]

....
Hinduism, even if it is taken to be a religion, plays zero part in any Hindu on Muslim violence. Yes, Dharmic reaction to Adharma, self-defense, nationalism, rage (justified or unjustified) may play a part in Hindu on Muslim violence, but never faith. Faith should be kept out of this.

Why should faith be kept out? Hell it should be said that Hindus have always defended faith and if anyone hurts places of religion or innocents then Hindu faith demands that Hindus not let that injustice continue.

Because our actions are determined not by our "personal faith", but rather by our "ethics", by Dharma, which may be a subject of treatment in our scriptures, but it is not subordinate to anythiing there. It exists independently.

[Tuvaluan]

RajeshA: "but rather by our "ethics", by Dharma, which may be a subject of treatment in our scriptures, but it is not subordinate to anythiing there. It exists independently."

I think something close to this sentiment is the subject matter in "Waking up: spirituality without religion" by Sam Harris. The central point is that being a good ethical person is disconnected from faith and there are religious ideas that are very bad ideas that encourage unethical behavior rather than ethical behavior. Sam Harris is the same guy that took on the uberslimy jihadi mascot Reza Aslan in a TV debate on Bill Maher's show and crushed him, resulting in the latter trying to character assassinate Sam Harris. That book is worth checking out.

[RajeshA]

Thanks Tuvaluan ji. Will check out the book!

[ShauryaT]

This is a very complex story, btw, you tell me the "design intent". How is the "condemnation of Ravana complete"? Ravana, Kumbhakarna are in Vaikunth with Vishnu forever.

My grand mother has told me the story and I do have the Bhagwat and all the 18 puraans with me - Dare I try to make sense of it, using scientific principles! The design intent of the Bhagwat is to establish the supremacy of "vishnu" on all. Is it any wonder then that even Raavan's soul ends up restored after serving penace - as per the Bhagwat! It is the bible of the vaishnavite.

The story of Raavan should be judged primarily on how Valmiki Ramayan's original author has depicted Raavan. ALL other interpolations of Raavan based on 50 other Raamayans are a layering by subsequent authors, including the most popular version in India of Tulsidas. The various puraans then make it more complex by adding other stories on top of it. Sometimes these layering helps to highlight some other aspects of the characters but one should not forget the "design intent", "context" and emphasis of each story, book, era is as per its times and the authors.

So, if one sticks to Valmiki - as far as Raavan is concerned, what we see is a complete vanquish of his empire, lineage, family and ALL the values that Raavan stood for. His knowledge, lineage, power, nothing could protect him for he had crossed a hard line and his Adharmic ego would not allow him to repent for the excesses of his Kaama, Krodha, Lobha. He paid for his deeds. Keep it simple. But, I do admit even the best of us can be confused with ALL the layering that takes place in our smritis. We either have to find a path to the truths ourselves or hopefully with the help of some well qualified gurus.

[shiv]

I am just back from a talk where I met and got to know Balu (Prof SN Balagangadhara) with a promise to meet again so please excuse me if I exceed all bounds of propriety when I type something.

I repeat the facts and I will try to be brief.

When Europe embraced secularism, Christianity (the Church) was very clear about 3 things
1. All people of this world were expected to have religion
2. Religion demanded certain practices that the state could not touch. However there were other practices that were "false religion" (introduced by the devil) that the state could deal with.
3. That there was one God and religion was the relationship of an individual with that God. The state could not interfere with this

The British came to India with these basic beliefs. They assumed Indians (Hindus) had religion. They assumed that there were some things among "Hindus" that were true religion and some things were false religion. The true religion part, they (the state) would not touch. The false religion part the state would deal with

Then came the problems:

• Was caste religious or non religious?
  Was wearing a bindi/tilak/kumkum religious or non religious?
  Was Sati religious or non religious?
  Was the "worship of idols" religious or non religious?

The British answered these questions arbitrarily to suit their own requirements and cerated laws that outlawed practices that they said were 'non religious" "false religion for Hindus" and allowed "true religious practies.

in terms of Hindu dharma this classification was utter rubbish, Complete bullshit, With no religion the classification was not possible and had to be arbitrary. But Indians picked up this arbitrary classification and incorporated them into our constitution and laws. And when it was made law the lawmakers decided that those who wanted to abolish something would decide that that things (to be abolished) would be declared "false religion" so the state could make laws to that effect.

Once these things were encoded into Indian laws, it was illegal and unconstitutional to oppose them. So when Islamic personal laws were allowed by the constitution, any opposition to them by Hindus was illegal. The state cannot interfere.

All Indian, that is the future secularists and the future Hindutvavadis internalized this information as it became their own history. So Hindu history was now "We have a Hindu religion. The religion has the following "true religious practices" - a, b, c, d etc. . We also have "false religious practice" p,q,r,s which are disallowed" . Both the future secularists and the future Hindutvavadis were now fully coopted into the British defined stcruture of Hindus which made them a religion like Christianity and Islam.

All argument and debate and conflict between Hindutva vadis and secularists has tended to be within this British defined framework of the Hindu religion, although neither group realized it, and many still have not realized it.

When Hindu political groups started protesting at laws and policies that seemed to favour Muslims, the country got divided on secular and non secular lines. This was aggravated by a small group of "colonized mind" hindutvavadis who said, in effect "It is our religion that we defend and we are in a religious war". In fact it was not religious war at all. Hindu history and culture were not being damaged by Muslims, but by secularists out to retain their political position. The close links of the Congress party, Pakistanis and other groups with western scholars aided the dubbing of Hindus as "right wing", and extremists. When the Hindu political parties said that they were "nationalists" , Hindu nationalists were dubbed right wing extremists.. Every incident where Muslims were killed were highlighted by secular parties as an effort by Hindus to eliminate Muslims in contravention of India's "secular" character. Secular parties ride on the "grievance wave" of Muslims. Pakistan and aggrieved Muslims are essential for secular political parties to survive.

Thus there was a sad misrepresentation of all Hindus, but too many Hindus kept quiet because they too believed it. Like everyone else, Hindus in India have learned the fake story "We have a religion. A moderate religion. It has been hijacked by extremists" This is a fake, cooked up story.

There is no widespread Hindu movement in India to eliminate Muslims. There is social harmony in most places. A very large majority of Hindus are both nationalists and not in the business of belly-ripping of Muslims as alleged by "secular" parties.

The characterization of Hindu nationalism as extremism, bigotry and murder is unfair and motivated. Hindu nationalism is merely a movement to keep India strong and united without either fake suppression of Hindus and mischaracterization of Hindus or elimination of minorities. That was what Hindu always meant.

[shiv]

In 1947 and for some years after that, a large number of Muslims from India became Pakistanis or migrated to Pakistan.

One of the biggest conflicts between India and Pakistan since then has been "How to protect these Muslims from the bad Hindu majority?"

In Pakistan, the protectors of Muslims from bad Hindu India was the Pakistan army.

But who would protect Indian Muslims from the bad Hindus right inside india? The "secular parties" of India , led by the Congress vied against the Pakistani army to be seen as the biggest and bestest protector of Muslims

In Pakistan, wars with India and enmity with India were necessary to prove to Pakistani Muslims that they needed their army for protection. For the Pakistan army to survive, Hindu India must always be a threat. Conflict must be kept simmering.

But in India riots against Muslims and a bad reputation for Hindus has been essential for the political survival of the Congress party (and some other secular parties). Happy Indian Muslims who are not under threat are a danger to the survival of secular parties. Therefore Muslims must always be under threat and the Hindu must always be painted as that threat so that Muslims will flock to the secular parties for protection.

That is why Hindu nationalism has been given a lousy name. By the Hindus of secular parties.

[RajeshA]

There is no widespread Hindu movement in India to eliminate Muslims. There is social harmony in most places. A very large majority of Hindus are both nationalists and not in the business of belly-ripping of Muslims as alleged by "secular" parties.

The characterization of Hindu nationalism as extremism, bigotry and murder is unfair and motivated. Hindu nationalism is merely a movement to keep India strong and united without either fake suppression of Hindus and mischaracterization of Hindus or elimination of minorities. That was what Hindu always meant.

Question is: what if there were "Hindu Nationalist" movements who were to try to eliminate Muslims, considering them as Pakistanis, working for subversion of India? What if there was indeed Hindu extremism which considered Islam as Adharma and Muslims as supporters of a system of Adharma, and thus declared war against Islam? What if there were indeed Hindus who murdered Muslims, though illegal but according to them necessary for the protection of their community? What if there were indeed Hindus who were bigots and were not willing to tolerate Muslims due to Islam's record of violence throughout the world?

Would one then feel shame for being a Hindu or a Hindu Nationalist and decide to distance oneself from the term? Would one feel collective guilt and shame?

The reason I ask this is to know how robust Hindu psychology is going to be going forward into an age with a dynamic environment, shifting situations and a responsive Hindutva? How easy would it become for the Seculars or minorities to indeed brand "Hindu Nationalism" as pejorative, as Hindutva reacts to a more militant Islam in India and the world?

If only a squeaky clean "Hindu Nationalism" is acceptable to Hindus, and anything else would make them accept the Secular branding of "Hindu Nationalism" as pejorative, then we basically remain at the mercy of Seculars, as far as our sense of shame and guilt is concerned.

[Prem]

This Indic nationalism is not confining or constrictive in nature but ever expanding , constructive and assimilative not eliminating in nature. Good things should never be limited to few chosen ones. There have been quiet revolution and many have not understood the import yet. Few more Thappars to the followers Thapar school who have build their hut with straws. Lacking patronage , these PSer spoons will soon change their tune and lined up to join the mainstream Bharatiyta to survive, remain alive ( in literal/ relevance sense).

[RajeshA]

Here is more equal-equal



No effort is made to distinguish whether something is a reflection of "systemic thinking" vs "degenerated society".

Then one has the likes of Kancha Iliah trying to prove with rubbish arguments that even in "Hinduism" it is systemic thinking, and these views get published, and these views are then ably supported by his friends in the West.

Anything can be turned upside down to make a case - a woman's increased responsibility and respect as the primary household builder and child caretaker is turned into oppression of women!

The attack on the Hindu psyche would continue. Sometimes it is by painting "Hindu Nationalism" as pejorative, and sometimes it is through other angles!

Hindus cannot really prevent others from painting Hindu Samaj or Hindu Nationalism as pejorative, and neither can we keep on defending ourselves in studios and gatherings with secular referees.

More important is to develop a Hindu Psyche impervious to all attacks meant to shame Hindus and to develop vocabularies to put down our attackers using better rhetoric.

[Tuvaluan]

harbans:"He/she ends up flummoxed but i've never seen a single debater saying exceptions to the rule do not define the rule. OTOH I have seen the contrary sadly."

Just noting that the pro-islamist crowd that usually fakes "moderation" does exactly that while defending islam -- "yes, IS does take women slaves and beheads people, but they do not represent 10.2 billion muslims on this planet".

[RajeshA]

Just noting that the pro-islamist crowd that usually fakes "moderation" does exactly that while defending islam -- "yes, IS does take women slaves and beheads people, but they do not represent 10.2 billion muslims on this planet".

The best solution is to ask the Qu'ran, Hadiths and history for guidance on this question!

[KJo]

I think the answer is simple. Because today's Hindus by and large have been brainwashed into thinking that everything Hindu (Indian) is backward. Hinduism is also slandered by association with sati, caste system, dowry and ill treatment of women. You can argue whether this is fair or not. Also, Hindu society is not the type as to brainwash people through its temples and poojaris like Muslims and Christians do. Muslims especially are afraid to speak up against the ills of it's community because of the backlash. They will get killed or raped. For Hindus, there is no such danger, everyone can speak up. So it looks like problems exist only in Hindu society.

We need to learn to be proud of ourselves while bring respectful to others. I find today's Indian Hindus especially those living in India to have severe low self esteem vis-a-vis the West, Christians and Muslims. Everything attached to these 3 are deemed "cool". We seem to think that we cannot do anything cool or awesome at all.

It comes from childhood. We are taught in school about everyone else but ourselves. We need to learn Sanskrit instead of German or French. We need to learn about our own Maharajas in history rather than the French Revolution. We need to learn what our scientists did rather than just Newton or Einstein.
It all comes from childhood. If we move in that direction, we will soon get over our self hating ways.

[RajeshA]

Hindu Nationalists need not be in the good books of Seculars and non-Hindus.

Hindu Nationalists whatever they do, they should be judged only by Hindus based on how these Hindu Nationalists explain their actions as an application of Dharma given their particular context and their understanding of the situation. Based on that one can distance oneself from their actions or agree with them.

But their actions should not cause any guilt or shame among the Hindus at large.

[vishvak]

We need to probably introduce a more accurate term, or many of more accurate terms such as Savarkar nationalism, Sardar Patel nationalism, Mahatma Gandhi nationalism, Bhagat Singh nationalism, etc. This will also help to cleanse the slate at places where super cults have made schemes under garb of religion.

[Prem]

Hindu Nationalists need not be in the good books of Seculars and non-Hindus.

Time to ask is gone, time to advise is now and time to tell is next. The roots of Indian society are not secular but Dharmics. Time to recognize this truth ..

Schopenhauer:"In #India our religions will never ever take root. The ancient wisdom of humanity wont be pushed out by happenings in Galilea

[A_Gupta]

This is a very complex story, btw, you tell me the "design intent". How is the "condemnation of Ravana complete"? Ravana, Kumbhakarna are in Vaikunth with Vishnu forever.

My grand mother has told me the story and I do have the Bhagwat and all the 18 puraans with me - Dare I try to make sense of it, using scientific principles! The design intent of the Bhagwat is to establish the supremacy of "vishnu" on all. Is it any wonder then that even Raavan's soul ends up restored after serving penace - as per the Bhagwat! It is the bible of the vaishnavite.

Not sure this is scientific, or western theology.

The story of Raavan should be judged primarily on how Valmiki Ramayan's original author has depicted Raavan. ALL other interpolations of Raavan based on 50 other Raamayans are a layering by subsequent authors, including the most popular version in India of Tulsidas.

Now you're following the path of the Western philologists who try to find the "original" intent and meaning of a document/work. So Valmiki Ramayana represents the "true Ramayana". What they neglect is how the document/work is actually used and understood by the culture.

At some cultural moment what you wrote above might have been true about how Raavan should be judged (though I doubt it). But it hasn't been true for most of the last two thousand years or more. And by the way, when Hindus want to keep something in its original/canonical form, they have demonstrated that they can do that, e.g., with the Rig Veda.

The various puraans then make it more complex by adding other stories on top of it. Sometimes these layering helps to highlight some other aspects of the characters but one should not forget the "design intent", "context" and emphasis of each story, book, era is as per its times and the authors.

Can one even prove "design intent"? Or is that something we postulate to try to make sense of the story?

So, if one sticks to Valmiki - as far as Raavan is concerned, what we see is a complete vanquish of his empire, lineage, family and ALL the values that Raavan stood for. His knowledge, lineage, power, nothing could protect him for he had crossed a hard line and his Adharmic ego would not allow him to repent for the excesses of his Kaama, Krodha, Lobha. He paid for his deeds. Keep it simple. But, I do admit even the best of us can be confused with ALL the layering that takes place in our smritis. We either have to find a path to the truths ourselves or hopefully with the help of some well qualified gurus.

We shall return to this later.

[ShauryaT]

Now you're following the path of the Western philologists who try to find the "original" intent and meaning of a document/work. So Valmiki Ramayana represents the "true Ramayana". What they neglect is how the document/work is actually used and understood by the culture.

At some cultural moment what you wrote above might have been true about how Raavan should be judged (though I doubt it). But it hasn't been true for most of the last two thousand years or more. And by the way, when Hindus want to keep something in its original/canonical form, they have demonstrated that they can do that, e.g., with the Rig Veda.

Arun: Do you contest Valmiki as the original as in the first author of the Ramayan? The Rig in its "original" form itself is debatable for it claims that a good portion of the verses have been "lost". Anyways, I do not want to go into debates of originality. What is important for me is to understand the messages encoded in various texts. I have clearly expressed why and how I come to view Raavan, using Valmiki as its primary source. Did not say it is the only "true" source. If someone wants to understand Raavan using the Bhagwat, well and good. I have no particular issues. But you claim that Raavan is not judged that way by the people, so I would be interested in knowing how in your view Raavan is judged by people?

Design intent is an extrapolation but the basis of that extrapolation can be based on accepted rules, values, principles and objectives of Dharma. One can extrapolate in various ways, and indeed that is what is done and hence the variation in some many of our texts. e.g: Tulsidas has taken Valmiki's Ramayan, acknowledged Valmiki and then went on to add/change stories differing from Valmiki. This process does not make Tulsidas Ramayan less true than Valmiki but if one does this 50 times and 50 variations occur, and a novice like me has to read these 50 versions, reconcile all of them, understand who is saying what, then choices have to be made on who's version one as an individual is going to most benefit from. Does not have to be from one version only. In the case of the Raavan, I have chosen to stick with Valmiki's version as it brings in the most clarity for me to understand the workings of Dharma.

[ShauryaT]

The characterization of Hindu nationalism as extremism, bigotry and murder is unfair and motivated. Hindu nationalism is merely a movement to keep India strong and united without either fake suppression of Hindus and mischaracterization of Hindus or elimination of minorities. That was what Hindu always meant.

Hindu Nationalism get its character from the people who use that argument in favor or against. Gandhi and Savarkar were both Hindu Nationalists. They did not share the same ideas, attitudes, works on the same. Only one of them supported the two nation theory, even if they shared the dream of a common state.

Members of the Supreme Court also believe in Hindu Nationalism and so did Bal Thackeray but the courts punished Thackeray for his version of the use of Hindu Nationalism. If its bigotry or not or is a way to keep India united and strong depends upon use. The truth of the matter is it has been used both ways. In addition, some vested interests have excelled at alleging extremism on Hindu Nationalists either due to ill will or ignorance, where no such castigation is warranted. I can document and post why and how Hindu Nationalism gets its bad reputation, if you are interested in that historical record. The bad reputation the term gets, is unfortunate but justified, IMO. Recovering its correct use is a worthy goal.

An example to show why recovering its correct usage is important. Who can say Anna Hazare is not a Hindu and not a Nationalist, regardless of what one thinks of his agitation a few years back. Symbology is important and when Anna started his dharrna, the movement was using a picture of Bharat Mata like the RSS does as its backdrop. It was soon changed to Gandhi's photograph on the message that a picture representing India as a mother, was not "secular" enough. Similar issue in curtailing the national song to only its first two verses. The need to provide a common culture and make it acceptable to all is the responsibility of the nation's elite and the majority. European Nationalist have used the concept to harass and subjugate their minorities in the past. In some plural societies, such as the US, the majority has used its dominating culture to assimilate its minorities. Aspects of the majority's culture has been transfused to make it the common culture and has acted as a glue by way of common values, principles and objectives. Diverse we may be, but without a glue to bond us, the plurality will turn to discord and eventually fragmentation and strife. It will be a worthwhile goal to recover the term from those who have chosen to use it in a bigoted manner.

[RajeshA]

It is useless to try to make same size knickers for all Hindu Nationalists. One cannot enforce a single narrative. In all places in India, there are different challenges, and the local chapter of Hindu Nationalists would have to face those challenges, each situation requiring its own tactics, imposing its own limits. So what may not be acceptable to a Hindu Nationalist living in Delhi, may need to be considered ethical in Kolkata.

Dharma is contextual. Putting it in a straitjacket of permissible and not permissible, moral and not-moral, would not be right.

[shiv]

There is no widespread Hindu movement in India to eliminate Muslims. There is social harmony in most places. A very large majority of Hindus are both nationalists and not in the business of belly-ripping of Muslims as alleged by "secular" parties.

The characterization of Hindu nationalism as extremism, bigotry and murder is unfair and motivated. Hindu nationalism is merely a movement to keep India strong and united without either fake suppression of Hindus and mischaracterization of Hindus or elimination of minorities. That was what Hindu always meant.

Question is: what if there were "Hindu Nationalist" movements who were to try to eliminate Muslims, considering them as Pakistanis, working for subversion of India? What if there was indeed Hindu extremism which considered Islam as Adharma and Muslims as supporters of a system of Adharma, and thus declared war against Islam? What if there were indeed Hindus who murdered Muslims, though illegal but according to them necessary for the protection of their community? What if there were indeed Hindus who were bigots and were not willing to tolerate Muslims due to Islam's record of violence throughout the world?

Would one then feel shame for being a Hindu or a Hindu Nationalist and decide to distance oneself from the term? Would one feel collective guilt and shame?

Rajesh, the question is not hypothetical. Hindus are already accused of being all of the above.

What are you feeling now? That should answer your question.

What am I feeling? I am feeling indignant because of the following reasons:
1. There is clear, written, doctrinal evidence that Christians and Muslims could act against unbelievers. Why is this important? When the British were making laws for India (which we have swallowed wholesale, seculars and Hindutva-vadis) they asked us "If you say something is "religious" and you do not want our secular state to act against it, please show some written proof that it is religious." This was easy in terms of Quran and hadiths. In the case of Hindus there is no proof whatsoever. In fact there is no indication in any Hindu tradition or text that a person who does not believe in any particular god should be killed or punished.

So what does this mean? It is important for every Indian and every BRFite to understand this. If something is documented as religious, the state cannot interfere as per the Christian secularist doctrine imposed on us. If something cannot be documented as religious, then it is non religious and the state can act against it as unlawful.

That means that a Muslim opposing a kafir is lawful because secular laws will not touch religious doctrine, and teh religion of Islam says that it is necessary to be against the kafir. But when a Hindu opposes a Muslim - it is unlawful because there are no Hindu laws that can be cited to claim that attacking Muslims is lawful and that the secular state must leave this alone. I hope I have made the difference clear? Few people seem to appreciate this.

2. There are definitely some Hindus who have acted against Muslims. Their acts are unlawful as stated above and the state can interfere because "Hindu laws" do not exist to act against Muslims. So fine, let us start naming the people who have been bad to Muslims?

The tactic that is used by seculars successfully is guilt by association: The Bajrang Dal, Ranvir Sena and VHP are all part of the Sangh Parivar. The Sangh Parivar includes the RSS and BJP, and therefore the following is true: "Among Hindus there is a deep groundswell of hostility and bigotry against Muslims, which can only be controlled by the Congress and the secular parties. Any hostility to Hindus among Muslims is Ok because it is encoded in the religion and the secular state cannot interfere with what is documented in the religious texts of the religion."

Indian secularism has morphed into "secular parties" needing to paint Hindus in general as bigoted killer ba$tards which the secular state must control in order to protect Muslims. In an election based system where secular parties make money from the system secular politicians will not get reelected unless they can keep on showing Hindus as aggressive murders because "secularism is the ideal". The more Hindus are smeared, hee easier it is to get elected on a "secular" platform. Secularism survives by painting Hindus as bigots and they will take help from anyone to continue to smear Hindus - be it Doniger or Ghulam Nabi Fai. The system is that fiCked up.

It would be wrong for Hindus to sit back and take this philosophically and say "Let them paint us as bad. We know we are not bad". That is the most idiotic nonsense I have heard and I vehemently disagree.

I saw a lot of self praise among people who claimed that the debate had been won against seculars, perhaps by Internet warriors. I would not sit back and gloat. If Hindus had the ability they should have been able to hold back the mislabeling of Hindus all these decades. All that the seculars have to do is produce one photo of VHP in action and every Hindu will collapse in a heap of guilt and shame. There are deep psychological differences that are not erased. I think Hindus need to smarten up a great deal - and stop imagining that acche din are about to arrive.

Watch out.

[shiv]

Dharma is contextual. Putting it in a straitjacket of permissible and not permissible, moral and not-moral, would not be right.

This is part of the problem.

The British, while encoding "secular laws" in which religious doctrines were excluded from state interference asked for written (or other) evidence that a particular rule or ritual was encoded in holy texts. After they got such evidence they would then debate to see if it was "true religion" that could be excludes from state interference, or "superstition/false religion" where the state could interfere.

That left thousands of Indian traits that could be questioned

1. Is "caste" a religious doctrine? It there is evidence, is it false religion, to be outlawed or true religion. Caste is not even religion, but Ambedkar was keen to include caste as part of religion - to be outlawed as false
2. Is Dharma religious or not? Dharma does not mean religion, but since English has no word for "dharma" it was dumbed down and the word "religion" has been used in articles 25 and 26 of the Indian constitution.

So we have an entire constitution and law book that totally discards an ancient Indian law guideline and simply accepts a tightly boxed in Christian-law derived definition of "religion". In fact our Supreme court judges have found it very difficult to define religion and what is religious and what is Hindu for that matter.

But secular politicians have no problem in knowing that if it is Hindu its is murder. And Hindus have been powerless to enter into any debate that could pull down this egregious idea. And remember that Jains once contested the idea that they could be defined under religion because some judge had given the Christian definition of religion as the relationship between man and his God. Jains do not believe in God. Later Jains contested the idea that they were Hindu and said that their temples should not come under the Hindu temple definition. I think the judge ruled that "Hindu" meant some principles - I forget which and since Jains too believed in those principles, they are Hindus by legal definition.

The point is that this definition of "religious" has to be robust for secularism to work. But if the definition of religion is Christian definition, all Hindus show features which are unacceptable. In fact Hindus (and Jains and Buddhists) cannot be placed under the definition of followers of a religion. But for that you have to come to grips with the meaning of the word "religion" as defined in Christian Europe. Not doing that means GIGO.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ShauryaT, doesn't that mean that a text doesn't have an absolute meaning, independent of the observer; rather a meaning comes into being by the interaction of the text and the observer? The meaning the very same observer draws when he is young and later when he is mature may be different. Rich in meaning and ambiguous, maybe deliberately so or maybe evolved to be so, in a way that discourages textual fundamentalism.

I stand by my point that Hindus have drawn many meanings from Ramayana and have not categorically condemned Ravana. Oh, certainly the qualities of greed, lust, anger, tamas, egotism are all condemned. But even Ravana is ultimately Atman and even from him these things fall away.

[shiv]

We don't understand so many things but yet we like to imagine that we do

What does "law" mean? A law is the word that indicates something that definitely happens if certain conditions are met

For example if water is heated to 100 deg C at normal atmospheric pressure, it will boil. That is a law.

What about humans? There is in fact debate about whether every society in the world had "laws" or not. Did every society on earth have rules whereby if some condition was met - something is bound to happen? For example, if a person is caught drunk while driving he must lose his licence. That would be a law. Laws cannot be broken. The meaning of the sentence "Laws cannot be broken" needs to be understood. It does not mean "The law is broken and then a person is punished". It means that If a person does action X, he will be punished. It is the action and the reaction that constitute law. If the action takes place and the reaction (punishment) does not take place, then it is not law. It is anarchy.

Justice systems have evolved to interpret and apply laws. many of these systems have evolved from Semitic (Abhahamic) religions. Religion appointed God as the supreme authority and what God said was noted in a document a holy book. This model was adopted by secular European nations where "holy book" was replaced by "Constitution".

This was absolutely fine in a Christian nation. All the people were already Christian. Existing laws about what is right and wrong for society were simply applied in the constitution as "state (national) laws." Only "religion" - a relationship between man an his God was left out of the purview of the national laws. In a country like England, there was no one who could be accused of worshipping idols. if such a person was found, it was clearly a case of "Devil worship" and therefore not "true religion". Once it was not a true religious act, the state could deal with it. (This is just an example)

But what happened in India?

India had Hindus and Muslims. The Muslims already had their holy book which was their constitution. Hindus had no holy book, not definite laws, no single God, in fact even having no God was fine. Public order as not upset by acts which would be un-religious or illegal under English law. Of course the British did not see this as order. For them it was disorder.

In the process of "bringing law and order" into India - Hindu were boxed into narrow areas where it was easy to classify them as good or bad, from a Christian/British law viewpoint. To this day we still view ourselves in this way. When we are asked about caste, we parrot out what we were taught "Caste is bad. Hindu had the system and it is now illegal"

What rubbish! The word "caste" did not exist for 5000 years of Indian history. I think it started appearing in Portuguese accounts after the 1500s or so. So exactly what the fuk are we talking about when we talk about caste? Are we talking about what Indians felt the system was before 1500 AD, or are we talking about what we have been taught to consider as "caste" by the British.

Balu (Prof SN Balagangadhara) once took an old french text from the 1800s which had class references to French society - speaking of the elite, the kings , the workers and the serfs. He replaced every instance of elite with Brahmin, every instance of ruler with Kshatriya, , every instance of others with Vaishya and shudra as needed. He them presented tis text to scholars in Europe as an 18th century documentation of the "caste system" in India. Every one of them was impressed at this accurate description of India's "caste system".

What was a secular description of social strata in France became an egregious "Hindu religious system" The Indian social stratification system has been painted as a "Hindu religious relic that must be condemned". And our secular laws too have swallowed and accepted this bullshit wholesale. in the same way, we Hindus sit back and accept wholesale that there is something admirable about acting like fundoo Muslims and that we also have that trait in our "religion" and we need not bother about being called what we are.

Exactly where are the famed Hindu brains folks?

[ShauryaT]

we Hindus sit back and accept wholesale that there is something admirable about acting like fundoo Muslims and that we also have that trait in our "religion" and we need not bother about being called what we are.

Exactly where are the famed Hindu brains folks?

Extend that thought further. The bigotry around Hindu Nationalism by some is a pathological by-product of the modern idea of a secular nation-state rather than that of Hinduism. These action-reaction modes that we have been in to both WU and Islam will not lead to a common culture based on civilizational values of the land.

[shiv]

Extend that thought further. The bigotry around Hindu Nationalism by some is a pathological by-product of the modern idea of a secular nation-state rather than that of Hinduism.

Yes it is.

But what I have been specifically dealing with is the consequence of this. One the one hand - these activities are dubbed an integral part of the "Hindu religion" - faults that need to be rooted out - according to the seculars. And the Hindu reaction to that is 'No. This is our religion. We will be this way"

Really? We have a religion? A religion that is private and our own which defines every Hindu individual's relation with "His God" so the sate should not interfere here? And this religion has some bad things like "caste system" which needs to be rooted out by the state because it is false? But this religion has a doctrine of opposing other religions which is to be admired and supported?

We are not a religion in the sense of Christianity and islam. We have no texts that define caste or killing Muslims as our behaviour. Why do we accept and internalize these as true?

Is the Indian nation of the future going to be based on this utter bullshit? If Hindus can't think this through someone else is going to utarofy our chaddis once again

[ShauryaT]

I recently heard a BJP representative, say the following defense of the RSS chief's assertion that we are all Hindus. The spokesperson said, no no, Hinduism is not a religion to us, it is a way of life for all Indians. Then she went on to add, our religion is Sanatan Dharma!! Did not know, if to laugh or cry.

[Prem]

Doctrinal Dharma to Destroy the Dogmatic Threat
Contextual Dharma to Deal With Changing of Era
Snatan Dharma to Tie all the knots and threads together for highest understanding, realization etc.

We should have it all depending on circumstances and Yug influence.

[shiv]

I recently heard a BJP representative, say the following defense of the RSS chief's assertion that we are all Hindus. The spokesperson said, no no, Hinduism is not a religion to us, it is a way of life for all Indians. Then she went on to add, our religion is Sanatan Dharma!! Did not know, if to laugh or cry.

The subject is not suitable for a TV debate because neither TV preenter nor audience know what religion means. As far as Indians are concerned "Hindu-ism" is a religion. The problem is not the RSS chief, commentator or presenter. We are all in the same boat. We all view ourselves as the British viewed us but we don't know why the description does not fit.

There is some flaw in our knowledge. No one (other than a few) have explored the source of that flaw. So we thrash about asking idiotic questions and getting idiotic answers. We need to go back in time and erase the label "We are a religion with these boundaries" We are not. Technically the only boundaries were dharma, but that dharma needed to be upheld by rulers. Talking of dharma on a national level is nonsense unless it is upheld. On an individual level we can all claim to be dharma following individuals.


For now we can only follow our constitution and stick to it, promising to look at it carefully, understand where problematic issues have come from and try to remedy them in a spirit of cooperation and peace. That would be akin to dharma, the Hindu way. That is in fact what the BJP and RSS have been saying but no one believes them because they are murderers and their religion calls for the killing of Muslims