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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 16 Nov 2014 22:38

Karan M wrote:We need this common umbrella to persist as it can help us in the future as well, and many of us do have common interests.

At the same time, we should also actively rebut the conventional view of Hinduism as just yet another religion and point out how it is so much more.

Keep the advantages of political identity.

IMHO, this is where the RSS etc score. They realized, with their ethnic experience of the Maratha empire, that spiritual commonality alone is not enough. To protect the way of life, a political identity also has to be created & sustained. Otherwise, under the garb of diversity - you have nothing in common with each other - each group under Sanathan Dharma will be gradually attacked & subverted, with the other group being told, you can't speak for these guys or protest, you were never one group.


If one understands Sanatan Dharma as only the transcendental stuff, then Moksha being an individual endeavor, and there being a huge plurality and diversity of offerings, there is not going to be a robust group identity based on that.

We would be trying to look for our unity in places where Muslims, Christians and Jews find their group identity. That is however the wrong place for us.

In Abrahamic religions, God is the highest sovereign and everything happens at his command. In a sense you are, theologically speaking, a slave of God. Officially one calls him Father. So those who pledge by him are His people, His soldiers, His children, and His people, He leads as an army, as a brotherhood.

Generally Dharmic traditions don't see it this way! There are no Brotherhoods.

Our common cause flows from our Right and Responsibility to Protect

  1. Our freedom to follow our own Moksha Margas

  2. Our freedom to live by Dharma

  3. Our comprehensive history and geography where Dharma was nurtured known as Bharatiya Sabhyata

  4. Our responsibility to preserve mankind's oldest records, Vedas, Itihaas and Puranas

  5. Our comprehensive culture and inheritance which includes sciences, spirituality, philosophy, technology, handicrafts, architecture, temples, festivals, rituals, etc.

  6. Our land, our Desh and Rāshtra, which has nurtured untold generations of our ancestors and allowed our civilization to bloom, where Dharma reigned supreme, and which shall not fall to Adharmic ideologies and powers.

Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti may give us courage to do our Dharma of protecting all of the above, but their name alone may not suffice to produce unity of purpose among Hindus. That is simply not their role.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Nov 2014 00:38

Shiv ji: In previous posts of the thread, you allude to the British not understanding our laws and codes or we not being able to explain them. Why do you say so? I think we have to be clear on this matter for there is a very substantive body of Hindu law that has evolved over many 100's of years - distinct and separate from the shruti, puraan and itihaas texts. Many Hindus today are unfamiliar with this body of laws that our civilization has lived with for a few 1000 years at least. The break in the civilization continuum is due to a break in the frameworks governing us and a restoration of this Hindu civilization framework necessities the continued extension and change under a reinvigorated framework of Hindu laws.


chandrasekhar.m
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 16 Dec 2009 20:27
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby chandrasekhar.m » 17 Nov 2014 03:42

Prof. Balagangadhara speaks more about the construction of the (artificial) entity called as "Hinduism". I think this is what shiv saar is talking about.

In the below two videos, he sets up the context. Watch these before going to the third.



In the below video and its subsequent parts he talks about his thesis in more detail. Just open this in youtube and you will see the other parts in the sidebar.


OT question - Has anyone actually read his book "The Heathen in his Blindness"? Is it accessible to a person with no philosophical/religious studies background?

PS: I have not yet watched all the 8 parts in which he discusses in detail. But thought it would be good to write this post anyway so that others will become aware.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11617
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Nov 2014 04:13

^^^Yes. Balu's book "The Heathen in His Blindness" is available on-line, as PDF files.
via: https://sites.google.com/site/colonialc ... sness/home
It can be a difficult read. A more accessible version was written by a student of his, and him, and is listed on ManoharBooks.com as:

Title : Do All Roads Lead to Jerusalem?: The Making of India
Author : S.N. Balagangadhara
ISBN : 9789350980446
First Published : 2014
Pages : 304p.
Edition : Hardbound

Balu introduced it thusly:
Dear Friends,

A new book of mine has been published by Manohar Publishers, India, thanks to Divya. She worked two years to bring out a simple, easily accessible and a very readable version of ‘The Heathen…’ It is called ‘Do all roads lead to Jerusalem?: The Making of Indian Religions’. (Thanks to VNR for the title.) It is published both as a hardbound book (Rs. 995) and in paperback (Rs. 595).

I found the manuscript very good, surpassing ‘The Heathen..’ at multiple levels. Reading it made me want to read ‘The Heathen…’, a feeling that speaks volumes about what Divya has accomplished on her own. May I suggest that you give copies of this book to those who found ‘The Heathen…’ difficult or to whom an introduction is needed for the research programme? I ask this not to propagandize my book but to pay a tribute to Divya: this book of hers deserves to be very widely read. It reads easily, cuts out digressions, and can be understood by anyone who is interested in general questions about Indian culture and her ‘religions’. Even though I am mentioned as the main author, I wish I had written this book!

Friendly greetings
Balu


I, unfortunately, have been unable to procure a copy of the book for myself so far.

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 05:05

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: In previous posts of the thread, you allude to the British not understanding our laws and codes or we not being able to explain them. Why do you say so? I think we have to be clear on this matter for there is a very substantive body of Hindu law that has evolved over many 100's of years

Shaurya by the time the Brits came to India they already had social theories of how God existed and controlled all of humankind. They knew there could be false religions but they did not expect to see a society in which the religion itself could not be defined.

As far as Hindu were concerned, we already had culture that made individual religions irrelevant. A God and his relationship with man was simply one way of dealing with the world from the Hindu viewpoint. So Hindus had no equivalent word or concept of religion. Here it is very important to understand the Christian concept of "religion" It is not about worship and bhakti.

I think Arun Gupta's link above says it better than I can say it. I quote
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... ameset.htm
The Englishmen who came as traders in the 17th century were befuddled at the vast diversity and complexity of Indian society. Having come from a culture where many aspects of family and community affairs came under the jurisdiction of canonical law, they looked for similar sources of authority in India. They assumed, for example, that just as the European marriage laws were based in part on systematic constructions derived from church interpretations of Biblical tenets, so must the personal laws of various Indian communities similarly draw their legitimacy from some priestly interpretations of fundamental religious texts.

In the late 18th century, the British began to study the ancient shastras to develop a set of legal principles that would assist them in adjudicating disputes within Indian civil society. In fact, they found there was no single body of canonical law, no Hindu Pope to legitimise a uniform legal code for all the diverse communities of India, no Shankaracharya whose writ reigned all over the country. Even religious interpretations of popular epics like the Ramayana failed to fit the bill because every community and every age exercised the freedom to recite and write its own version. We have inherited hundreds of recognised and respected versions of this text, and many are still being created. The flourishing of such variation and diversity, however, did not prevent the British from searching for a definitive canon of Hindu law.

Perhaps more egregiously, in their search, the British took no steps to understand local or jati based customary law or the way in which every community - no matter how wealthy or poor - regulated its own internal affairs through jati or biradari panchayats, without seeking permission or validation from any higher authority.


and

The British began to mistrust the pandits and became impatient with having to deal with such a range of customs that had no apparent shastric authority to back them, since that made it difficult for them to pose as genuine adjudicators of Hindu law. The British were even more nonplussed because they had a history of using the common law system, based on precedent. However, given the myriad opinions of the Indian pandits, they couldn't depend on uniform precedents to make their own judgments.



And here is what the British did
An Anglo-Brahamanical Hybrid

In order to arrive at a definitive version of the Indian legal system that would mainly be useful for them, the East India Company began to recruit and train pandits for its own service. In 1772, Warren Hastings hired a group of eleven pandits to cooperate with the Company in the creation of a new digest of Hindu law that would govern civil disputes in the British courts. The Sanskrit pandits hired to translate and sanction this new interpretation of customary laws created a curious Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid. The resulting document, printed in London under the title, A Code of Gentoo Laws, or, Ordinations of the Pandits, was a made-to-order text, in which the pandits dutifully followed the demands made by their paymasters. Though it was the first serious attempt at codification of Hindu law, the text was far from accurate in its references to the original sources, or to their varied traditional interpretations.


That book is available online. I have downloaded it and will post some quotes in due course

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 06:44

Shaurya, here is a quote from the introductory chapter of the book "A Code of Gentoo Laws" which was, as indicated above, written by taking 11 random Brahmin pandits and compiling the information they gave into a summary of what would be "Hindu Code"

The important thing that comes out is that the British, with their Christian background, expected Indians to have holy scriptures and "revelations" and fitted the information they got into the boxes of holy scriptures and revelations. The other thing was that by that time Christian documents had all been converted into a credible story of what man could credibly do. By and large there were no miraculous things like flying objects etc in Christian scripture esp in among Protestants like the Brits (though not among Catholics). So those holy Christian scriptures were "the credible truth" and therefore real history of Christendom.

When they looked at the information they got from India, they interpreted works as "The Holy revealed scriptures of the Hindus which formed the basis of the Hindu religion". They also found in those "holy Hindu revelations" stories that they could not believe. When they asked Hindus if they believed those stories, the latter said yes, and the British felt that Hindus considered wild tales (like Ramayan/Mahabharata) as their history and that these could not be real history.

Here is a quote with corrections to make it readable
The Faith of a Gentoo (misguided as it is, and groundless as it may be) is equally implicit with that of a Christian, and his Allegiance to his own supposed Revelations of the Divine Will altogether as firm. He therefore esteems the astonishing Miracles attributed to a Brihma, a Raam, or a Kishen, as Facts of the most indubitable
Authenticity, and the Relation of them as most Strictly historical.


Note the words "revelation", "divine will" and "faith". The British were trying to understand Hindus by fitting what they heard and saw into a pre-existing model or framework of religion they had in their minds.

Even today that pre-existing Christian model is incomprehensible to most Hindus which is why we tend to do and equal equal "Hindu religion is equal equal religion with Christianity and Islam". No such equality or similarity exists. It was cooked up by the British because that was all they could do to understand. And we simply swallowed it because Hindus had no control over the discourse to explain what we were.

But we can gain that control over the discourse now. And we must. And for that we must understand how the biased Christian mind saw us via glasses tinted by Christian dogma. For that we must first understand and learn to see the world through those tinted glasses

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby johneeG » 17 Nov 2014 07:32

There was a thread about a topic: what is deracination?

Frankly, I thought deracination was speaking in english, wearing western clothes,...etc. i.e. trying to imitate the western culture in all ways(in speech, in thought and in actions).

But, now I realize that these imitations are only the symptoms of deracination or the result of the deracination. They are not deracination itself.

Then, what is deracination?
I could not put my finger on the answer to this question until this thread. Now, I can see what is deracination.

Deracination: denying or denigrating one's own identity

What does it actually mean in practical terms?
It means that Bhaarathiyas deny the existence of any country called Bhaarath before the brit rule.
It means that Hindhus deny the existence of any religion called Hindhuism before the brit rule.

Now , these lines are generally put out by the commies, colonialists, ...etc. But over the years, many Hindhus and Bhaarathiyas seem to have accepted this line and keep repeating it.

In fact, Harpal Bector saar was also repeating the same line. He was suggesting obtusely that Hindhuism is a combination of cults. Perhaps, he feared that if he said it directly more people would oppose his opinion. This line is a favourite line of all anti-Hindhus and anti-Bhaarathiyas.

Prof. S.N.Balagangadhara is wrong if he says that Hindhuism, Buddhism, and Jainism did not exist as religions before the arrival of brits or islamics.

If brits had wrong definitions of religion which are insufficient to cover Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism, then that means that the brits were the ones who had to change their definitions of religion. It does not mean that Hindhuism, Buddhism or Jainism stop being religion.

This total deracination is amazing. I am sorry but the little that I heard from Prof Balagangadhara fails to impress.

This is actually the first step towards the later stages of deracination when people start imitating the west. People imitate west or someone else after they have rejected their own. Rejection of their own is the first and critical step. If the own is not rejected, then it will not be deracination.

Why should colonialists or commies or others push the line that Hindhuism is not a religion or that Bhaarath is not a country?
The implication of that line is: you are not one group of people. You don't need to stand by each other. If we fight with one cult of Hindhuism, the other cults of Hindhuism should not mind because Hindhuism is not a religion. If undercut one caste of Hindhuism, then other castes of Hindhuism should cheer. If defeat one region of Bhaarath, then other regions of Bhaarath should celebrate. Because Hindhuism is a combination of competing cults. And Bhaarath is a combination of competing geographical cultures.

Pushing this line of thought is wholesale acceptance of what the brits and commies say.

RajeshA wrote:So religions shows following characteristics:

  1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.

  2. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) sanctioned by the Creator God.

  3. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter.

  4. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God.

  5. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.

  6. Group Identity deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.

I would here suggest that neither "Hinduism", nor Buddhism, nor Jainism and to a large extent nor Sikhism really fit into this schema, and thus they cannot be called religions.

Hinduism is not a religion!


RajeshA saar,
This is similar to saying: Human beings can only have fair skin, blue eyes and yellow hair. If you don't have these features, then you are not a human being. Bhaarathiyas don't qualify as human beings because they don't have these features. Maybe Bhaarathiyas are unique beings in between human beings and monkeys.

----
harbans wrote:Rajesh ji, thanks. Adding further, one must realize than anything exotic, exceptional is added to the Hinduism banner. An example, a feudal businessman in Nepal sometime in the 18th century had a dream. He dreamt his business would grow if he slaughtered all the cattle in his farm. So he did it. He made it a ritual and constructed some shrine to the ritual. This now is termed a part of "Hinduism'. So Xtians/Muslims beat up Hindus who say cow is sacred by telling there are temples which slaughter cows. And yes, if one looks up wikipedia its there! All this is not helping the Dharmics and certainly not those who call themselves Hindu. I would prefer keeping things very simple:

1. We are Dharmics.
2. Dharmics follow Dharmic Tenets.
3. Dharmics try to live by Sattvic Gunas and eliminate Tamas and Rajas (Through evolving higher and not forced absolutism)
4. Dharmics also have the opportunity to rise above the Gunas.
5. Yoga is intrinsic part of navigating through the Gunas as well as rising above the Gunas
6. Many Moksha Marg orthodoxies are available to the Dharmics personal dispensation to choose from.
7. The Dharmic can even create his own Moksha Marg panth. There is no bar on this.
8. The process is evolutionary. The concept of Reincarnation is part of the evolution.


Image

This was discussed before and it was pointed out that 'Dharma' is a generic term which can be claimed by everyone and anyone. Arrey, even yoga is being claimed by others. There are bastar-dized versions of Yoga(christian yoga, islamic yoga, ...etc). Do you think Dharma will not be bastar-dized? I think you are just not able to accept that you are wrong on this.

Arjun wrote:
johneeG wrote:To distinguish two religions, one needs to know its core dogma and its derivatives. In Hindhuism, infallibility of Vedhas(including Upanishads) is the core dogma. In Buddhism, belief in Buddha is the core dogma. In x-ism and Mo-ism, belief in their respective prophets is the core dogma. (I was thinking: whats the core dogma of modern science: evolution?)

I don't think the core dogma you've outlined for Hinduism and Buddhism can be equated to the ones for Christianity & Islam. Belief in the respective prophets is also a prerequisite to salvation in the Abrahamic cults. On the other hand, belief in Vedas is not a prerequisite for Moksha nor is Belief in the Buddha a precondition for Nirvana.


Actually, its much more fundamental. Demand for belief is the second step. The first step is the definitions itself of what constitutes salvation, belief, ...etc are supposed to come from jesus directly or indirectly. Similarly, the very definitions of what is Moksha and how it is to be achieved are supposed to be outlined by Vedhas. Similarly, the very definitions of Nirvana and its features are supposed to be explained by Buddha.

And what I am saying is that right now many english educated guys seem to have accepted the definitions and attitudes peddled by the west. The next version is guys who are totally imitating and worshiping west. They speak in english all the time. They wear only western clothes. They eat pizzas and burgers. They try to become like west in everything. Unfortunately for them, they can never become a whiteman.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11617
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Nov 2014 07:47

^^^johneeG, suppose the Brits came and lorded it over you, and said we have a Totem Pole, and what you have also a Totem Pole but lesser than ours. And instead of saying, what we have is not a Totem Pole at all, you say, no, no, we have our Totem Pole, it existed before your Totem Pole, and those among us who realize what we have is not a Totem Pole are deracinated, that is where you are going with this. It is you who are stuck with Totem Polism, and the idea that having a Totem Pole gives you some respectability in the Brits' world.

No one is saying what existed ceases to exist. Buddha is there, the Vedas are there, the Ramayana is there. Bharat existed. Dharma existed.

Let me give you another example. Islam teaches that Allah sent Prophets to all lands, except in most lands their teachings were corrupted. So Rama and Krishna are supposed to be Prophets sent to India. Now, would you jump up and down and say, anyone who denies Rama & Krishna are Prophets are deracinated, and Rama & Krishna are the oldest known Prophets, known before any of the Prophets even of the old Testament, let alone Muhammad, etc. ? No, you would say, this is ridiculous, Rama & Krishna have nothing to do with Islamic theology and their theory of Prophethood.

Now the Brits come along and cast Rama & Krishna in terms of "religion" because that is what their theology says; but unless we swallow it whole, we are deracinated??????

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 08:12

JohneeG - you are persisting in trying to fit the word "religion" to your requirements so as to prove that "religions" existed before the Brits came.

The word religion as brought in by the British has a very specific meaning as described in various posts. If you bend that meaning and change it to suit your requirements then everything becomes "religion". I think you need to spend some time in trying to understand that meaning. When the British used that word that was the meaning they had in mind. And because they had that meaning in mind the "Hindu religion" was a very corrupt one.

There are a lot of things that Hindus practice and believe which sound very corrupt if your mind is rigid, as British minds were, in defining religion in that very narrow way. Unfortunately that is the accepted meaning of religion from teh Christian viewpoint and you are wrong in trying to fit your view of Hinduism into a word that does not have the same meaning. You are in effect trying to say that "food" and "bread" mean exactly the same thing and you can pass any food off as bread.

I think you need to do a rethink. The colonized mind accepted British English labels without understanding their meaning. It is high time we stopped that. But we cannot stop that unless we go back in time and understand the British as they were and how they misinterpreted and mislabelled what they saw - and how Indians today believe that as the truth

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 08:15

johneeG wrote:
And what I am saying is that right now many english educated guys seem to have accepted the definitions and attitudes peddled by the west. The next version is guys who are totally imitating and worshiping west. They speak in english all the time. They wear only western clothes. They eat pizzas and burgers. They try to become like west in everything. Unfortunately for them, they can never become a whiteman.

JohneeG - your mind is also colonized because you are accepting that Hinduism is a religion without understanding what the British meant when they used the word religion. Wearing sari and dhoti in India and eating rice/chapatis and dal is no protection against colonization of the mind when our entire constitution, legal system and education system stems from colonized minds.

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 08:37

johneeG wrote:
RajeshA wrote:So religions shows following characteristics:

  1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.

  2. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) sanctioned by the Creator God.

  3. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter.

  4. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God.

  5. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.

  6. Group Identity deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.


RajeshA saar,
This is similar to saying: Human beings can only have fair skin, blue eyes and yellow hair. If you don't have these features, then you are not a human being. Bhaarathiyas don't qualify as human beings because they don't have these features. Maybe Bhaarathiyas are unique beings in between human beings and monkeys.

Rajesh is exactly correct. He has defined the word "religion" as understood by the Christian British who came to India. If it does not conform to this it is not religion.

We can argue continuously that Hinduism is a religion, but it does not conform to this definition of religion. In order to make it conform the British simply copy pasted Hindu texts as "divine revelations" and Hindu icons as prophets and said "Hinduism is a weird weird religion". Why did they do this? Why did they have to forcibly codify Hinduism as a religion. That is because they were making a penal code for India and needed to have a fixed guideline for arbitration and judgement.

What is forgotten in our philosophical discussions is that the Brits had a very down to earth reason for codifying all Hindus as a religion - and that was to make rules to rule over Hindus.

I can understand the discomfort you get from this statement. Does it mean that Hindus had no religion to unify them? That is your colonized mind telling you that only religion can unify. Hindus had something that transcended religion that unified them And anyone who says this is always criticized by seculars who say "Bullshit. Hindu had nothing until the British unified them"

Which of the following do YOU believe?

1. Hindus had something that transcended and went beyond religion that unified them as a common people through history even before the British came?

2. Only the Hindu religion united Indians

3. There was no unity in India before the British came

I believe in 1 and I have recently tried to give it the name a system "Cosmognosy" binding a libertarian Indian society. These are western words. But they are designed to explain things to the colonized mind - of the same type that i used to be (and still am to some extent)

There is something that unifies indians. Deracinated minds and Pakistanis do not believe that. But most Indians do. Is that unity the "Hindu religion" or something that is on a higher plane than religion that makes religion unimportant and irrelevant for unity. We have such a low opinion of ourselves that we are unable to think of the latter. We worry that we will break up unless we insist that our religion unites us like islam unites Pakis. That is also an example of a colonized mind.

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 08:57

johneeG wrote:
If brits had wrong definitions of religion which are insufficient to cover Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism, then that means that the brits were the ones who had to change their definitions of religion. It does not mean that Hindhuism, Buddhism or Jainism stop being religion.

This total deracination is amazing .


I think you need some relief from deracination yourself.

Why are you so keen to get them to change the meaning of their word religion to please you. Isn't "dharma" good enough for you? Why not get everyone to understand dharma, specifically sanatana dharma?

That apart your argument about trying to make everyone accept that Hinduism etc were "always" religions is totally useless because Indian laws and the Indian constitution have been written based on the definition that the British had for religion, and not yours. Simply arguing andasking people to accept that everyone had a religion before is not going to change the unfortunate fact that Hinduism has been defined as an equal equal religion along with Christianity and Islam. We have our divine revelations and our prophets who have said that the caste system is necessary and that Islam is a false religion whose adherents should be killed.

Instead of addressing these issues you are simply talking about racination and deracination.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Arjun » 17 Nov 2014 09:03

JohneeG,

The West is trying to portray their morally bankrupt & sociopathic predatory cults to be at the same level of sophistication as the philosophically rich Dharmic Panths. Why do you want to acquiesce to their need for respectability ?

Hinduism is far grander. It is religion+++. It is silly to even use the same terminology when dealing with concepts that are so different. Hence the differentiation between Dharmic Panths and Abrahamic Religions. Please remember that in this Indic terminology, 'religion' carries a rather negative connotation, being primarily oriented towards soul-harvesting and political power. Religion has been the bane of the world for the last two millenia. It is the responsibility of Dharmics to see to it that the world is rid of Religion and only science and spiritualism -oriented Panths survive to carry forward humanity's quest.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 09:40

Arjun wrote:JohneeG,

The West is trying to portray their morally bankrupt & sociopathic predatory cults to be at the same level of sophistication as the philosophically rich Dharmic Panths. Why do you want to acquiesce to their need for respectability ?

Hinduism is far grander. It is religion+++. It is silly to even use the same terminology when dealing with concepts that are so different. Hence the differentiation between Dharmic Panths and Abrahamic Religions. Please remember that in this Indic terminology, 'religion' carries a rather negative connotation, being primarily oriented towards soul-harvesting and political power. Religion has been the bane of the world for the last two millenia. It is the responsibility of Dharmics to see to it that the world is rid of Religion and only science and spiritualism -oriented Panths survive to carry forward humanity's quest.

This debate is turning bizzare. Dharm is a path. Fine. It is not a religion. Fine. But who follows that path? People do. Does everyone agree what the Dharm is ? No. We saw the example in Mahabharata. Even the learned like Bhishma, Drona etc did not know what Dharm atually was till Krishna told them when they were about to die.

So people to pontificate that some how this "immaculate" Dharm exists which "everyone" knows is preposterous.

Let me ask you when there was a sword on Hindus' necks in the medieveal time and they converted what religion were they following? Were they adharmic to convert?

From the same time there is example of mughal armies coming to destroy various temples in different villages. In rajput villages 10-20 or whatever number would go sit on charpoys with their swords and wait for the mughal army. They did not run. But died to the last man. What religion temple were they defending?

Remember Dharm does not live in a vaccum.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby johneeG » 17 Nov 2014 09:43

johneeG wrote:
RajeshA wrote:So religions shows following characteristics:

  1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.

  2. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) sanctioned by the Creator God.

  3. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter.

  4. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God.

  5. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.

  6. Group Identity deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.


RajeshA saar,
This is similar to saying: Human beings can only have fair skin, blue eyes and yellow hair. If you don't have these features, then you are not a human being. Bhaarathiyas don't qualify as human beings because they don't have these features. Maybe Bhaarathiyas are unique beings in between human beings and monkeys.

shiv wrote:Rajesh is exactly correct. He has defined the word "religion" as understood by the Christian British who came to India. If it does not conform to this it is not religion.


Shiv saar,
If you are going to use the definitions given by the british, then you are going to reach the conclusions reached by the british. If your definitions and conclusions are same as british, then you are thinking like british. If Bhaarathiyas think like british, then...

Colonial britishers had views on other topics as well. They did not think that Bhaarath was a single country. They thought that white man was superior to all other races.
shiv wrote:
johneeG wrote:
And what I am saying is that right now many english educated guys seem to have accepted the definitions and attitudes peddled by the west. The next version is guys who are totally imitating and worshiping west. They speak in english all the time. They wear only western clothes. They eat pizzas and burgers. They try to become like west in everything. Unfortunately for them, they can never become a whiteman.

JohneeG - your mind is also colonized because you are accepting that Hinduism is a religion without understanding what the British meant when they used the word religion. Wearing sari and dhoti in India and eating rice/chapatis and dal is no protection against colonization of the mind when our entire constitution, legal system and education system stems from colonized minds.



Shiv saar,
I am saying something more basic: I don't need to accept the definitions of religion given by brits or west. If the definition given by brits is different from the definitions given by Bhaarath, then its the brits who are wrong, not Bhaarath.

If the definition of religion given by brits is not matching definition of religion given by Hindhuism, Buddhism, Jainism...etc, it means that the definitions given by the brits are wrong as far as Hindhus, Buddhists and Jains are concerned.

If Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism ...etc, are different from Abrahamic creeds, that means it is the Abrahamic creeds which do not qualify as religions as far as Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism are concerned.

Arjun wrote:JohneeG,

The West is trying to portray their morally bankrupt & sociopathic predatory cults to be at the same level of sophistication as the philosophically rich Dharmic Panths. Why do you want to acquiesce to their need for respectability ?

Hinduism is far grander. It is religion+++. It is silly to even use the same terminology when dealing with concepts that are so different. Hence the differentiation between Dharmic Panths and Abrahamic Religions. Please remember that in this Indic terminology, 'religion' carries a rather negative connotation, being primarily oriented towards soul-harvesting and political power. Religion has been the bane of the world for the last two millenia. It is the responsibility of Dharmics to see to it that the world is rid of Religion and only science and spiritualism -oriented Panths survive to carry forward humanity's quest.


Arjun saar,
If Abrahamic cults are not matching eastern religions, then it is the Abrahamic cults which should lose the status of 'religion'. Not the other way around.

I am saying that what is a 'religion' and what is not a 'religion' will be defined by eastern paths. The brits are saying that what will qualify as 'religion' will be defined by Abrahamic 'cults'.

So, you see the very definition is based on who is to be accepted as implicitly right. If Abrahamic definitions of 'religion' are accepted, then non-Abrahamic religions will not qualify as 'religions'. If eastern definitions of 'religion' are accepted, then Abrahamic creeds will not qualify as 'religions'.

For example: lets say the colonials defined 'human beings' such that human beings having a fair skin, yellow hair and blue eyes are considered superior.
Lets say that eastern paths defined 'human beings' such that human beings having kindness, knowledge and skill are considered are superior.

Now, this is clash at the stage of very definitions. The future course of thinking of an individual will be dictated by whose definitions he is going to accept. If he accepts the definition of colonials, then he will also reach the conclusion that fair skin is superior and therefore white man is superior. If the definitions of eastern paths are accepted, then his thinking will be different.

So, the first step is the very definitions.

The same applies to the definition of 'religion' itself. Why should the definitions given by the colonials be accepted?

Why should others get to define what is Hindhuism and what is not Hindhuism?

A_Gupta wrote:Let me give you another example. Islam teaches that Allah sent Prophets to all lands, except in most lands their teachings were corrupted. So Rama and Krishna are supposed to be Prophets sent to India. Now, would you jump up and down and say, anyone who denies Rama & Krishna are Prophets are deracinated, and Rama & Krishna are the oldest known Prophets, known before any of the Prophets even of the old Testament, let alone Muhammad, etc. ? No, you would say, this is ridiculous, Rama & Krishna have nothing to do with Islamic theology and their theory of Prophethood.


A_Gupta saar,
Actually, this is the position of the RSS and I think its wrong. Shri Raama and Shri Krushna should not be called as prophets because according to Hindhuism they are not prophets but incarnations of the divinity itself.

A_Gupta wrote:Now the Brits come along and cast Rama & Krishna in terms of "religion" because that is what their theology says; but unless we swallow it whole, we are deracinated??????


No, brits did not accept Raama and Krushna as religious figures. They said that it was 'mythology', 'superstition', ...etc. They claimed the status of religion for themselves themselves while they said that Hindhuism was a mish-mash of cults of Raama and Krushna. Please note the word 'cult'. This word is the same word that was used by Harpal Bector.

You will find that many colonials, commies, ...etc will deny the status of religion to Hindhuism. Because if Hindhuism is the religion, then the Abrahamic creeds will not qualify as religions. Abrahamic creeds will have to be called as cults of mo and jeez.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Arjun » 17 Nov 2014 10:16

Looks like JohneeG agrees on the need for separate terminology distinguishing Abrahamics from Dharmics, and on the need for this terminology to be defined by Indians. His preference is for "Religion" as the term for Eastern Religions, and "Cults' for Abrahamics. His argument does indeed make sense if one assumes that the Constitution accords certain special privileges only to Religions, such as right to proselytize freely.

On the other hand, rather than use foreign terminology why not use Dharmic Panths (Indic terminology) for Eastern Paths, and Religions for Western ? This is the path of least resistance, if there is ever going to be divergent terminologies used. However, this suggestion does assume that Dharmic Panths would need to be privileged over Religions in some manner in the Constitution.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10255
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Vayutuvan » 17 Nov 2014 10:25

Is dhArmic panth (I would prefer to use path - the samskruta word not the English one) a path of least resistance? Is reform possible by taking that path?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 17 Nov 2014 14:39

johneeG wrote:I am saying something more basic: I don't need to accept the definitions of religion given by brits or west. If the definition given by brits is different from the definitions given by Bhaarath, then its the brits who are wrong, not Bhaarath.


"Religion" is a word and concept which comes from the West. So how can Indians dispute its definition or character?

Just like "Christian Yoga" is not Yoga, similarly "Hinduism" is not Religion.

Our socio-ideological systems, our Dharmic panths did not and do not fit into their concept of religion, and they have been chiseling around with our systems, and making our square pegs fit into their round holes, and calling all that chiseled up religion: Hinduism.

I say, we Indians don't wish that our Aryatva Sanskriti, Dharma and Samaj be force-fit into their "Religion". I say, we Indians don't wish that they with their primitive concept of "Religion" be considered as equally civilized as those blessed with Dharma and enriched with Aryatva Sabhyata.

We are Free Arya and they are slaves of a Feudal Lord.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 17 Nov 2014 15:22

Cross-posting from "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

Expanding on the list, I suggested earlier ...

Religions shows following 12 characteristics:

  1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.

  2. Allegiance (Nicene Creed, Shahada) as demanded by Creator God.

  3. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) revealed by Creator God.

  4. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter. Competition around who better represents Will of Creator God.

  5. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God. Competition around who better embodies the Legacy of the Emissary.

  6. Lineage Centricity to underline the claims of representational authority of God's Emissaries.

  7. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.

  8. Group Identity, a brotherhood, deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.

  9. Conversion (Evangelism, Dawah) is used to expand the sphere of power: God's Kingdom, Dar al-Islam.

  10. Entitlement for the believers/allegiants to all of Creator God's creation (Nature, Pagan's possessions, Land, Women, Power, Proselytization Rights, Victory, Heaven) as part of the bargain, as price for submission to Him.

  11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.

  12. Feudalism is the primary or sole philosophical principle. In religion God is modeled on a Feudal Lord projected onto the transcendental plane.

I would here suggest that neither "Hinduism", nor Buddhism, nor Jainism and to a large extent nor Sikhism really fit into this schema, and thus they cannot be called religions. !

Hinduism is not a religion!

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 18:07

RajeshA wrote:Cross-posting from "The Bharatiya - Identity, Vision, Agenda, Proposition" Thread

Expanding on the list, I suggested earlier ...

Religions shows following 12 characteristics:

  1. Exclusive Transcendental Entity (Creator God) which demands Obedience and is Law Giver.

  2. Allegiance (Nicene Creed, Shahada) as demanded by Creator God.

  3. Laws and Obligations (Books, Ten Commandments) revealed by Creator God.

  4. Representatives of Creator God (Emissaries, Prophets, Sons) and thus Law Givers allegedly chosen/determined by the latter. Competition around who better represents Will of Creator God.

  5. Organization or Network (Ulema, Clergy) which governs society and implements divine obligations deriving sanction from these Emissaries of God. Competition around who better embodies the Legacy of the Emissary.

  6. Lineage Centricity to underline the claims of representational authority of God's Emissaries.

  7. Pious Society which shows uncritical obedience to such Clergy.

  8. Group Identity, a brotherhood, deriving from this religious system, which is used by the Clergy and their secular sponsors to sway society and politics.

  9. Conversion (Evangelism, Dawah) is used to expand the sphere of power: God's Kingdom, Dar al-Islam.

  10. Entitlement for the believers/allegiants to all of Creator God's creation (Nature, Pagan's possessions, Land, Women, Power, Proselytization Rights, Victory, Heaven) as part of the bargain, as price for submission to Him.

  11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.

  12. Feudalism is the primary or sole philosophical principle. In religion God is modeled on a Feudal Lord projected onto the transcendental plane.

I would here suggest that neither "Hinduism", nor Buddhism, nor Jainism and to a large extent nor Sikhism really fit into this schema, and thus they cannot be called religions. !

Hinduism is not a religion!

This is a perfect example of making a mountain of a mole hill. Since a few here are proclaiming that hinduism is not a religion may I please ask the experts how was "dharm" taught to common masses in India?

Just to point out one amongst other fallacy in your argument:
[*] Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.


Indian rulers routinely mobilized against Islam by writing letters to each other some of which are preserved. These letters were exchanged and coalitions formed to protect Hindu religion.

I am afraid your post suggests either you are knowingly ignoring facts or you do not know enough about Hinduism or history of India.

This narrow interpretation of Hinduism, in which only your definition is the right one, (when no one actually knows Dharm neither Bhishm knew nor Drona as an example), is the bane of Hinduism.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11617
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Nov 2014 18:10

Balu: For instance, which intellectual in the world challenges the claim that ‘Buddhism’ battled against ‘Brahmanism’? Almost none. How many know of the circumstances that produced this ‘guesswork’ or even about the amount of Christian theological baggage required to sustain this claim? Alas, hardly any.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11617
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby A_Gupta » 17 Nov 2014 18:19

A translation or summary of the document here
http://www.cslc.in/publications/details/557/section:4
"Theoretical presentation of Sanatana culture is the need of the hour"
would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 18:23

johneeG wrote:If you are going to use the definitions given by the british, then you are going to reach the conclusions reached by the british. If your definitions and conclusions are same as british, then you are thinking like british. If Bhaarathiyas think like british, then...

Colonial britishers had views on other topics as well. They did not think that Bhaarath was a single country. They thought that white man was superior to all other races.
<snip>

I am saying something more basic: I don't need to accept the definitions of religion given by brits or west. If the definition given by brits is different from the definitions given by Bhaarath, then its the brits who are wrong, not Bhaarath.

If the definition of religion given by brits is not matching definition of religion given by Hindhuism, Buddhism, Jainism...etc, it means that the definitions given by the brits are wrong as far as Hindhus, Buddhists and Jains are concerned.

If Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism ...etc, are different from Abrahamic creeds, that means it is the Abrahamic creeds which do not qualify as religions as far as Hindhuism, Buddhism and Jainism are concerned.


In fact it is not so simple as that. I still believe that you don;t know or are ignoring a great number of things and are rehashing an old idea that I used to hold, until new information cropped up. So let me stick to old..

I will rewrite much of the stuff in due course. But let us get down to some religion basics. Let me speak like some modern Indians:

Yes of course Hinduism is a religion that is older than Christianity and Islam. But it is a real pity that Hinduism had all these bad practices like caste, untouchability and sati. Bride burning still goes on among Hindus. Also things like drinking cow urine and considering cowdung sacred are simply not tenable in today's world. Christianity and Islam are so much more egalitarian. In fact my sister who lives in America is unable to explain this to her NRI children. One is on the verge of converting, because as religions go Hinduism had more minuses than pluses.

Please explain how the Hindu religion became so degraded. How can any religion be so degraded as to preach untouchability, bride burning and cowdung worship. Maybe the British were right in not accepting this as a true religion no?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 18:36

A_Gupta wrote:
Balu: For instance, which intellectual in the world challenges the claim that ‘Buddhism’ battled against ‘Brahmanism’? Almost none. How many know of the circumstances that produced this ‘guesswork’ or even about the amount of Christian theological baggage required to sustain this claim? Alas, hardly any.

Funny Balu. Buddha revolted against Hinduism. It is common knowledge. Any body to disregard that is pure looney bin space operation. Have you even thought why Buddha invented a new religion and not become a Rishi of Hinduism? There must be a reason no?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 18:42

shiv wrote:.....

Yes of course Hinduism is a religion that is older than Christianity and Islam. But it is a real pity that Hinduism had all these bad practices like caste, untouchability and sati. Bride burning still goes on among Hindus. Also things like drinking cow urine and considering cowdung sacred are simply not tenable in today's world. Christianity and Islam are so much more egalitarian. In fact my sister who lives in America is unable to explain this to her NRI children. One is on the verge of converting, because as religions go Hinduism had more minuses than pluses.

Please explain how the Hindu religion became so degraded. How can any religion be so degraded as to preach untouchability, bride burning and cowdung worship. Maybe the British were right in not accepting this as a true religion no?

There are some human related arhcetypes. Caste untouchability is one of them. No matter where you travel on this globe some degree of untouchability is practiced. It could be based on your caste, colour of your skin, the language you speak, the religion you may have etc.. Blacks in America. Witches in France. Blacks in UK. Non Germans in Germany. Hindus in Islamic countries, etc etc etc.

Sati is highly misunderstood. If you travel around rajasthan you fill find men to have comitted sati. What do you make of that? Are we as a nation even aware of this? Or just the british narrative is held sacrosanct that we do not even bother scratching the surface?

Indian Cowdung is highly antibacterial. It is an empirical fact. In the west the cows are non veg. They are fed waste meat from the various butcheries/slaughter houses and consequently the western cows, herbivores originally, do not have the same anti bacterial properties.

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 18:48

I am beginning to veer around to the view that Hinduism and indeed all "dharmic panths" as someone called them are defnitiely not religions in the sense of the word. That is too narrow a word.

Dharmic doctrines are "supra-religious" - where supra means "above". None of them need a concept of God to survive. All religions cease to exist the minute you deny the existence of God. Dharmic doctrines make religions obsolete or irrelevant. They do not avoid or prevent religious doctrines - some people do need them, but dharmic panths do not require religion or god to survive on their own in providing a moral way of living life and rational explanations about creation, birth. life and death.

By insisting on calling them religion we are lying to ourselves and lying to everyone else. Religion is an inadeqaute term and it is heart rending that Hindu-ism got clubbed as a "religion" even in our law books and was saddled with responsibility for the social (not religious) habits of a libertarian Indian society. There is nothing religious about jati. Caste is a concept that simply does not exist if we are so intent on not using western terminology.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby JE Menon » 17 Nov 2014 18:51

>>Buddha revolted against Hinduism. It is common knowledge.

I'm curious about this actually. Where did he actually revolt against Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma), and what did that revolt entail?

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 18:56

peter wrote:There are some human related arhcetypes. Caste untouchability is one of them. No matter where you travel on this globe some degree of untouchability is practiced. It could be based on your caste, colour of your skin, the language you speak, the religion you may have etc.. Blacks in America. Witches in France. Blacks in UK. Non Germans in Germany. Hindus in Islamic countries, etc etc etc.

Sati is highly misunderstood. If you travel around rajasthan you fill find men to have comitted sati. What do you make of that? Are we as a nation even aware of this? Or just the british narrative is held sacrosanct that we do not even bother scratching the surface?

Indian Cowdung is highly antibacterial. It is an empirical fact. In the west the cows are non veg. They are fed waste meat from the various butcheries/slaughter houses and consequently the western cows, herbivores originally, do not have the same anti bacterial properties.

I will continue in my stupid Hindu mode

Caste and untouchability may exist anywhere but Hinduism is the only religion that actively promotes caste and untouchability.

Sati is barbaric. Men or women only Hindus do it. It is te fault of the Hindu religion

A major cause of infant mortality in India was the use of "antiseptic" cowdung on the umbilical cord of newborn children cause in fatal tetanus. Interestingly Zulus used to do that as well:
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/ ... e-cow-dung
The first step taken in reducing the very high incidence of tetanus
in Zulu neonates was to teach mothers not to put cow dung on the severed
umbilical cord after their babies had been born.

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 19:00

Religion needs God. No God no religion.

You do not need God to be Hindu. You can have any number if Gods if you want, but they are superfluous and unnecessary. On the other hand you can be Hindu no matter what God you worship.

It is profoundly ignorant of Hinduism to insist that it is a "Only a religion".

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby RajeshA » 17 Nov 2014 19:02

peter wrote:This is a perfect example of making a mountain of a mole hill. Since a few here are proclaiming that hinduism is not a religion may I please ask the experts how was "dharm" taught to common masses in India?

Our Itihaas (Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas) are replete with stories which revolve around Dharma. Best way to explain Dharma is through examples.

peter wrote:Just to point out one amongst other fallacy in your argument:
11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.


Indian rulers routinely mobilized against Islam by writing letters to each other some of which are preserved. These letters were exchanged and coalitions formed to protect Hindu religion.


Political Mobilization happened everywhere. The question is on what basis?!

Dharma Yuddha cannot simply be translated as Religious War, nor is protection of Dharma, same as protection of "Hindu Religion"! Islam was waging a war to destroy all that enabled the people of India to pursue a Dharmic life - gurus, sants, mandirs, freedom. Secondly Islam was in all matters a manifestation of Adharma, and those pledged to Raj Dharma, were duty-bound to fight against Adharma. Dharma is simply the ethic according to which one is supposed to act.

If any Devas and Bhagwans were invoked, then it was simply to get their blessings.

But no Hindu was going around saying, let's fight for Shiva or let's fight for Vishnu, or that Shiva and Vishnu have told us to fight for them.

peter wrote:I am afraid your post suggests either you are knowingly ignoring facts or you do not know enough about Hinduism or history of India.

This narrow interpretation of Hinduism, in which only your definition is the right one, (when no one actually knows Dharm neither Bhishm knew nor Drona as an example), is the bane of Hinduism.


There is a difference in knowing what constitutes the concept of Dharma on the one hand and on the other knowing how to act according to Dharma in a given situation considering the influence of one's own upbringing and psychology and effects of rajasic and tamasic gunas.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby harbans » 17 Nov 2014 19:08

Every canon of Buddhism was propagated by Dharmic Brahmins. Every one of them.
As have mentioned before the Dharmic Panths are all Sattva based and look down on Tamas and Rajas.
The Dharmic meta ethic allows not just following established Moksha Marg panths but to establish new ones also.
So if followers of an established panth are are culturally or socially messing up there is no restriction of another Dharmic panth being established with the meta ethic that challenges the existing social or cultural order.
Thus Dharmics establishing canons for Buddhism that weaned followers away from social or cultural aberrations is parcel of the mechanism. It was never a challenge to the fundamental meta ethics of Dharma which is Sanatan by nature.
The big mistake Indics made is in assuming Islam is a Sattvic panth. The ones who realized at some level it is not, could not rally under a common sattvic base meta ethic they seeked to uphold.
The moksha margs are not meant to rule. The problem with Ashoka making Buddhism state religion is just that. Dharma in Governance took secondary importance to Moksha Marg orthodoxy.

williams
BRFite
Posts: 379
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby williams » 17 Nov 2014 19:11

Here are my thoughts after reading all of the posts.

Hinduism is a way of life; it is a human cultural trait and can never become a religion. It is about respecting other cultures and every other human traditions. It is a culture of open debate and constant change for good. It is better than democracy, secularism and all the other things spoken of by the western societies. As with every cultural trait there are a few negative practices that evolved and needs to be changed. But Hinduism's strength is that there is no rigidity. I strongly believe all these rigidity evolved when the Hindu leaders and teachers vanished. That could be corrected if more leaders and teachers are promoted. Temples should become learning centers and there should more universities and university level research.

This openness of Hinduism is perceived as weakness. I think we should make that our strength. I believe there is no difference between Hinduism and Nationalism. Nationalism comes out of inspiration on one's own cultural pride. The problem we see in our country is most who claim to practice Hinduism simply think of few traditions they practice. Then they blame many bad practices on Hinduism. In other words majority are not proud of Hinduism because they do not understand the core of Hinduism. This lack of pride/knowledge is what is causing so many factions and infighting in the country. I think the first thing that needs to be done is separate individual religious practices from the core of Hinduism. Hinduism is a meta-language of human culture (not just religion) and it needs to be promoted that way. The first step towards Nationalism is to have a uniform civil code that is based on this meta-language. Then we need the ancient temple/ashram based learning culture that needs to be restored. If we do that then people in the country irrespective of their religious practices (Including those who practice foreign religion) will become a Hindu and by inspiration a Nationalist. Western and Islamic power centers understand the enormous soft power India can project and will do everything to stop such a movement.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 19:18

JE Menon wrote:>>Buddha revolted against Hinduism. It is common knowledge.

I'm curious about this actually. Where did he actually revolt against Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma), and what did that revolt entail?

Siddhartha revolted by breaking away from Hinduism and suggesting a single path to Nirvana. Hinduism does not ever believe in a single path to Moksha.

From Dhammapad:
"273. Best of paths is the Eightfold; the four truths are the best of truths: purity is the best state; best of men is the seer.

274. This is the way; there is none other that leads to the seeing of Purity (Nirvāna.) Do you follow this path: that is to befool Mara.

275. Travelling by this way you'll end your grief: it is the way I preached when I learnt to throw off my bonds.

276. ’Tis you who must strive: the Blessed Ones are only preachers. They who strive and meditate are freed from Mara's bonds."

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

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby shiv » 17 Nov 2014 19:20

I asked a question.

I will ask it again.

How did "caste" and "untouchability" become part of the "Hindu religion"?

I did not ask whether caste/untouchability occurs in other countries. I did not ask if cowdung was an antiseptic. I asked how the shit of a cow became sacred in the Hindu religion.

Actually there is no basis for either of these in Hindu tradition. These were Indian social habits that were blamed on Hindus. It had nothing to do with being Hindu. Caste stratification in other countries was never blamed on religion. Only in India it was blamed on religion. Cowdung as antiseptic for Zulus is not religion. How come it is "religious" in India

I put it to you that colonized minds who have already accepted and internalized the idea that caste and cowdung are sacred to the Hindu religion are now simply cooking up justifications. There is no need for that. None of these practices were ever part of a Hindu religion.

But if anyone really wants to understand how Hindus got saddled with such nonsense, you need to read and understand the history of British India and how people were seen ad classified according to religion and how things entered teh law books and finally the Indian constitution. People seem reluctant to do that. So we bugger about and thrash about justifying and explaining utter nonsense.

Hindu-ism is not a "religion" because it does not need God to exist. Many religions can exist within the Hindu fold as long as the concept of God can be seen as the same as the "one truth"/absolute bliss/nirvana

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby harbans » 17 Nov 2014 19:26

Peter: Its not HInduism that believes there is no single path, its the Dharmic meta ethic. Krishna stresses that too in the BG. But read the experiences of Rishis in the Upanishads for instance, the Sages who went to the forests, read Krishnas message of going to the forest meditating on a soft skin in a calm environment (he mentions it's not everyones cup of tea), the stress on a Guru to learn the orthodoxies within many panths of 'HInduism' itself. No it's wrong to say there is nothing rigid within HInduism. If one choses a Guru and a panth to follow there are orthodoxies and rituals to comply with. It looks and is softer compared to the Abrahmic panths simply because it also stresses on evolution rather than absolutism.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 19:26

shiv wrote:
peter wrote:There are some human related arhcetypes. Caste untouchability is one of them. No matter where you travel on this globe some degree of untouchability is practiced. It could be based on your caste, colour of your skin, the language you speak, the religion you may have etc.. Blacks in America. Witches in France. Blacks in UK. Non Germans in Germany. Hindus in Islamic countries, etc etc etc.

Sati is highly misunderstood. If you travel around rajasthan you fill find men to have comitted sati. What do you make of that? Are we as a nation even aware of this? Or just the british narrative is held sacrosanct that we do not even bother scratching the surface?

Indian Cowdung is highly antibacterial. It is an empirical fact. In the west the cows are non veg. They are fed waste meat from the various butcheries/slaughter houses and consequently the western cows, herbivores originally, do not have the same anti bacterial properties.

I will continue in my stupid Hindu mode

Caste and untouchability may exist anywhere but Hinduism is the only religion that actively promotes caste and untouchability.

Every religion's followers practice "some kind of caste and untouchability". skin Color, lang etc. Human issue nothing to do with religion. If anyone tells you this is barbaric point out witches at the stake and the handling of slaves in US and Europe. Though it might interest all to read the views of Swami Vivkananda on untouchability in Kerala.

shiv wrote:Sati is barbaric. Men or women only Hindus do it. It is te fault of the Hindu religion
Nope. Sati most often was an expression of extreme Viyog (hindi word) and overwhelming grief. Our worldview on Sati is colored by British writings about Bengal, and how they abloshed it etc. Pure crap. Please read some vernacular descriptions of Sati. An english source Sleeman a britisher has written about it some too.

shiv wrote:A major cause of infant mortality in India was the use of "antiseptic" cowdung on the umbilical cord of newborn children cause in fatal tetanus. Interestingly Zulus used to do that as well:
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/ ... e-cow-dung
The first step taken in reducing the very high incidence of tetanus
in Zulu neonates was to teach mothers not to put cow dung on the severed
umbilical cord after their babies had been born.


Never heard this happening in India. You got any source? My point was on the use of cow dung in villages to paste it on the floors of homes.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 19:28

harbans wrote:Peter: Its not HInduism that believes there is no single path, its the Dharmic meta ethic. Krishna stresses that too in the BG. But read the experiences of Rishis in the Upanishads for instance, the Sages who went to the forests, read Krishnas message of going to the forest meditating on a soft skin in a calm environment (he mentions it's not everyones cup of tea), the stress on a Guru to learn the orthodoxies within many panths of 'HInduism' itself. No it's wrong to say there is nothing rigid within HInduism. If one choses a Guru and a panth to follow there are orthodoxies and rituals to comply with. It looks and is softer compared to the Abrahmic panths simply because it also stresses on evolution rather than absolutism.

I totally agree that Hinduism teaches there is no single path. Budha insisted there is only a single path.

Comer
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby Comer » 17 Nov 2014 19:28

Can something in the Western concept of religion be pointed at and said no, this is not part of Dharma?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sen

Postby peter » 17 Nov 2014 19:37

RajeshA wrote:
peter wrote:This is a perfect example of making a mountain of a mole hill. Since a few here are proclaiming that hinduism is not a religion may I please ask the experts how was "dharm" taught to common masses in India?

Our Itihaas (Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas) are replete with stories which revolve around Dharma. Best way to explain Dharma is through examples.

Correct . Now further imagine can an illeterate farmer who has toiled all day in the fields understand the fandu philosophy of Gita? What Dharm does he follow and how?

peter wrote:Just to point out one amongst other fallacy in your argument:
RajeshA wrote:11. Political Mobilization (Inquisition, Crusades, Ummah's Solidarity, Jihad) flows from allegiance to God and political power of clergy, often resulting in politics under the pretext of spirituality.


Indian rulers routinely mobilized against Islam by writing letters to each other some of which are preserved. These letters were exchanged and coalitions formed to protect Hindu religion.

RajeshA wrote:Political Mobilization happened everywhere. The question is on what basis?!

Dharma Yuddha cannot simply be translated as Religious War, nor is protection of Dharma, same as protection of "Hindu Religion"! Islam was waging a war to destroy all that enabled the people of India to pursue a Dharmic life - gurus, sants, mandirs, freedom. Secondly Islam was in all matters a manifestation of Adharma, and those pledged to Raj Dharma, were duty-bound to fight against Adharma. Dharma is simply the ethic according to which one is supposed to act.

It was a religious war. This is again a classic JNU / AMU argument that India had no religious wars. Hindus fought tooth and nail these religious wars with Jihadis. An illetrate rajput or maratha soldier did not understand all the nuances of path and dharm but he knew that he had to protect the durga temple, pr krishna temple, or shiva temple or vishnu temple in his backyard till he had one breath in his body.

Do you not get this fact?
RajeshA wrote:If any Devas and Bhagwans were invoked, then it was simply to get their blessings.
. No. Your argument should not sound similar to JNU wallahs.

RajeshA wrote:
peter wrote:I am afraid your post suggests either you are knowingly ignoring facts or you do not know enough about Hinduism or history of India.

This narrow interpretation of Hinduism, in which only your definition is the right one, (when no one actually knows Dharm neither Bhishm knew nor Drona as an example), is the bane of Hinduism.


There is a difference in knowing what constitutes the concept of Dharma on the one hand and on the other knowing how to act according to Dharma in a given situation considering the influence of one's own upbringing and psychology and effects of rajasic and tamasic gunas.

My point is no one knows what is Dharma at any given time. Why are not understanding that when Mahapurush like Bhishm did not know what Dharm is do you believe that an ordinary mortal stands any chance?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashokk, Lekhraj, tsarkar and 57 guests