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

[ShauryaT]

I will provide the answer I have in my mind. Every one of the above points coincides with what the British observed or commented about India. Where the British failed to make a distinction Indians have retained their earliest, uncolonized attitudes.

One of the observations of Hindutva is it confines itself as a reaction to particular narratives of History. It views Islamic history as an era of loot and plunder and feels outraged and shame on being subjugated. This fear of a non-assmilating neighbor is strong and sustaining. Hindutva is a political reaction to that History.

On the other hand, it is out of its breath in being able to mould our traditions and thought processes fast enough to react to western advances in technology, social, economic and political narratives and feels threatened by intellectual/academic probes into the workings and thoughts of Hindutva proponents based on the fear that the hollowness of their stands will not stand the scrutiny of well informed folks, let alone trained academia. What it invariably ends up doing is making a fool of itself and due to its association with the Hindu Nationalist tag ends up giving a bad name to Nationalism compelling most Hindus to eschew associations with Hindutva. Hindutva proponents end up reacting to questions of the west without thinking through or offering our own models and frameworks. This is the case, due to its inability to find the new color, design, material, size of the "cloth" that can be used to wrap us all, in a system that adheres to only our own moorings, disregarding the approvals of the so called "progressive", wealthy and powerful western society. The Hindutva mind is attuned to react to western mores, since no Indian has escaped the lasting effects of colonialism and their bodies are attuned to react to muslims on the street. Hence, the dance and play of words, which some call "strategy" and others "deceit". It is Nationalism that is the net looser in this game and Hinduism is now down to the level of religions.

I will not even start on those espousing the Secularism cause, they have simply stopped thinking as Hindus and need to be dumped in the garbage annals of Indian history. All they seem to do is thrive on some stupidities of a few Hindutva proponents to keep them relevant. Very few have had the temerity to question the secular narrative - but not be bigoted. People like Arun Shourie, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Ashis Nandy, TN Madan are some I know of from India. Shiv is right, Hinudtva has 5 years to grow out of its pettiness.

On Nationalism and its contemporary issues, If you ever get a chance, read modern myths, locked minds by T.N Madan. If you want to probe further, read the Hindu Householder by him, it will provide a well researched set of work on what we have espoused to be the cornerstone of Dharma, i.e: the family and an individual's duty. I have yet to read ANY well researched work on Indian society coming from a "Hindutva" body. There are some others names I like, Arvind Sharma, Ram Swarup to name a few who provide input to nationalists but none are bigoted. Instead of taking advantage of such works, what one gets from some very seriously ill informed and almost deceitful posters, who know well that they are not being truthful when questioned, but they do not care for the truth. I do not think they speak for even the "evolved" form or Hindutva practiced by the RSS properly. So, MatrimC is right, let them just speak for themselves and if they want to speak for someone else, then the least they can do is to provide proper primary or secondary source citations and references - that a sixth grader knows, how to do honestly.

[ShauryaT]

There was no reason to be ashamed of "We". It was the dictatorship of the seculars with all the power in their hands, which actually made RSS to rethink this as their official standpoint. It was a strategic decision and not an ideological one!

That is your assertion, please provide direct references from the RSS or its leadership that the RSS ideologies as they see it is consistent with those of "We".

A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization

>>ShauryaT
>>>>A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization, for that is the verdict of my supreme court! Do you adhere to and respect their verdict?

First, please quote me fully in context. I see that you avoided answering a direct question of mine. Is that a strategy to obfuscate?

So if I get down to asking similarly dumb questions, like

"If you are against sectarianism, does it mean you are in favor of slaughter of Hindus at the hands of the Islamics, as it is happening with the Yezidis, and as we have already experienced during our history of partition and earlier during Islamic invasions and rule?"

Because it seems you are advocating that position. Otherwise I can't make out the difference!

So, is that your argument against a supreme court decision? For my position is the same as the court's.

Perhaps this has deep meanings, unfathomable by me!

Shame either you did not read the full context of that statement, which Arun was kind enough to find and post or deliberately chose to obfuscate the matter - Again. The context of the statement was Gandhiji conviction that it was more courageous to NOT respond to someone's assault than behave like an animal that will only lead to destruction. Gandhi ji's ideal of Ahimsa is well known to all. He was known as the Mahatma for a reason. For, his soul asked us to accomplish things that an average individual will find it difficult. His animal spirits or Raavan will take over. Gandhi is not above critique - especially if the concept is misapplied, which he has done a few times but not many, however the trio of Jinnah, the INC and the British colluded to defeat his convictions, in the Indian context. Going into the merits of the partition et al will be OT. What it will show you is, it is not Gandhi who was shallow but many of us, who were not ready for his depth.

In the end, you have again repeated your animosity to the Hindutva position, but again without any content, without any logic, without any reasoning. Just throwing words around like "sectarian", "worthy of demonization", etc. hoping something sticks, but again without even a tiny weeny little bit of wisdom of how one integrates ISIS/Talibanism and Dharma in this Indian nation.

Please stop this no content, no logic, no reason business. Have you read the supreme court judgments posted three times on this thread? It has content, logic and reasoning. I ask again, do you respect that judgment of the SC, by Justice Verma in 2002.

[shiv]

Hindutva as formulated by Savarkar is followed by RSS and its affiliates. And it is because it is needed at this time. When the opposing ideologies have been vanquished, there will be no further need for it.

One of the observations of Hindutva is it confines itself as a reaction to particular narratives of History. It views Islamic history as an era of loot and plunder and feels outraged and shame on being subjugated. This fear of a non-assmilating neighbor is strong and sustaining. Hindutva is a political reaction to that History.

I accept both these explanations, but the Hindutva idea seems to be only scratching at the surface and no one has dug deeper to see what problems might crop up after the seculars are defeated and Hindutva can stand over the remains of the brainless secularists who were themselves incapable of getting the narrative right.

Seculars can be defeated but Islam won't go away. Indian Muslims can see what islam is doing around the world. yesterday it was Australia - which seems like a minor blip compared to what is happening in a school in Pakistan even as I write this. Islam may not change, but Muslims will possibly take the right course. I am no astrologer, but let me predict various outcomes:

1. Muslims of India go apeshit and want to create trouble. Naturally other Indians will not stand by. There is a very thin dividing line between fear and caution/common sense and that will prompt many to live lives like other Indians

2. Muslims of India settle down and try to become Indians like anyone else.. Now what is the proof that an Indian Muslim can become like anyone other Indian?

• a. Must his wife wear a bindi?
  b. Must he stop eating beef?

I do not ask these questions lightly. After all every educated Hindu in India recognizes the concept of "taqiya" and nothing that an Indian Muslim does to try and be Indian will be accepted as genuine. It will be taqiya - to be rejected as soon as the hated Hindu is out of earshot

Does this mean that elimination of all signs of Islam is the only ultimate outcome for India? If the answer to this question is "yes" - my response is "Fine. So be it. Let us move on and see where we are likely to go from here". But before I can move on let me come to a third possibility

3. Let us imagine that somehow, all Indian Muslims become Hindus or acceptable to all Hindus, or else they simply vanish leaving India to its pristine pre-Islamic past.

This is where the problem arises. Muslims may be gone, but I am not happy. I put it to people on here that my own Brahmin ancestors were not racists. They did not hold back from teaching anyone. Their habits of cleanliness were directed at anyone - even the Brahmin grandchildren of an elderly Brahmin could not touch him as he prepared for rituals. Why did my generation have to suffer the indignity of being accused of being exclusivist and racist. Why are my children facing discrimination about education and jobs. Why do I have to pay more for my children's education and see them being deprived of seats?

Why did Hindus simply accept the British accusation that Brahmins were bad people? Did Hindus suffer for 5000 years under Brahmins only to be rescued by the British? Or could it be the British who tore down Indian tradition by attacking and demonizing the bearers of Indian tradition and knowledge, accusing them of not sharing. Why should I suffer? Why should I wait till Hindutva gets over and done with dealing with Muslims? I need to take up arms and fight now. Screw the Muslims. Screw everyone else. I don't want to be screwed.

We in India are following the British way of seeing things wherever that is convenient and rejecting things that are inconvenient. The anti-Islam stance is only buying time for society to get screwed by its own contradictions. You see if Hindutva can be so anti-Muslim as to squeeze all Muslims into a corner, it means that in India it is possible and advantageous for one group to do that to another using the excuse of "Historic wrongs". Everyone who reads British versions of Indian history will find some other Indian to take revenge upon because the British defined so many fissures and we believed them and even wrote our constitution based on that,

In Tamil Nadu Brahmins have been discriminated because the people who like to call themselves "Dravidians" - (a group that did not even exist before 1800, but who exist now) are treating Tamil Brahmins like Aryan oppressors. In Tamil Nadu the fake British story Aryan Brahmin versus Dravidian "dasyu" low caste is a convenient stick to bash Brahmins. Similarly in UP and Bihar, Brahmins who have swallowed the British "Brahmin superiority" story are being as legitimate in discriminating against other castes as other castes are in discriminating against Tamil Brahmins and everything is as legal, acceptable and hunky dory as picking on the Muslims. It's all about "righting historic wrongs"

You see we are fighting Muslim colonization by setting Muslim qibla right, but we don't even know what British mental colonization has done to us. We swallow a British story about castes, accept Hindu guilt and screw each other. And why not? Screwing each other is a legitimate way of setting things right - like we need to screw Muslims now and bring them into line. And how Brahmins are being brought into line

Now all i want is for someone to explain to me and say "No shiv you are wrong" because:
1. Muslims screwed Hindus and deserve to be screwed.
2. Brahmins screwed lower castes and therefore deserve to be screwed.

Are both true, both false, or one false and one true. What is the evidence? Who has provided the evidence? By concentrating on Muslims and Christians alone, Hindutva itself is in denial of the mental colonization that it has in ignoring all the wrongs that have happened in Indian society from British colonization. The idea that "Hindu" is a newly invented term and since we have accepted Hindu, we will band together and solve recent problems like Islam issue fails to take into account that caste wars, caste discrimination and reservation are also "recently acquired Hindu issues".

[RajeshA]

For the record

The three-Judge Constitutional Bench headed by Justice J.S. Verma has observed

"These Constitution Bench decisions, after a detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu', 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions, the term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be construed to fall within the prohibition in subsections (3) and/or (3A) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.

In conclusion, the Bench reiterates: "It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on Hindu religion as opposed to other religions or that the use of the word Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion... and it may well be that these words are used in a speech to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian cultural ethos...There is no such presumption permissible in law contrary ot the several Constitution Bench decisions."

Representation of the People Act 1951, Section 123: Page 107

[
(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidates or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate:
[Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause.]

(3A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.]

[ShauryaT]

I have read the original judgment a million times by now, what is your point? Many informed wry over the fact that the SC included "Hindutva" along with Hindu and Hinduism in the way of life definitions. However I think that was a master stroke, provides an opportunity for sane people and organizations like the BJP to step away from the uncouth and insane definitions of Savarkar.

Also, the BJP has only published a part of the judgment that they like - NOT the conclusion of the case....read it please, if you have not.

[RajeshA]

So if I get down to asking similarly dumb questions, like

"If you are against sectarianism, does it mean you are in favor of slaughter of Hindus at the hands of the Islamics, as it is happening with the Yezidis, and as we have already experienced during our history of partition and earlier during Islamic invasions and rule?"

Because it seems you are advocating that position. Otherwise I can't make out the difference!

So, is that your argument against a supreme court decision? For my position is the same as the court's.

Perhaps this has deep meanings, unfathomable by me!

Shame either you did not read the full context of that statement, which Arun was kind enough to find and post or deliberately chose to obfuscate the matter - Again. The context of the statement was Gandhiji conviction that it was more courageous to NOT respond to someone's assault than behave like an animal that will only lead to destruction. Gandhi ji's ideal of Ahimsa is well known to all. He was known as the Mahatma for a reason. For, his soul asked us to accomplish things that an average individual will find it difficult. His animal spirits or Raavan will take over. Gandhi is not above critique - especially if the concept is misapplied, which he has done a few times but not many, however the trio of Jinnah, the INC and the British colluded to defeat his convictions, in the Indian context. Going into the merits of the partition et al will be OT. What it will show you is, it is not Gandhi who was shallow but many of us, who were not ready for his depth.

I did read Arun_Gupta's ji's post on Mr. M.K. Gandhi's speech.

The more one reads Gandhi, the more one wants to vomit.

Something more from the speech,

What has been said in the Mahabharata is of universal application. It does not apply to Hindus alone. It depicts the story of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Though they were blood-brothers the Pandavas worshipped Rama, that is, goodness, and the Kauravas followed Ravana, that is, evil. Renouncing ahimsa they took to violence and fought among themselves with the result that not only were the Kauravas killed, but the Pandavas also were losers in spite of their victory. Very few among them survived to see the end of the war and those who did found their lives so unbearable that they had to
retire to the Himalayas. This is exactly what is happening in our country today.

What Gandhi is saying is the exact opposite of what Sri Krishna taught.

Gandhi is saying Pandavas were wrong to fight with Kauravas, for in the end it only brought misery, similar to how the situation was at the time in India, due to Hindu-Muslim strife. Sri Krishna on the other hand encouraged Arjuna to fight, to fight for Dharma. The Bhagavad Gita's central message revolves around how one justifies violence of war in context of Dharma.

So do you support "Mahatma" Gandhi over Sri Krishna?

[RajeshA]

I have read the original judgment a million times by now, what is your point?

Also, the BJP has only published a part of the judgment that they like - NOT the conclusion of the case....read it please, if you have not.

I did not make any point! Just put it there for the record, for the benefit of other readers who may be interested to know, what this discussion is about!

Many informed wry over the fact that the SC included "Hindutva" along with Hindu and Hinduism in the way of life definitions. However I think that was a master stroke, provides an opportunity for sane people and organizations like the BJP to step away from the uncouth and insane definitions of Savarkar.

Yes, one can understand their displeasure at the inclusion of Hindutva along with Hindu and Hinduism.

What it allows is for Hindutvavadis to operate within the secular polity of India, as BJP. It also allows BJP to use Sanskritic icons during election time, without being disqualified under Section 123(3/3A) of RP Act.

Constitution, Constitution Benches of Supreme Court, Supreme Court judges can only be changed to better reflect Hindutva only if Hindutva has power. It shows that Hindutva is capable of thinking strategically, rather than sticking to some public rhetorical purity.

And as always, you're again busy throwing secular mud at Savarkar and Hindutva, hoping some of it sticks - "uncouth", "insane definitions" ... without providing any logic or reasoning.

[RajeshA]

There was no reason to be ashamed of "We". It was the dictatorship of the seculars with all the power in their hands, which actually made RSS to rethink this as their official standpoint. It was a strategic decision and not an ideological one!

That is your assertion, please provide direct references from the RSS or its leadership that the RSS ideologies as they see it is consistent with those of "We".

Sorry, it doesn't work that way! Whatever RSS's decision makers do, its true rationale is something that may or may not come in the public domain.

I can only ask you to read Koenraad Elst's essay on this decision: "Was Guru Golwalkar a Nazi?"

A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization

>>ShauryaT
>>>>A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization, for that is the verdict of my supreme court! Do you adhere to and respect their verdict?

First, please quote me fully in context. I see that you avoided answering a direct question of mine. Is that a strategy to obfuscate?

I wonder what is the reason to hide behind the views of a judge in the Supreme Court. What Constitution Bench said are their views and observations. They may have either the wrong impression of Hindutva, or they may have deliberately chosen to formulate their observations in this way.

But let's be clear, it is their subjective observations. These observations do not constitute a verdict, which says people are not allowed to have a different opinion on Hindutva. I am sure there are tons and tons of secularists out there, as you yourself admitted, who do not accept Hindutva being categorized together with Hindu and Hinduism. So why making this demand of me, that I should "adhere" and "respect" their "verdict". Are they the last word on definitions for the public? May be for the sake of law, but not for the public's use of terminology!

If that were so, what is all that "phreedum of thought and expression" all about?

You see, Vir Savarkar is the Khātim an-Nabīyīn ("Seal of the Prophets") of Hindutva and no judge can trounce him!

[ShauryaT]

And as always, you're again busy throwing secular mud at Savarkar and Hindutva, hoping some of it sticks - "uncouth", "insane definitions" ... without providing any logic or reasoning.

Have you read, his critique on Gandhi, I do not know of any way to describe it as but uncouth. What else does one call the murderer of the Mahatma as documented by the Kapur commission but insane...

[RajeshA]

One would imagine that the simple logic would be accessible, that one can't live by Dharma and at the same time have Dharma grafted over with Islam and Christianity so as to please minorities who pledge their allegiance to these religions. One can either take the hard and difficult line that these two don't mix or one can play the secular lovey-dovey games.

My neighbors are Christian, so I can't live by Dharma, until I make them not-my-neighbors?

Yes that is indeed a very common retort: My barber is Muslim so how can I be against Islam?!

Nice try at shifting the goal-posts. Your earlier post essentially said Hindus can't live by Dharma in India as long as Christians, Muslims are around. Now you're saying something about being anti-/pro- Islam. I guess as Shiv suspected, the only Dharma you know is being anti-Islam, etc.

My Christian neighbors behave in a very dharmic way towards the nation. They are physicians, surgeons and rocket-scientists; in public service; they could go after more lucrative jobs but want to serve the nation. Sorry, no Hindutva-vaadi stuff is going to displace them.

For a moment, I really thought you were joking by bringing up this fallacious response.

I guess this point needs to be more clearly explained.

Reposting here

Hindutva i.e. Hindu Dharma is the Indic resistance to political & military domination of Bharat by foreign imperialistic predatory ideologies and powers and their efforts at overwriting of Bharatiya Sanskriti. It perseveres at preservation and strengthening of Bharatiya Sabhyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti, Bharatiya Rashtra and Rule of Dharma over Bharat!

Mind you, I am not talking about Sanatana Dharma here.

In "We" Guru Golwalkar does not say anything different though perhaps with other words.

Now the above does not per se says, Hindutva is against Muslims and Christians. According to Hindutva they are free to enjoy their privileges as citizens and go about worshiping their deities as they please, but under the above mentioned condition. Only if Muslims and Christians actively pursue the Islamization and Christianization of India, which naturally destroys the Dharmic foundations of India, and recreating a different social order, do they constitute a threat.

Also Hindutva is not just against Islam and Church, but in general against all "foreign imperialistic predatory ideologies and powers" be they Macaulayism, Marxism, Yuppyism, MNC rule, Western Universalism, etc. and these ideologies and processes are not necessarily "Religion" per se.

For Hindutvavadis, all these ideologies, processes are afflictions of the mind, and first and foremost option is to cleanse the mind, perhaps through Ghar Wapsi. Forcing anybody out of India is not necessarily Hindutva's aim, but considering the logic of Partition, one would encourage those who are at the moment inconvenienced through the rise of Hindutva to shift to other parts of Akhand Bharat which have been set up as Psychology Wards & Quarantines.

[RajeshA]

And as always, you're again busy throwing secular mud at Savarkar and Hindutva, hoping some of it sticks - "uncouth", "insane definitions" ... without providing any logic or reasoning.

Have you read, his critique on Gandhi, I do not know of any way to describe it as but uncouth. What else does one call the murderer of the Mahatma as documented by the Kapur commission but insane...

Again too much mud throwing and too little reasoning!

[harbans]

Actually Rajesh Ji is right in the Neti Neti part. Hindus were originally defined as that group in the subcontinent that were not Christian, Jewish, Parsi. It clubbed all Non Abrahmics together. So while Christians and Muslims could be described as practioners of a well defined Faith, it was difficult to define the Dharmics. When these labels were being used no one for some reason thought of describing themselves bit in terms of the Neti Neti attributes but from a positive attribute simple format, like calling themselves Dharmics for instance. It would have clubbed various Sampradayas together in one group, given ideals for the fringe to evolve to and been a much easier exercise to define. Thus many people tried defining Hindus and over the years as one definition became more standard some Dharmic sampradaya groups left so on and on.

[ShauryaT]

So why making this demand of me, that I should "adhere" and "respect" their "verdict". Are they the last word on definitions for the public? May be for the sake of law, but not for the public's use of terminology!

If that were so, what is all that "phreedum of thought and expression" all about?

So, IOW, you do not agree to the GUILTY verdict on the accused for bigoted use of the terms "Hindu" "Hindutva" Hinduism", which the court condemned. Wanted to know if you adhere and respect the judgement, for it is not optional. You have answered it.

You see, Vir Savarkar is the Khātim an-Nabīyīn ("Seal of the Prophets") of Hindutva and no judge can trounce him!

Yes, no wonder you will not accept any critique of Savarkar, just like Islam does not for its prophet! Your entire frame of reference as charged earlier has nothing to do with Dharma and its values but opposition. No wonder the opposition defines you. Sad.

[RajeshA]

So why making this demand of me, that I should "adhere" and "respect" their "verdict". Are they the last word on definitions for the public? May be for the sake of law, but not for the public's use of terminology!

If that were so, what is all that "phreedum of thought and expression" all about?

So, IOW, you do not agree to the GUILTY verdict on the accused for bigoted use of the terms "Hindu" "Hindutva" Hinduism", which the court condemned. Wanted to know if you adhere and respect the judgement, for it is not optional. You have answered it.

Suit yourself! "Bigoted", .... is all the usual mud used in a reference frame which itself offers no reasoning or logic. Perhaps you can refer me to the definition of "Religion" as proposed by the Constitution or Contitution Bench of Supreme Court, and then I can judge myself what is bigoted and what is not!

But then you did not even respond to whether you support Gandhi or Sri Krishna on the message of Gita!

You see, Vir Savarkar is the Khātim an-Nabīyīn ("Seal of the Prophets") of Hindutva and no judge can trounce him!

Yes, no wonder you will not accept any critique of Savarkar, just like Islam does not for its prophet! Your entire frame of reference as charged earlier has nothing to do with Dharma and its values but opposition. No wonder the opposition defines you. Sad.

This is the power of definitions! Hinduism was defined by the British. We don't own it. Religion was defined by Abrahamics. We don't own it. But Hindutva we do own! Thanks to Vir Savarkar!

[A_Gupta]

I support understanding the "swalpamapi dharmasyah trayato mahato bhayat". I find that among other things, the fear of Christians and Muslims evaporates.

What Gandhi was saying is that if he had a dozen people who could act resolutely without fear, anger or hatred, he could pacify the India of April 1947. He single-handedly could pacify Noakhali and Calcutta.

The fact is that 99% of the behavior against which Hindutvaadis say that they are indispensable to defend Hindus and Bharat and so on, is that of bullies. As I learned about bullies in primary school, if you stand up to them, they fold their tents and slink away.

[A_Gupta]

In any case, the threat to Hindus is not from Muslims or Christians, it is from their alienation from their own tradition, and this is because of their own lack of action, passion and interest; and not because of anyone else.

When e.g., someone tries to extract from the Rg Veda what it prescribes as haraam and halaal, I see somoene who is quite disconnected from his tradition even though he thinks he honors it.

[harbans]

Another reason after reading some posts here why Hindu Nationalism is spoken in a pejorative sense is also those that some intrinsically accept Excluvist Doctrine as not being a threat to Native cultures for some reason. The reasons can be:

1. Ignorance of excluvist doctrine or
2. Assumption that modern times have obviated that threat or
3. Direct collusion with excluvist agenda or
4. Dislike of Native doctrine or
5. A combination of the above

Any of the above can lead to intrinsic dislike of Native doctrine and resultant expressions that may have no rational basis. However fact remains that for example No 2: Modern times have not obviated any threat native cultures face from excluvist doctrines. Yazdis being wiped out in Iraq, Dharmics in Pakistan, Kashmir, BD, Xtians in Syria, Tribals in NE, Central India etc are ongoing eradication of native cultures. We may or may not like the crudeness, imperfections, lack of sophistication of the Native approach in the fight to protect their turf, but one thing lets be damn sure about Excluvist Jihadist doctrine is not ultimately there to coexist at peace. Thus it is better to get our terminologies straight so that we can rally and defend what we really want to from the ongoing onslaught. This onslaught is real and not some figment of imagination.

[RajeshA]

Let me see if I can explain how I see Hindutvavad's view on reality.

1) Islam, as soon as it gets the upper hand in India, would indulge in heavy scale ISIS/Taliban-type activities. Non-Muslims would be raped, killed, tortured, robbed. It has all happened before and it will happen again, if course of India is left in the hands of the Seculars. This is simply a matter of when and not if. It is not a fear, but more of a certainty. This also isn't the 400% certainty type. It is simply 100% certainty. The evidence in the inevitability of this scenario is more than apparent from daily news.

2) Other powers of the world, especially Western powers, would use every tool in their formidable experience toolbox to neutralize India and our independent civilization. This has happened before, and those willing to open their eyes would see these maneuvers in many places. Rampant Proselytism by the Church in India even as Europe becomes ever more atheist should tickle the alarm clock. China too would try to keep India down out of its own insecurity and greed. This has happened before and will happen again.

This is Hindutva's threat scenario!

Seculars have in fact helped such scenarios become reality as much as possible.

Hinduists who prefer "Pooja-Paath ka Dharma" are somehow more interested in keeping their clothes clean than trying to prevent this scenario. Their thinking goes as far as their own generation, or are content with the evolving secular scenario for India as their progeny may have found "safer" harbors elsewhere in the world. And so I speak of Suitcase-Hinduists.

Ostriches are a group who are thoroughly optimistic or capable of ignoring such issues. Should this topic come up, they would simply change the topic to weather. For them, either the problem would evaporate by itself, e.g. all Muslims get sick of all the violence and convert to Jainism overnight, or somehow somebody else would take care of the problem for them.

May be there are views which do not fit in the above four categories. I would like to hear about such views, and their future projections for India's "religious demography" and inter-"religious" relations.

[shiv]

Let me see if I can explain how I see Hindutvavad's view on reality.

1) Islam, as soon as it gets the upper hand in India, would indulge in heavy scale ISIS/Taliban-type activities. Non-Muslims would be raped, killed, tortured, robbed. It has all happened before and it will happen again, if course of India is left in the hands of the Seculars. This is simply a matter of when and not if. It is not a fear, but more of a certainty. This also isn't the 400% certainty type. It is simply 100% certainty. The evidence in the inevitability of this scenario is more than apparent from daily news.

2) Other powers of the world, especially Western powers, would use every tool in their formidable experience toolbox to neutralize India and our independent civilization. This has happened before, and those willing to open their eyes would see these maneuvers in many places. Rampant Proselytism by the Church in India even as Europe becomes ever more atheist should tickle the alarm clock. China too would try to keep India down out of its own insecurity and greed. This has happened before and will happen again.

This is Hindutva's threat scenario!

Well that explains it as clearly as anyone can.

It was my mistake to imagine that "Hindutva" and "Hindu nationalism" (that is often claimed by the same people who claim Hindutva) actually has something to do with intrinsic unity among Hindus - such as loyalty to geography etc.

Hindutva is based on anxiety that Islam will take over and is a reactive phenomenon and does not pretend to unite Hindus by any means other than the danger of Islam. Naturally Hindutva and Hindu nationalism get a bad name.

My main focus at the start of this thread was to see if the characterization of Hindu Nationalism as a negative phenomenon was unfair and that Hindus should not be getting such a bad name.

But I now see that Hindutva sets itself apart from other Hindus, since "Hindu" is a foreign definition while Hindutva is Indian. Also. I see no effort among the supporters of Hindutva to try and fight the characterization of Hindu nationalism as something to be disliked. The reputation only bothered me, and not the mass of Hindutva-vadis or their spokes persons. That surprises me because I have tended to believe that any person or group who believe that they are doing something just would tend to explain their position and demand that the should not be given a needlessly bad name - given that they are fighting the good fight against Islam. But Hindutva vadis come across to me as a group who say "We don't give a damn about what others say or think about us". For me, this indicates that I need to see where my own priorities lie.

If my priorities are to try and improve the name and reputation of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism while the majority of that group do not care, I would be wasting my time. I am interested in removing the bad name that Hindus and Hindu dharma has acquired for various reasons - discussed on this thread. I suspect that I need a change of direction and I need to start working on the reasons why Hindu dharma itself has been smeared. I am sorry that "Hindutva" has no intention of helping in that direction, but I am sure Hindutva can manage on its own.

With that I am out of this thread. For me, its purpose has been served. I know exactly why Hindu nationalism is spoken of in a perjorative sense, and I know that I cannot change that.

[Arjun]

IBTL. This thread seemed to be a waste of time to me, from the start.

Haven't followed the discussion over the last few pages - but I would just like to comment that it does not require one to be a Hindu Nationalist (even if I knew what exactly that animal refers to) in order to have a strong commitment AGAINST exclusivist & expansionary ideologies. Frankly, I started out being an agnostic - and only over the past year or more have I started leaning more towards Hindu Gyana Marga. But even while I was a committed agnostic and universalist (the latter of which, I still very much am) the commitment against exclusivist, expansionary religions follows very logically from core liberal values.

IBTL, once again.

[RajeshA]

It was my mistake to imagine that "Hindutva" and "Hindu nationalism" (that is often claimed by the same people who claim Hindutva) actually has something to do with intrinsic unity among Hindus - such as loyalty to geography etc.

Hindutva is based on anxiety that Islam will take over and is a reactive phenomenon and does not pretend to unite Hindus by any means other than the danger of Islam. Naturally Hindutva and Hindu nationalism get a bad name.

My main focus at the start of this thread was to see if the characterization of Hindu Nationalism as a negative phenomenon was unfair and that Hindus should not be getting such a bad name.

But I now see that Hindutva sets itself apart from other Hindus, since "Hindu" is a foreign definition while Hindutva is Indian. Also. I see no effort among the supporters of Hindutva to try and fight the characterization of Hindu nationalism as something to be disliked. The reputation only bothered me, and not the mass of Hindutva-vadis or their spokes persons. That surprises me because I have tended to believe that any person or group who believe that they are doing something just would tend to explain their position and demand that the should not be given a needlessly bad name - given that they are fighting the good fight against Islam. But Hindutva vadis come across to me as a group who say "We don't give a damn about what others say or think about us". For me, this indicates that I need to see where my own priorities lie.

Let me try to capture the above using two analogies:

A Teenager goes one day to his Father, when his mother has gone out shopping, and says ...

T to F: You know I thought, I could love you, but now I know I can't. I really wished I could respect you, but you have given me nothing. You have not breast-fed me. Not even once! When I was a baby, and breast-milk was the only thing that could have nurtured me, you did not have pity even on a little baby, to give him some.

F to M: Perhaps you're looking for your Mom. She will be coming back home soon!

T to F: And you didn't even carry me in your belly in the first months of my life! Do you know how useless you've been to me! I hate you! I am leaving the house!

___

A Child visits the zoo with his Parents, and they first go to the lion's cage

C to P: Where's his trunk? This animal doesn't even have a trunk! I thought this zoo had beautiful animals with trunks, but this animal is so hideous. Where is its trunk?

P to C: Oh, you mean the elephant! Their cage is just around the corner!

C to P: And without a trunk this animal cannot even trumpet nicely. Or soak up lots of water and shower himself! This is such a horrible animal! This is such an awful zoo. I want to go home!

If my priorities are to try and improve the name and reputation of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism while the majority of that group do not care, I would be wasting my time. I am interested in removing the bad name that Hindus and Hindu dharma has acquired for various reasons - discussed on this thread. I suspect that I need a change of direction and I need to start working on the reasons why Hindu dharma itself has been smeared. I am sorry that "Hindutva" has no intention of helping in that direction, but I am sure Hindutva can manage on its own.

With that I am out of this thread. For me, its purpose been served. I know exactly why Hindu nationalism is spoken of in a perjorative sense, and I know that I cannot change that.

I am not sure if the desire to "rehabilitate" Hindutva from its "pejorative" reputation was really sincere!

The role of Hindutva in the body polity of India may not be what you expected, but does that mean that the role it plays is worthy of contempt and demonization?

Hindutva is the guardian over Bharatiyata! Either one says

1. Bharatiyata is useless, or
2. Bharatiyata does not need a guardian, or
3. Bharatiyata does need a guardian, but has got the wrong guardian, or
4. Bharatiyata's guardian is the right one, but it needs a few changes in its behavior

Various hues of Hindutva critics have taken one or the other position above! But your criticism is just that Hindutva is not playing Bharatiyata's role and therefore deserves all the scorn it can get!

One of the reasons Hindutva gets a pejorative reputation is simply because people talk down at Hindutva and not talk with Hindutva! People are not willing to answer questions that Hindutva poses, because they feel uncomfortable answering these questions!

If the agenda is only to give Hindutva a bad name, then go ahead and use the usual rhetoric, why start a discussion ostensibly claiming an agenda of "rehabilitation of reputation" and waste people's time!

But if one is sincere in getting rid of the pejorative sense around Hindutva, then one has two options:

1) Change Hindutva: One should tell Hindutvavadis what is wrong with their assessment of reality and what should be their strategy to prevail over their threat assessment! Where are they going wrong! Is there a different approach, which solves the issues! For majority of Hindutvavadis to care about its reputation among the others, one has to show to Hindutvavadis that they are wrong, something nobody is willing to do!

2) Change Oneself: If however one cannot find fault in Hindutva's assessment of reality, its threat assessment to Bharatiyata, then one has to join Hindutva and try to convince the unconvinced about Hindutva's imperative.

But what is wrong or right in Hindutva can come out only through a sincere and meaningful discussion where the other side also responds to Hindutva's inquiries. But dodging questions does not bring one nearer to a resolution! Sincerity becomes a casualty!

[RajeshA]

But I now see that Hindutva sets itself apart from other Hindus, since "Hindu" is a foreign definition while Hindutva is Indian.

Above position is wrong.

"Hindu" may have been used by the Islamic invaders to denote us, but the term was successfully embraced by Indians, as a positive identifier. From "Hindu" comes "Hindutva".

What is foreign is "Hinduism". That is a Western construct. It is also a Western project to show that "Hindu" comes from "Hinduism"!

[RajeshA]

IBTL

This thread was just another well-designd secular drama to show Hindutva in a pejorative sense, as deserving of all the brick-bats that it gets!

[shiv]

I am not sure if the desire to "rehabilitate" Hindutva from its "pejorative" reputation was really sincere!

The role of Hindutva in the body polity of India may not be what you expected, but does that mean that the role it plays is worthy of contempt and demonization?

When you can climb inside my mind and detect my "sincerity" levels - the need for debate is unnecessary. I only wish you had detected my sincerity level earlier.

You claim that Hinutva is being demonized. I said that it is being demonized at the start of this thread and now I am saying that people like you, who claim to define and support Hinduvta don't give a rat's behind about the fact that is being demonized. All you know is how to get upset. We can all do that

You say

But if one is sincere in getting rid of the pejorative sense around Hindutva, then one has two options:

1) Change Hindutva: One should tell Hindutvavadis what is wrong with their assessment of reality and what should be their strategy to prevail over their threat assessment! Where are they going wrong! Is there a different approach, which solves the issues! For majority of Hindutvavadis to care about its reputation among the others, one has to show to Hindutvavadis that they are wrong, something nobody is willing to do!

Wrong? What can be wrong with Hindutva? IF I have nothing to say against it, what is there to be said? After all you defined Hindutva as follows. YOU tell me if there is anything wrong. If you can find nothing wrong what is the problem? This is what you wrote

Let me see if I can explain how I see Hindutvavad's view on reality.

1) Islam, as soon as it gets the upper hand in India, would indulge in heavy scale ISIS/Taliban-type activities. Non-Muslims would be raped, killed, tortured, robbed. It has all happened before and it will happen again, if course of India is left in the hands of the Seculars. This is simply a matter of when and not if. It is not a fear, but more of a certainty. This also isn't the 400% certainty type. It is simply 100% certainty. The evidence in the inevitability of this scenario is more than apparent from daily news.

2) Other powers of the world, especially Western powers, would use every tool in their formidable experience toolbox to neutralize India and our independent civilization. This has happened before, and those willing to open their eyes would see these maneuvers in many places. Rampant Proselytism by the Church in India even as Europe becomes ever more atheist should tickle the alarm clock. China too would try to keep India down out of its own insecurity and greed. This has happened before and will happen again.

This is Hindutva's threat scenario!

How can any Hindu in his right senses find anything wrong with the above aims of Hindutva (as per your definition)

I only think that Hindutva's threat definition is centered around Islam and Christianity and can see no further. It is too narrow for my liking - if your word is to be trusted. If your word on this cannot be trusted I will search for other sources. I can see threats outside of these threats. If you and hindutva vadis don't see them there is nothing for me to say. My sincerity or lack of sincerity is hogwash. If a sincere bashing of Hindutva's blinkers (as per your definition) is seen by you as insincere there can be no communication

You have absolutely no intention of wanting to see why hindutva has acquired a poor reputation, let alone do something about it. Call this an insincere statement if you like

[harbans]

I think it would be wrong to characterize "Hindu" Nationalism in a pejorative sense solely based on it's apprehension about Islam. Apprehension of Excluvist doctrine among many in the world is not limited to Hindutvaadis or Jains, or Sikhs or Buddhists. My sense of this is its been 70 years or so that Hindutva has been around, but it hasn't garnered a sufficient support base till date. If it really was appealing it would have had a huge support and won multiple elections. That has not been happening, even now the ones that come on top have to somehow reiterate their 'secular' credentials. The whole topic actually should have been why did its support base not magnify tremendously. Reasons have been enunciated on this thread to advocating excluvist style Absolutism to flirting with atleast superficial aspects of Fascism, none which find much resonance within Dharmics.

If we assume those reasons did not exist and Hindutvaadis were slick, well cultured, sophisticated in their approach and deep in their learning and thinking and still approached Excluvist doctrine with caution, would that have been a negative? I think not. Excluvist Political Religious doctrine will have to be tackled in some manner, whether its done in a sophisticated manner or it is done in a cruder way. I would prefer creating awareness of the danger of Absolutist Excluvist doctrines coming to power through numbers as has happened in Pak/Afgh/JK/BD etc. I don;t think it appropriate to negate Hindutva in its apprehension to Excluvist doctrine, maybe it's crude approach to it, certainly yes.

[RajeshA]

You have absolutely no intention of wanting to see why hindutva has acquired a poor reputation, let alone do something about it.

okay!

[JE Menon]

Thread being locked.