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

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2014 14:45

shiv wrote:I tried to see what people felt was Hindu nationalism. In particular I have a notion of loyalty to Bharat that I believe has united people from several thousand years - with widespread (over India) memories of events and people who lived and did things over the land. I don't know whether I am right or wrong - but Hindutva has no aim or intention of including within its fold people who have that sort of feeling for India.

Hindutva, by most opinions that I see is a reaction to the Abrahamic religions and is a unifier only insofar as unity is required to oppose the intrusion of those religions. It has no aim to unite people over any other issues that may cause fissures. If Hindutva is dubbed as anti-Muslim and anti-Christian it is likely to be true because that is its stated reason for existence. That easily explains the attacks on Hindutva from all quarters outside India apart from dhimmified psecs. That is why the pejorative sense exists.

I find this reservation of "Hindutva/Hindu nationalism" to a narrow aim disappointing. Personally I see a much older sense of unity and many goals that will never be achieved because the aims of Hindutva are limited. The morphing of European Christian supremacist tendencies to western universalism is something that Hindutva will not meet because it's aims are religion centered and is not developing the intellectual capital to meet the demand. I now see that Modi's greatness, ability to unite and his popularity stem from his aims that are far more comprehensive than Hindutva per se. Hindutva is hitching a ride on Modi. In fact this may well explain the BJPs poor performance in 2009. Modi is a beacon of hope in many ways, but everything will collapse if far seeing leaders do not emerge from under his shadow.

About two years back I made a post with my views on what it means to be "Hindu": "What is Hindu Dharma?"

The primary tool of our thinkers was "neti neti", "not this, not that". It is how we get at the core of any issue.

The problem with "Hinduism" is what I call "Definition by Positive Content". It is the inverse of neti neti. Instead of being "not this, not that" we end up defining ourselves by "this, and this, and this, and ..." A "Definition by Positive Content" would ultimately miss out something, or due to inadequate formulation leave something to misunderstanding or mischief. Now it is admirable that the various Dharmic Sampradayas have been able to give some Gestalt to their essence, but that also means that it has taken long deliberations in many smritis and shastras to arrive at their self-definition, and before that much neti neti has been done. So whereas referencing various concepts from these smritis and shastras is fully okay, distilling these smritis and shastras for some lowest common denominator is a risky task.

So when we approach the issue of defining 'Hindu Dharma' we are faced with a similar challenge.

As many of us already 'feel' the term 'Hindu' is much broader than Sanatan Dharma and in fact has a totally different origin and evolution.
'Hindu Dharma', i.e. Hindutva needs it own neti neti in order to better understand itself. But the 'Hindu' identity was forged in the fires of Resistance, so I would claim that a "Definition by Positive Content" is simply wrong and impossible. The Hindu identity itself means "Neti Neti". It means "We are not this Muslim, We are not that Christian". The Hindu Identity can only be defined by underlining WHAT 'HINDU' IS NOT, it can only be defined by underlining WHY 'HINDU' IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY. Hindu Dharma can only be defined using a "Definition of Negative Content".

"Hinduism" is defined as "this, and this, and that, and that, and this, ...". Sanatana Dharmics put "this, and this, and this" into the mixture, and the British put "that, and that, and that" into the mixture.

"Hindutva" is defined as "not this, not that", "not Islam, not Christianity, Not Macaulayism, not Western Universalism, ...".

"Bharatiyata" is defined as "all that what is within this", "all that what is defined by the land between the Himalayas and the Ocean, all that what evolved and grew organically based on Āryatva and Dharma".

I fear "Hindu Nationalism" would also go the way of "Hinduism", as a term which makes assumptions, assumptions like in our context there is something called "Nation", similar to how "Hinduism" assumes that we have "Religion", so one should perhaps make an effort to not use "Hindu Nationalism" and instead perhaps use Rāṣṭravāda.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2014 18:38

A_Gupta wrote:^^^
How relevant those methods are today need to be assessed independently and objectively without the rhetoric of secularism and communalism of present day politics.
Which is what I hope we are doing in our small way here, and I hope is happening in a thousand other places in the bottoms-up way that we are supposed to have .

PS: IMO, the last 67 years of India proves that the European 18th century "nation-state" idea is parochial to Europe. Theoretically speaking, the Republic of India should not exist! Yet it does, which shows that the political theory is unsound.

Secondly, Europe, through its Union, is itself trying to transcend that "nation-state" idea.

IMO, the disorders in the Arab world, where common language, view of history, religion does not help in maintaining the peace also shows the "nation-state" idea to be not-applicable. The organization of the Arab world into nation-states has been disastrous for them.

One can ask for a single central thread that binds all the people together - this is the idea of the nation-state and nationalism. Or there can be a weave, where no single thread is responsible for holding the whole fabric together, no thread is privileged over any other, yet the whole thing coheres.

Another example, is, e.g., marriage in the West is primarily between two individuals; in India it is still mostly between two individuals AND their families. Marriage in the West breaks if the single bond between the two individuals weakens. It is only natural for the bond between two individuals to fluctuate over the course of a lifetime; IMO, in India the families act as a stabilizer. It is again, metaphorically, the rope versus the cloth model of unity.

Similarly, in his two-nation theory, Jinnah made a single rope of Islam that supposedly ties Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis, Pathans, etc., together. He had to do that, if only out of necessity, because in the cloth model of unity, there is no two-nation theory - despite Hindu-Muslim animosities, there were still sufficient number of threads maintaining the single fabric. Instead of strengthening the fabric, he scissored across it. But his single Islamic rope is only sufficing for his constituents to hang each other.

What does this imply for Hindu nationalism? It means strengthening the weave rather than trying to get everyone to believe one thing.

I like your "cloth versus" single thread/rope analogy. It explains India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2014 19:02

shiv wrote:I now see that Modi's greatness, ability to unite and his popularity stem from his aims that are far more comprehensive than Hindutva per se. Hindutva is hitching a ride on Modi. In fact this may well explain the BJPs poor performance in 2009. Modi is a beacon of hope in many ways, but everything will collapse if far seeing leaders do not emerge from under his shadow.

I think this cognitive dissonance, about how can Modi be so good, when Hindutva, of which he is supposed to be the poster-boy, is so bad, arises because one starts thinking that Hindutva is a comprehensive program, like say Islam. Hindutva is not a comprehensive agenda or identity. It is a very focused agenda with a very specific goal.

Modi looks good because he appeals to Bharatiyata. He may, or in the views of skeptics, he may not, be working for Hindutva, but what can be certain is that he is not using Hindutva rhetoric. It is Bharatiyata rhetoric.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2014 19:54

RajeshA wrote: how can Modi be so good, when Hindutva, of which he is supposed to be the poster-boy, is so bad,

Bad and good are fake simplistic terms to describe my post in a way that makes criticism easy. Now that i know that Hindutva is a reaction to Christianity and islam and not something with broader goals. I did not call this "bad". You did. Why did you say that? Were you trying to put words in my mouth so that you could simply come down like a ton of bricks and criticize?

Hindutva is restricted in its aims. Modis aims are far more broad.

Modi had the guts to say toilets not temples. Hindus will say yeah yeah yeah temple. But economy and pride are bigger priorities. In 2009 it was a temple redux.

Do all Indians want an all expenses paid trip around the world? Probably yes, but they want jobs and water too. A man who offers them the trip will get support, but most people can see which is more beneficial and likely. The Ayodhya temple was a dead issue in 2009. The Rath yatra worked to get Vajpayee elected - for that was a Hindu awakening and portent of what could happen if Hindu sentiments were constantly flouted.

What sort of Hindu would say "Toilets not temple"? if Modi had not been BJP he would be condemned as being firmly in the sickular chariot. Modi did not need to prove his Hindu credentials to anyone. People are "proving their Hindu credentials" by simply making noise about girls and boys mixing - which is the level of degradation that Hindutva parties had reached in some quarters.

i would like to see a much more wise and informed Hindu and not some joker who is doing some symbolic "Hindu" stuff to prove credentials. In Vajpayees first, aborted term as PM. Sushma Swaraj as information and broadcasting minister demanded that female TV anchors should all wear dupattas.

I saw your earlier post where you tried to categorize Hindutva as "not this, not that"

You wrote:

"not Islam, not Christianity, Not Macaulayism, not Western Universalism,

i agree it is not Christianity or Islam, although I would like to find out how opposing girls and boys mixing and calling on women to stay out of work and serve the husband while wearing sari is not akin to Islam. Wearing dupattas is Hindu? Is there no wiser person to inform these people? Or does Hindutva accept as much variation in thought as Hindu-ism while claiming to be different?

As far as Hindutva not being Macaulayism - it is not convincing to me. Yet. Hinduism being a "religion" is what some Hindutva vadis say - that is Macaulayism. It is easier to organize around religion to oppose another religion. Victorian mores about boys and girls is also Macaulayism.

About Western Universalism - I still have to see Hindutva take a stand by defining what Hindutva represents outside of Western Universalism. Hindutva as defined on this thread is a narrow front aimed at opposing the Abrahamic religions. Do they have anything outside of that? I remain disappointed at this narrow definition and I now realize that I have been stupid and starry eyed to expect some loftier and more sublime goals from Hindutva.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2014 20:07

If you ask my opinion, I am an RSS supporter although I oppose khaki shorts. I think the RSS does have loftier goals than a simple opposition to Christianity and Islam. Of course the RSS has a history, but they also have thinkers, goals and a stated intent to hold on to principles. They do believe in a degree of regimentation and discipline. I see no problem with that. If RSS is Hindutva, its goals to me appear more than blind opposition to Abrahamic religions. There is a genuine intent to work on and uplift Hindu society - at least in my view.

BJP is a political party that likes to call itself "Hindutva". But its goals are hardly restricted to opposing Muslims and Christians.

Fringe and splinter groups like Ranveer sena and Sri Ram sene must be the real Hindutva vadis because they are the ones who are dedicated to the narrow goals of opposing Christians and Muslims, which is what Hindutva is meant to be.

So what is Hindutva?

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 13 Dec 2014 20:15

shiv wrote: Like I said, the British believed that "language" was an intrinsic part of nation. They cooked up "Dravidian people" on the basis of philological (language related) differences. The Dravidian people spoke Dravidian languages and were a different dark skinned race. Who were they? They were the "Dasyus" kicked out by the Aryas. Pure fakeology. The British could not accept that people who spoke Dravidian languages and Indo-European could be one nation or show allegiance to the same set of values. After all the French and English were separate, warring nations, defined by their language. In truth The person from Karnataka or Andhra feels no different about himself or about India than a person from Maharatshtra, MP, Bihar or UP. It is only British inspired classifications that have brought the concepts "South India" and "dravidian"as separate people. Only the languages are different. They are not a "separate people" either in "race"."ethinicity" or genetics.

The Westaphalian notion of a nation state calls for a central 'one' thing . Such as 'Ein Volk', 'Ein Reich', 'Ein fuhrer' , etc. which was taken to great extremes during WW2 where even the White European Jews were misclassified as a 'race', which of course had to be removed, since they were impure. The British did plenty of that as well, and even now the west sees the world in more or less the same way. For example they classify all native americans as 'Indians' , all Africans as 'blacks' and so on.

It just does not occur to them that unity can be achieved on the basis of something other than a top down imposition of some 'universal' things.
P.S. watch Subramanian Swamy's video on the AIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P4-Va0Y4o

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2014 20:16

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote: how can Modi be so good, when Hindutva, of which he is supposed to be the poster-boy, is so bad,
Bad and good are fake simplistic terms to describe my post in a way that makes criticism easy. Now that i know that Hindutva is a reaction to Christianity and islam and not something with broader goals. I did not call this "bad". You did. Why did you say that? Were you trying to put words in my mouth so that you could simply come down like a ton of bricks and criticize?

Hindutva is restricted in its aims. Modis aims are far more broad.

No it wasn't supposed to sound like a criticism of your post. I did use your post to make a general point, something that I have noticed lately. All those who used to pour scorn on Modi earlier before the general elections 2014, have started to "own" him, saying he is a great guy, and does not need to drag all that "evil" Hindutva baggage along with him.

Basically this cognitive dissonance is quite wide spread among secular circles, who don't want to accept that there is an ideologically new dispensation in town, and this dispensation is not what they used to paint it to be.

Sorry, the post came wrong across.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2014 20:23

RSS or its political wing BJP is definitely Hindutva, however being Hindutva does not mean one shoots a bullet through one's brains and becomes an idiot. India's reality is not where BJP can go about talking about Indian Muslims and Indian Christians deserving second-class citizen status.

Having a certain agenda has little to do with what strategies and what rhetoric one uses to get there.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2014 20:28

RajeshA wrote:All those who used to pour scorn on Modi earlier before the general elections 2014, have started to "own" him, saying he is a great guy, and does not need to drag all that "evil" Hindutva baggage along with him.

"Own him", yes, but the second half of your statement is specious:

does not need to drag all that "evil" Hindutva baggage along with him

Modi has more baggage than anyone else and he has pulled himself ahead. Compared with Modi, the rest of BJP look like pseudo-Hindutva, assuming that "Hindutva" means opposition to Christians and Muslims. Modi is not a pseudo-hindutvavadi. I see too many pseudos purporting to represent Hindutva and I am sorry to say that the claim that someone has been a "loyal supporter of Modi all along" and that is somehow morally superior to people who claim him now is also a pseudo-claim to the status of real Hindutva vadi as opposed to some less loyal post-Modi Hindutva.

I think this petty triumphalism about Modi is as stupid as claiming that Obama invite is a diplomatic victory. Modi carries a huge burden on his shoulders and has the support of many nincompoops who have collected under the Hindutva banner. That is the real long term danger. This is the time to set Hindutva straight. To show what it is. What are its aims and what it represents. Modi is just one man with one lifetime.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Dec 2014 20:29

RajeshA wrote: Having a certain agenda has little to do with what strategies and what rhetoric one uses to get there.

What is that agenda?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2014 20:44

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Having a certain agenda has little to do with what strategies and what rhetoric one uses to get there.
What is that agenda?

Quoting from an old post

Hindutva is simply the Bharatiya movement for self-determination, preservation of its civilization and resisting imperial aggression by predatory powers and ideologies

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Dec 2014 20:55

shiv wrote:Modi has more baggage than anyone else and he has pulled himself ahead. Compared with Modi, the rest of BJP look like pseudo-Hindutva, assuming that "Hindutva" means opposition to Christians and Muslims. Modi is not a pseudo-hindutvavadi. I see too many pseudos purporting to represent Hindutva and I am sorry to say that the claim that someone has been a "loyal supporter of Modi all along" and that is somehow morally superior to people who claim him now is also a pseudo-claim to the status of real Hindutva vadi as opposed to some less loyal post-Modi Hindutva.

I think this petty triumphalism about Modi is as stupid as claiming that Obama invite is a diplomatic victory. Modi carries a huge burden on his shoulders and has the support of many nincompoops who have collected under the Hindutva banner. That is the real long term danger. This is the time to set Hindutva straight. To show what it is. What are its aims and what it represents. Modi is just one man with one lifetime.

True,

Modi needs others after him, who can play the role he is playing.

However within Hindutva one would have all sorts of different people, coming from a variety of backgrounds, beholden to their own pet focus, and more importantly with their own level of intellect. All cannot be Modi.

On this thread itself on the one hand one is trying to make the case that we should be more aligned with our roots and have less of a "colonized mind" and on the other, those who have not studied the Westerners, the Deracinated Indian Elite, and thus lack the necessary intellectual tools to deal with them end up on the receiving end of scorn, being called rustics, villager-people, etc. even though they may be closest to the "mentally uncolonized" India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 08:42

RajeshA wrote: On this thread itself on the one hand one is trying to make the case that we should be more aligned with our roots and have less of a "colonized mind" and on the other, those who have not studied the Westerners, the Deracinated Indian Elite, and thus lack the necessary intellectual tools to deal with them end up on the receiving end of scorn, being called rustics, villager-people, etc. even though they may be closest to the "mentally uncolonized" India.

Rajesh, it is very difficult to say this - but the "rustics" are definitely "closer" to being uncolonized, but they are not free from colonization.

I believe that the biggest difference is that they are mentally open to new thoughts and are not already educated and "pre-loaded" with counter arguments that the "urban-educated colonized" have. I need to explain this and I say it in all seriousness.

The west have put in such detailed studies of "the east" for over 200 years that they have a ready-made set of arguments to show their superiority and counter arguments against sceptics and counter-counter arguments. This is the most difficult aspect of discussing anything about Hindus and the past with a sickular JNU type. I am not sure if you watched the scathing attack on Balu by a JNU type on one video that was posted - but the JNU-type prof was putting up arguments about "lack of epistemological method" and the training that historians have which proves that their work is superior to any argument that can be offered on behalf of Hindus.

You see, most of us can counter arguments at an ordinary logic level - but we tend to get trumped by the gobbledygook jargon that has been developed in the west to give a sort of "body and substance" to their biases by endowing them with a pseudo-academic flavour. What do you say when a person asks you about the "Epistemological methodology you have followed"? When you do not follow this methodology western and western trained academics "circle their wagons" and kill the upstart who questions them from outside the circle by pointing out how the ignorant heathen doth not even know the means by which knowledge is to be gained.

The catch here is that as long as you use their epistemological method, the conclusions you reach will be the same conclusions that they have reached. The method of study is designed to give the results they get. Their method of study of India and Hindu-ism is bound to give the results they get, if you use their method. The problem is that you are not even thinking of what "method of study" you are using. You may be using plain logic and honest observation - but you get laughed off because you do not belong to the club that uses the methods that produces the results they want.

Our biggest problem is that we are trying to reach different conclusions using their methods. It will not happen. Using their methods will mostly get their results. Our mental colonization is in accepting "their method" as the right way to observe ourselves - that is using "recorded (written) history", "attested archaeology", sociology, philology, anthropology etc.

If a Hindutva government/body tries to set up a university department that fails to use these methods to study India, every Indian will laugh it off, and that includes other educated Hindutva-vadis. That is the colonization problem we face. We have to study ourselves outside of the parameters that we have been taught to look at ourselves as a people. This is less easy to do than it is to talk about it. When we look at ourselves as a "single body" of Hindus, we are already slotting ourselves into a methodology that lumps us in a particular category where we have to think of ourselves as Hindu, while 1000 years ago, no Indian would have seen himself and his people as a group of Hindus. But we have forgotten how Indians saw each other and if we don't see ourselves as Hindus we once again resort to British stereotypes and say "We used to see ourselves as jatis"

We need to develop the tools required to look at ourselves more honestly without the hangover of western orientalism.

Long ago I had posted a conversation I had with an otherwise illiterate driver who works for a colleague. I asked him about those who prayed in churches or in mosques and he was able to identify them as Christians or Muslims. Then I asked him what about himself and other people who did not fall into that category. i was testing to see if he would say "Hindu". He stumped me with the answer "We are just people"

I am sure Indians saw themselves as "people" and not classified by religion, race, ethnicity, language etc. Words like "Hindu", "Aryan", "Dravidian" "North Indian", "South Indian" are words that emerge from western epistemological method. I am sure this is how humans coexisted in the past. Maybe this is how zebras and cattle view each other. Bit the "religions" imposed a new way of saying "we are this, never that". I don't think we Indians ever discovered what hit us. But we need to move on.

I would accept the name "Hindu" with certain caveats - but I will speak of my thoughts in a separate post.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 14 Dec 2014 10:55

shiv wrote:
I believe that the biggest difference is that they are mentally open to new thoughts and are not already educated and "pre-loaded" with counter arguments that the "urban-educated colonized" have. I need to explain this and I say it in all seriousness.

The west have put in such detailed studies of "the east" for over 200 years that they have a ready-made set of arguments to show their superiority and counter arguments against sceptics and counter-counter arguments. This is the most difficult aspect of discussing anything about Hindus and the past with a sickular JNU type. I am not sure if you watched the scathing attack on Balu by a JNU type on one video that was posted - but the JNU-type prof was putting up arguments about "lack of epistemological method" and the training that historians have which proves that their work is superior to any argument that can be offered on behalf of Hindus.

You see, most of us can counter arguments at an ordinary logic level - but we tend to get trumped by the gobbledygook jargon that has been developed in the west to give a sort of "body and substance" to their biases by endowing them with a pseudo-academic flavour. What do you say when a person asks you about the "Epistemological methodology you have followed"? When you do not follow this methodology western and western trained academics "circle their wagons" and kill the upstart who questions them from outside the circle by pointing out how the ignorant heathen doth not even know the means by which knowledge is to be gained.

The catch here is that as long as you use their epistemological method, the conclusions you reach will be the same conclusions that they have reached. The method of study is designed to give the results they get. Their method of study of India and Hindu-ism is bound to give the results they get, if you use their method. The problem is that you are not even thinking of what "method of study" you are using. You may be using plain logic and honest observation - but you get laughed off because you do not belong to the club that uses the methods that produces the results they want.

Our biggest problem is that we are trying to reach different conclusions using their methods. It will not happen. Using their methods will mostly get their results. Our mental colonization is in accepting "their method" as the right way to observe ourselves - that is using "recorded (written) history", "attested archaeology", sociology, philology, anthropology etc.

Bang on Shiv.
'Western Science' is a good example. We tend to see it as something 'superior' because it has brought about the technological revolution that has helped everyone. In truth, the technological revolution in the west was brought about by many factors , including 'science' obviously, but also: slavery, genocide, colonialism and world wars.

Science is often translated as 'vigyaan' . But vigyaan also includes yog vigyaan , ayurveda, etc. Vigyaan is not science. So if we use the Western Science framework to analyze this stuff, then we will obviously reach the same conclusion: yoga and Ayurveda are not science. But there has to be something in them because they clearly work. Else no one would use them. People are not DUMB.

In truth, even the 'Western' scientists have not followed their model precisely.
I wrote the following essay about two weeks ago ( not for BRF ), to describe 'modern science':

The scientific method in the modern sense is traditionally thought to consist of two parts: theory and experiment. The theory can be derived from doing experiments ( induction ) and experiments can be performed to validate the theory ( deduction ).

Scientific method is based on the idea that it is testable ( by doing experiments ), repeatable ( the same experiment should bring about the same result ) and falsifiable ( Ie, a theory can be proven to be false if an experiment does not work as it was expected to ). This is applicable to most branches of what we call as modern science, though not all.

For example, in astronomy and cosmology, we cannot directly do experiments on the universe. We can look at supernovas and come up with certain theories based on our measurements, and then look for another supernovas and find more support for our theories based on predictions made by the theories being experimentally confirmed. However it is not directly testable in the sense that we have not the technology to create a supernova.

Some branches of modern physics such as dark matter research or subatomic particles depend on experiments that are not necessarily repeatable. Because of the scale of the technology involved, we can never really replicate an experimental result exactly, but have to create satisfactory theories for them anyway. Similarly, the ‘String theory’ in theoretical physics is not falsifiable. So far it has not generated any prediction that could be proved false experimentally.

Engineering is yet another field in which the scientific method is applied to some extent but not exactly. For example in aerodynamics we often say something like lift is proportional to angle of attack. This does not mean the equation is necessarily exactly true, it is more of a rule of thumb empirical observation from wind tunnel experiments combined with some physics reasoning. However this theory or equation is still useful in order to understand and design aircrafts.

More recently in the last thirty years, computational methods have come to the forefront. These provide an improvement over rough engineering approximation equations at the cost of huge computation power and time. Machine learning and Artificial Intelligence are also emerging fields that are now increasingly being applied to more and more scientific fields. Because these rely on statistics and understanding from previous experience ie ‘learning’, they are more capable of dealing with uncertainities in data and partial data than traditional scientific methods.

Biology or life science is yet another field where the method of science is not exact. There is no one right way of understanding something so complex as the human body. Many things really vary from person to person and we are again content to use theories and experiment that only work say 70% of the time, rather than every time.

Thus, the method of science traditionally described in the sense of experiment and theory is not as such fixed but the goalposts keep constantly changing with time. It is not entirely unimaginable that certain fields that are considered pseudo sciences today such as psychology, Ayurveda, etc. will come under the umbrella of science in the future based on developments in technology and in our understanding. However the broad definition of science as theory and experiment still forms the core of research and is the basis of our modern world.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 Dec 2014 11:17

>>On this thread itself on the one hand one is trying to make the case that we should be more aligned with our roots and have less of a "colonized mind" and on the other, those who have not studied the Westerners, the Deracinated Indian Elite, and thus lack the necessary intellectual tools to deal with them end up on the receiving end of scorn, being called rustics, villager-people, etc.

Where exactly did this happen? I have an admin interest in this...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2014 11:37

JE Menon wrote:>>On this thread itself on the one hand one is trying to make the case that we should be more aligned with our roots and have less of a "colonized mind" and on the other, those who have not studied the Westerners, the Deracinated Indian Elite, and thus lack the necessary intellectual tools to deal with them end up on the receiving end of scorn, being called rustics, villager-people, etc.

Where exactly did this happen? I have an admin interest in this...

JE Menon saar,

it is all friendly discussion.

The first part "should be more aligned with our roots and have less of a colonized mind" is one of the core subjects of this thread, what I meant by "on this thread itself". The second part, where leaders like Sadhvi Jyoti were "put down" as coming from a "simple rural background" and thus implying she were not aware of high-class etiquette of not calling "seculars" as Haramzade, was a point made by Modi himself, and opinionated on in "Modi Sarkar - Policies and implementation [3]" Thread. I was referring to that when trying to set up a contrast.

From what I know, Kiran Bedi also towed away Indira Gandhi's car for wrong parking. May be as BR Admin, you too can send PM Modi a warning! I don't know!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 Dec 2014 12:04

Well if Modi comes on to BRF and breaks the rules, he will get a warning from me or one of the admins. Be sure of it.

But I suspect he is too much of an intellect to show disrespect to any Indian endeavour that set out with good intentions and tries to adhere to them.

From your post, I thought you meant some participants in the thread were scorning others and calling them "rustics" and "villager people"... that is of interest as an admin.

Having said that, I personally think the usage of words like "haraamzade" etc to describe just about everyone who is not a Hindu is not a good thing to do. From my understanding and very limited usage of Hindi, it is a word that is generally a derogatory one and never meant in a "neutral" sense. None of us would tolerate that in our children (i.e. using such a word to describe people as Jyoti did). I can fully understand the need Modi felt to beg pardon, effectively, and move on.

I don't think this sort of language or discourse by elected politicians should be encouraged or supported. Is that really a Hindu thing to do? How is it different from that Paki child in an upper middle class family who danced around JN Dixit repeating "Hindu Kutta"? It is crude, and it is not reflective of our civilisational heritage - or certainly not so that it should become accepted usage among our public figures.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 14 Dec 2014 13:05

JE Menon wrote:Having said that, I personally think the usage of words like "haraamzade" etc to describe just about everyone who is not a Hindu is not a good thing to do.

I don't think that's what the sadhvi did at all. She was talking about corrupt politicians -- most of them "Hindu" -- and then said that the people have to choose between corrupt people who have no interest in promoting dharma, versus those who do -- and so said Ramzade versus Haramzade, since Rama is maryada purshottam and all that.

"Haram" means those who transgress the limits set by Allah. Hindus and Sikhs have always maintained that they see oneness between Allah and Ram or any other holy Name. To quote the Guru Granth:

'Koi bole raam raam, koi khuda hai
Koi seve gossaiyan, koi allah hai
Kaaran karan kareem, kirpa dhaar raheem'

Another verse:

Aval Allah Noor Upaya, Kudrat ke sab bande
Ek noor keh sab jag
upjeya, kaun bhale kaun mande'

Thus, the sadhvi was not using these terms in any sectarian sense, as far as I could make out. In fact the whole point of Hindutva is to have our Muslims agree that Ram=Allah rather than that Ram=Haraam.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2014 13:07

shiv wrote:The catch here is that as long as you use their epistemological method, the conclusions you reach will be the same conclusions that they have reached. The method of study is designed to give the results they get. Their method of study of India and Hindu-ism is bound to give the results they get, if you use their method. The problem is that you are not even thinking of what "method of study" you are using. You may be using plain logic and honest observation - but you get laughed off because you do not belong to the club that uses the methods that produces the results they want.

Our biggest problem is that we are trying to reach different conclusions using their methods. It will not happen. Using their methods will mostly get their results. Our mental colonization is in accepting "their method" as the right way to observe ourselves - that is using "recorded (written) history", "attested archaeology", sociology, philology, anthropology etc.

If a Hindutva government/body tries to set up a university department that fails to use these methods to study India, every Indian will laugh it off, and that includes other educated Hindutva-vadis. That is the colonization problem we face. We have to study ourselves outside of the parameters that we have been taught to look at ourselves as a people.

Bharat is however the home of Epistemology. All the various Darśanams deal with the nature of knowledge, and what Pramana are acceptable in each Darśanam.

There are Indians who have written books partly on comparative epistemology, e.g. C.K. Raju, (this one I know a little of)

"Cultural Foundations of Mathematics: The Nature of Mathematical Proof and the Transmission of Calculus from India to Europe in 16the CE"

What we indeed need to have is institutional research on Western epistemology and to bring out its weaknesses.

shiv wrote:This is less easy to do than it is to talk about it. When we look at ourselves as a "single body" of Hindus, we are already slotting ourselves into a methodology that lumps us in a particular category where we have to think of ourselves as Hindu, while 1000 years ago, no Indian would have seen himself and his people as a group of Hindus. But we have forgotten how Indians saw each other and if we don't see ourselves as Hindus we once again resort to British stereotypes and say "We used to see ourselves as jatis"

We need to develop the tools required to look at ourselves more honestly without the hangover of western orientalism.

Long ago I had posted a conversation I had with an otherwise illiterate driver who works for a colleague. I asked him about those who prayed in churches or in mosques and he was able to identify them as Christians or Muslims. Then I asked him what about himself and other people who did not fall into that category. i was testing to see if he would say "Hindu". He stumped me with the answer "We are just people"

I am sure Indians saw themselves as "people" and not classified by religion, race, ethnicity, language etc. Words like "Hindu", "Aryan", "Dravidian" "North Indian", "South Indian" are words that emerge from western epistemological method. I am sure this is how humans coexisted in the past. Maybe this is how zebras and cattle view each other. Bit the "religions" imposed a new way of saying "we are this, never that". I don't think we Indians ever discovered what hit us. But we need to move on.

I would accept the name "Hindu" with certain caveats - but I will speak of my thoughts in a separate post.

The dilemma is this.

A crude analogy. Let's say a desert has a few oasis, with fresh water ponds in it. The desert can say, these are oasis, but the desert may not have a name for itself, because it is the default reality.

Now if a tsunami comes or sea water rises and floods the whole desert, then there may be some hills and mounds of the desert which would remain above water. Then those places which remain above water would be forced to define themselves w.r.t. water.

So the experience of flooding would naturally change the perspective of the desert land, and that too for ever. The desert would become self-conscious and try to distinguish its qualities from that of the sea water.

We cannot go back to our past non-definition as simply "Purush" and not "Hindu". Self-demarcation is essential.

What we need to think is what aspects of self need to be emphasized enough so as to demarcate ourselves more strongly from the Other. A major challenge is always to preserve the Self despite the onslaught by the Other, especially survival of own worldview.
This requires deep structured study of the Other, but also a way to transmit the history of interaction with the Other, e.g. catalog the brutality of the Other.
Then we need to look within our traditions for strength which can help us overcome the physical and ideological challenge posed by the Other.
Then we need to institutionalize those strengths and build up those institutions
Now it can be that our traditions may not have provided us with enough tools to stop the challenge of the Other, but a combination of traditional tools and knowledge of weaknesses of the Other, gained through study, can enable us to design better strategy, better tactics, better weapons, better tools, both to resist the Other as well as to attack the Other.

So in all this, where are we?

The part of the Our Worldview which saw us as the default, as the standard, society, reality is gone for ever. There ARE Others. We have become conscious of them, not simply as rivals, but as existential threat. We cannot go back to virginity.

But the part of Our Worldview which dealt with what was central to our worldview, still exist - Sanskrit, Sanskriti, Itihas, Āryatva, Dharma, Rāṣṭra. We know what we have to preserve. These are our treasures.

I see "colonization of mind" in three parts:

Failure to demarcate Self from Other
Use of the Other's Worldview,
Forgetting Own Identity and Treasures

This is what Secularism, Dhimmitude, Macaulayism and Western Universalism does - it ensures all the three above.

Question is can we shift the terms of interaction between ourselves and the Other, so that they are to our advantage?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 13:28

csaurabh wrote:
The scientific method in the modern sense is traditionally thought to consist of two parts: theory and experiment. The theory can be derived from doing experiments ( induction ) and experiments can be performed to validate the theory ( deduction ).

Scientific method is based on the idea that it is testable ( by doing experiments ), repeatable ( the same experiment should bring about the same result ) and falsifiable ( Ie, a theory can be proven to be false if an experiment does not work as it was expected to ). This is applicable to most branches of what we call as modern science, though not all.

For example, in astronomy and cosmology, we cannot directly do experiments on the universe. We can look at supernovas and come up with certain theories based on our measurements, and then look for another supernovas and find more support for our theories based on predictions made by the theories being experimentally confirmed. However it is not directly testable in the sense that we have not the technology to create a supernova.

Some branches of modern physics such as dark matter research or subatomic particles depend on experiments that are not necessarily repeatable. Because of the scale of the technology involved, we can never really replicate an experimental result exactly, but have to create satisfactory theories for them anyway. Similarly, the ‘String theory’ in theoretical physics is not falsifiable. So far it has not generated any prediction that could be proved false experimentally.

Engineering is yet another field in which the scientific method is applied to some extent but not exactly. For example in aerodynamics we often say something like lift is proportional to angle of attack. This does not mean the equation is necessarily exactly true, it is more of a rule of thumb empirical observation from wind tunnel experiments combined with some physics reasoning. However this theory or equation is still useful in order to understand and design aircrafts.

Thank you saurabh. I was apprehensive about bringing up the way the " scientific method" has its uses and its blind spots - with illustrations from Indian science which have reached perfectly valid scientific conclusions without recourse to that western method.

Your post makes it easier for me to speak about that and I will do in due course.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Dec 2014 14:14

Shiv,

Please to distinguish between the background framework (which is often unstated) and the methods.

For example, "random sample opinion survey" is a method; the questions that you ask in that survey are what the background framework impels you to consider to be interesting.

The methods are far less suspect than the background framework.

An example is philology. To take a neutral example, there is that Germany-based scholar who did some deep philological work on the Quran, and found out that the reference to houris is really derived from "crystal-white grapes". That may be so, but the "meaning" of the text as far as we are concerned is what Muslims understood about houris for the last 1400 years, and not some "original meaning" derived from this. As far as the Biblical guys are concerned, the "original meaning" is very important, because if they get it wrong, it means they are misunderstanding God. So the background assumption behind the philological work is to understand the original intent of God (or of the author). The method this scholar used ("first, look for the (written) word in the standard Arabic lexicons; if it has a disputed meaning, then see if (because of the defects in the Arabic script) a close-by word exists in the Arabic lexicon; if not, look in the Syriac lexicon, etc. etc.") is not really a problem. It is the type of problem he's trying to solve that is the problem.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 14 Dec 2014 14:34

Indian mathematics is another example.

The "Pythagoras theorem" was developed by Baudhayana in 8th century BC and it is stated without proof in the sutras.

This does not mean there was no proof! Of course there must have been.
Indeed, Bhaskara gave a very elegant proof of the theorem.

Similarly Bhaskara's works like Lilavati are in the form of mathematical challenges, posed as Sanskrit poetry. No answers are provided.

One way to look at it is that this method of education encouraged rote learning or mugging. The current ( British colonial ) Indian education system is also about mugging. But there can also be a different interpretation:

The fact of the matter is stated as is. The proof is left as an exercise to the student. If he is innovative enough, he will come up with a new form of the proof. Indeed, Bhaskara's proof for example is quite different from Pythagoras proof of the same theorem.

Now of course 100% of the students would not have been able to think out their own proofs and they may have resorted to mugging. Indeed that may be where the mugging culture came from ( which was encouraged by British colonials ).

If there is one thing Vedantic school of philosophy is guilty of, it is in holding up man to impossibly high standards. Mathematics being just one example. According to Vedic tradition for example there are 64 things that a man must be proficient at ( I saw the list somewhere, it included diverse things from cooking to pottery to warfare ).

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 14 Dec 2014 14:44

(1) Geet vidya—art of singing.
(2) Vadya vidya—art of playing on musical instruments.
(3) Nritya vidya—art of dancing.
(4) Natya vidya—art of theatricals.
(5) alekhya vidya—art of painting.
(6) viseshakacchedya vidya—art of painting the face and body with color
(7) tandula-kusuma-bali-vikara—art of preparing offerings from rice and flowers.
(8) pushpastarana—art of making a covering of flowers for a bed.
(9) dasana-vasananga-raga—art of applying preparations for cleansing the teeth, cloths and painting the body.
(10) mani-bhumika-karma—art of making the groundwork of jewels.
(11) sayya-racana—art of covering the bed.
(12) udaka-vadya—art of playing on music in water.
(13) udaka-ghata—art of splashing with water.
(14) citra-yoga—art of practically applying an admixture of colors.
(15) malya-grathana-vikalpa—art of designing a preparation of wreaths.
(16) sekharapida-yojana—art of practically setting the coronet on the head.
(17) nepathya-yoga—art of practically dressing in the tiring room.
(18) karnapatra-bhanga—art of decorating the tragus of the ear.
(19) sugandha-yukti—art of practical application of aromatics.
(20) bhushana-yojana—art of applying or setting ornaments.
(21) aindra-jala—art of juggling.
(22) kaucumara—a kind of art.
(23) hasta-laghava—art of sleight of hand.
(24) citra-sakapupa-bhakshya-vikara-kriya—art of preparing varieties of delicious food.
(25) panaka-rasa-ragasava-yojana—art of practically preparing palatable drinks and tinging draughts with red color.
(26) suci-vaya-karma—art of needleworks and weaving.
(27) sutra-krida—art of playing with thread.
(28) vina-damuraka-vadya—art of playing on lute and small drum.
(29) prahelika—art of making and solving riddles.
(30) durvacaka-yoga—art of practicing language difficult to be answered by others.
(31) pustaka-vacana—art of reciting books.
(32) natikakhyayika-darsana—art of enacting short plays and anecdotes.
(33) kavya-samasya-purana—art of solving enigmatic verses.
(34) pattika-vetra-bana-vikalpa—art of designing preparation of shield, cane and arrows.
(35) tarku-karma—art of spinning by spindle.
(36) takshana—art of carpentry.
(37) vastu-vidya—art of engineering.
(38) raupya-ratna-pariksha—art of testing silver and jewels.
(39) dhatu-vada—art of metallurgy.
(40) mani-raga jnana—art of tinging jewels.
(41) akara jnana—art of mineralogy.
(42) vrikshayur-veda-yoga—art of practicing medicine or medical treatment, by herbs.
(43) mesha-kukkuta-lavaka-yuddha-vidhi—art of knowing the mode of fighting of lambs, cocks and birds.
(44) suka-sarika-prapalana (pralapana) -- art of maintaining or knowing conversation between male and female cockatoos.
(45) utsadana—art of healing or cleaning a person with perfumes.
(46) kesa-marjana-kausala—art of combing hair.
(47) akshara-mushtika-kathana—art of talking with fingers.
(48)dharana-matrika—art of the use of amulets.
(49) desa-bhasha-jnana—art of knowing provincial dialects.
(50)nirmiti-jnana—art of knowing prediction by heavenly voice
(51) yantra-matrika—art of mechanics.
(52)mlecchita-kutarka-vikalpa—art of fabricating barbarous or foreign sophistry .
(53) samvacya—art of conversation.
(54) manasi kavya-kriya—art of composing verse mentally.
(55) kriya-vikalpa—art of designing a literary work or a medical remedy.
(56) chalitaka-yoga—art of practicing as a builder of shrines called after him.
(57) abhidhana-kosha-cchando-jnana—art of the use of lexicography and meters.
(58) vastra-gopana—art of concealment of cloths.
(59) dyuta-visesha—art of knowing specific gambling.
(60) akarsha-krida—art of playing with dice or magnet.
(61) balaka-kridanaka—art of using children's toys.
(62) vainayiki vidya—art of enforcing discipline.
(63) vaijayiki vidya—art of gaining victory.
(64) vaitaliki vidya—art of awakening master with music at dawn.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2014 14:53

Murugan wrote:(52) mlecchita-kutarka-vikalpa—art of fabricating barbarous or foreign sophistry.

definitely interesting!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 18:37

Murugan wrote: (30) durvacaka-yoga—art of practicing language difficult to be answered by others.
<snip>
(33) kavya-samasya-purana—art of solving enigmatic verses.
(34) pattika-vetra-bana-vikalpa—art of designing preparation of shield, cane and arrows.
(35) tarku-karma—art of spinning by spindle.
(36) takshana—art of carpentry.
(37) vastu-vidya—art of engineering.
(38) raupya-ratna-pariksha—art of testing silver and jewels.
(39) dhatu-vada—art of metallurgy.
(40) mani-raga jnana—art of tinging jewels.
(41) akara jnana—art of mineralogy.
(42) vrikshayur-veda-yoga—art of practicing medicine or medical treatment, by herbs.
<snip>
(51) yantra-matrika—art of mechanics.

Everything is listed as an "art". In other words none of these is "science"

30 is rhetoric

33 is some form of code breaking
34 down involve engineering, chemisrty, materials science, mettalurgy, pharmacy, botany, medicine

But you know "there was no science in india"

That is because we use their definitions to describe us.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 14 Dec 2014 18:46

We should be very proud that Hindu culture encourages education of such vidya, however it is also important to be masters and not mere wanna-be nor switch from one to another quickly. I think the govt should make it available to Hindu temples so as to teach vidya by Hindu experts in temple premises. Free country must not disallow or discourage such facilities for Hindu citizens.
[quote=shiv]
34 down involve engineering, chemisrty, materials science, mettalurgy, pharmacy, botany, medicine

But you know "there was no science in india"
[/quote]

Such blanket abusive statements have done immense harm to efforts of Aryans to educate & civilize people across the world.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 19:09

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv,

Please to distinguish between the background framework (which is often unstated) and the methods.

For example, "random sample opinion survey" is a method; the questions that you ask in that survey are what the background framework impels you to consider to be interesting.

The methods are far less suspect than the background framework.

An example is philology. To take a neutral example, there is that Germany-based scholar who did some deep philological work on the Quran, and found out that the reference to houris is really derived from "crystal-white grapes". That may be so, but the "meaning" of the text as far as we are concerned is what Muslims understood about houris for the last 1400 years, and not some "original meaning" derived from this. As far as the Biblical guys are concerned, the "original meaning" is very important, because if they get it wrong, it means they are misunderstanding God. So the background assumption behind the philological work is to understand the original intent of God (or of the author). The method this scholar used ("first, look for the (written) word in the standard Arabic lexicons; if it has a disputed meaning, then see if (because of the defects in the Arabic script) a close-by word exists in the Arabic lexicon; if not, look in the Syriac lexicon, etc. etc.") is not really a problem. It is the type of problem he's trying to solve that is the problem.

True. This is what Edward Said says about "Orientalism" is that all textual material written by Euroepans about the Orient is not a representation of fact , but how the Orient "should be seen". The Orient is looked at and presented in a way that tells the west "This is what this should be seen as"

I have the germ of a theory in my mind to explain with some clarity - and I will in due course.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Dec 2014 19:27

Tavleen Singh writing in The Indian Express:

Fifth column: Stop Hindutva now

When Leftist political pundits harangue me with charges that it was the RSS that helped Narendra Modi become prime minister, I tell them that they do not know what they are talking about. Leftists are usually allergic to dust, heat, poverty and the real India and so rarely travel during election campaigns. This made them miss the fact that last summer’s general election was not about Hindutva. Anywhere. It was about change and development. Without Modi, the BJP could not have won half the seats they did. Besides, if the RSS could help it win elections, what went wrong the last two times?

Yet there exists today the bizarre situation in which our strongest prime minister in decades is allowing Hindu fanatics in the Lok Sabha and Hindu fanatical organisations outside to blacken his image. The MPs who have been most offensive wear saffron robes signifying asceticism and renunciation. So what they are doing in Parliament instead of in some Himalayan cave is a valid question. But since they have found their way into the Lok Sabha, why is the Prime Minister not publicly rebuking them for dragging Hindutva into his mandate in the ugliest way? We barely recovered from that Sadhvi calling all Muslims ‘********’ when her brother in saffron pronounced that Nathuram Godse was a patriot. Both these MPs expressed regret when their remarks caused a public furore, but it is not possible to ever apologise for such things.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 19:42

eklavya wrote:Tavleen Singh writing in The Indian Express:

Fifth column: Stop Hindutva now

When Leftist political pundits harangue me with charges that it was the RSS that helped Narendra Modi become prime minister, I tell them that they do not know what they are talking about. Leftists are usually allergic to dust, heat, poverty and the real India and so rarely travel during election campaigns. This made them miss the fact that last summer’s general election was not about Hindutva. Anywhere. It was about change and development. Without Modi, the BJP could not have won half the seats they did. Besides, if the RSS could help it win elections, what went wrong the last two times?

Yet there exists today the bizarre situation in which our strongest prime minister in decades is allowing Hindu fanatics in the Lok Sabha and Hindu fanatical organisations outside to blacken his image. The MPs who have been most offensive wear saffron robes signifying asceticism and renunciation. So what they are doing in Parliament instead of in some Himalayan cave is a valid question. But since they have found their way into the Lok Sabha, why is the Prime Minister not publicly rebuking them for dragging Hindutva into his mandate in the ugliest way? We barely recovered from that Sadhvi calling all Muslims ******** when her brother in saffron pronounced that Nathuram Godse was a patriot. Both these MPs expressed regret when their remarks caused a public furore, but it is not possible to ever apologise for such things.

Once again I ask

What is Hindutva?

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 14 Dec 2014 19:45

eklavya wrote:Tavleen Singh writing in The Indian Express:

Fifth column: Stop Hindutva now

When Leftist political pundits harangue me with charges that it was the RSS that helped Narendra Modi become prime minister, I tell them that they do not know what they are talking about. Leftists are usually allergic to dust, heat, poverty and the real India and so rarely travel during election campaigns. This made them miss the fact that last summer’s general election was not about Hindutva. Anywhere. It was about change and development. Without Modi, the BJP could not have won half the seats they did. Besides, if the RSS could help it win elections, what went wrong the last two times?

Yet there exists today the bizarre situation in which our strongest prime minister in decades is allowing Hindu fanatics in the Lok Sabha and Hindu fanatical organisations outside to blacken his image. The MPs who have been most offensive wear saffron robes signifying asceticism and renunciation. So what they are doing in Parliament instead of in some Himalayan cave is a valid question. But since they have found their way into the Lok Sabha, why is the Prime Minister not publicly rebuking them for dragging Hindutva into his mandate in the ugliest way? We barely recovered from that Sadhvi calling all Muslims ******** when her brother in saffron pronounced that Nathuram Godse was a patriot. Both these MPs expressed regret when their remarks caused a public furore, but it is not possible to ever apologise for such things.

Tavleen Singh has a massively colonized mind. Remember that she married a Pakistani Muslim, spent most of her youth in Britain and was very very close inside the Nehru-Gandhi pariwaar for ages. Right in the inner circle.

She has begun the process of mental decolonization for a couple decades now and can at least see the Nehru-Gandhi family for what they are. But when one treads so deeply into enemy ( 'secular' ) territory, it is near to impossible to come back.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Dec 2014 19:50

shiv wrote: Once again I ask

What is Hindutva?

Asking the wrong chap, I'm afraid. I'm just a Deracinated Indian (not so) Elite

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Dec 2014 19:56

csaurabh wrote: Tavleen Singh has a massively colonized mind.

So, everything she says is worthless? The Constitution of India was written by people with "massively colonised minds".

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 14 Dec 2014 19:58

From link ,

.@tavleen_singh says current #GharWapasi is a clumsy embarrassment. True - because there is no institutional setup, no proper organization.

Well, we have a problem there, don't we? Can't do clumsy. So there, another embarrassment. I think what we do not hear is consistent denial and lack of data about conversions in general. For example, there is this news item from 'international' incident: link . Now such 'international' behavior around 'conversion' is totally out of bounds from regular discussions only. Can't do that too.

Coming to conversion to Christianity, there is a lot of efforts to make it appear normal and civilized. So there is Joshua project, there are step-by-step guides. I read somewhere that 'international' Chinese students leaving for USA are seen to convert to Christianity during college only. So that much is very well organized. But can't discuss that too since that will ruffle feathers if Hindus start converting in schools/colleges. link

So now how do Hindus even respond to such a thing - unified, state of the art, uniquely Hindu fashion, just so as to be acceptable to questioning media. I think the way Hindus do perform the conversion activities is just fine. There is a yagya, some mantra are recited, also there are wishes for peace and well-being, nothing very fantastic and very chic & fashionable there.

More from link :

“What we have are wonderful, sensitive, caring, committed Christian people who want so much for this particular Chinese student to come to know the Lord Jesus Christ the way they do,” said Edgren, who now recruits Chinese students for Ben Lippen and other evangelical schools. “There is sometimes a tendency for the Christian student/host family/teacher to press for and receive what appears to be a commitment.”

Non-believing Chinese parents choose Christian schools for their moral values, college placement records, and lower tuition than secular private schools, Edgren said.
..
Known for preparing Chinese students for the SATs and other exams, New Oriental also connects them with U.S. high schools. Eight Protestant U.S. schools, including Ben Lippen, and two Catholic schools were represented at a New Oriental recruiting fair in Beijing in October.
..
“Some people sacrifice so much to spread the gospel,” said Park, a Presbyterian. “Now we have people at our doorstep, offering money. I always tell the schools, ‘God has a bigger plan than we see.’”
..
Ben Lippen’s application asks Chinese students what their understanding is of the Christian faith, who is Jesus Christ, and what it means to live in a Christian community. They also must agree to attend religious services, Bible study and Bible class.

“They know, without a shadow of a doubt, they are coming to a Christian environment,” Bowdon said. “They must be OK with that.”
..
“Before students get here, there is always the question, ‘Do the parents understand?’ he said. “They aren’t sending kids here to learn about who Jesus Christ is. We do our best to publicize our mission.”
..
While some trustees were leery of bringing so many non- Catholics to St. Mary’s, they couldn’t pass up the chance to evangelize. One trustee said, according to Glowacki, “We have blank slates coming that we have an opportunity to write upon.”
..
“A lot of them are anti-Christian. They know we’d like them to become Christian,” said Susannah Clarke, who was instructing a girls’ group across the hall. “It’s been drummed into them: there’s no God, the government is great. They know if they go back as a Christian, their parents will not be happy.”
..
Ben Lippen has 392 students in grades 9-12. Day students, who must have at least one parent active in an evangelical church, make up almost three-fourths of the enrollment. Few of the 80 Chinese students come from Christian families, Nickerson said.
..
‘No Touch’ Policy
..
The Chinese pay about $30,000 a year for tuition and room and board, plus $930 to $2,270 for English as a second language. Tuition for day students is about $11,000.
..
When Ben Lippen teacher Tom Pengelly asked his comparative-government class whether God is sovereign over national leaders, a Chinese student responded, “No. If the Lord was sovereign, why would He allow Hitler, Mao, and George W. Bush.”

Conservative Southerners in the class were scandalized by the pairing of Bush with two tyrants, Pengelly said. “One football player said, ‘You can’t say that!’”
..
“Originally, we brought children of missionaries here,” Headmaster Bowdon said. “Now we’re preparing future missionaries. They’ll go back to their own country, with the claims of Christ and a transformed heart.”
..
One of those students, Henry Guo, drowned in a lake during a party celebrating the end of the 1995-96 school year. In the woods, near the Chinese students’ dormitories, a plaque memorializes him.

Guo converted at school, said Southside Christian’s Reel, then a Ben Lippen administrator.

“We had the assurance in our hearts that he had given his life to Christ and would have eternal salvation as a result,” he said. “That was the silver lining.”
..
New Oriental doesn’t have a religious agenda, and funnels students to Protestant and Catholic schools because of market demand and relationships with agents such as Park and Edgren, they said. New Oriental recently started a separate department for U.S. secondary schools, Park said.

“New Oriental does not promote religion of any denomination,” President Louis Hsieh said in an e-mail. “It is the families’ decision if they want their kids to attend a Christian or non-Christian high school or college.”
..
“Both religious school and private schools are fine, the public schools are what you don’t want to be in,” he said. “Because there will be all kinds of odd students there.”
..
Su clashed with dormitory parents over the requirement to turn in her computer and cell phone at night. When she was late for church one Sunday, they and the other girls left without her; she took a taxi. Accusing her of lying and disrespect, school officials sent her to a Christian counselor, she said.

“It was a really hard time,” she said. “I didn’t feel loved at all. I cried a lot.”

Her teachers stood by her. “I could feel the love from them,” she said. “There was no reason for them to love me. They were willing to forgive me.”

The more she read the Bible, the more truth she discovered there. After praying for a month, she felt the Holy Spirit one night in March 2009.

“Before, what I believed, what Chinese people believe, is that people are innately good,” she said. “I realized that I was sinful. I was lying, not loving. Those are as bad as killing someone. There’s no difference between me and a murderer.”
..
She tells her parents and grandparents about Jesus. “They haven’t converted yet, but they’re open to it,” she said.

She hopes to become a neurosurgeon and return to China. “God wants me to go back to China,” she said. “Someday if Jesus calls me, I will be a missionary there.”

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Dec 2014 20:14

csaurabh wrote:But when one treads so deeply into enemy ( 'secular' ) territory, it is near to impossible to come back.

So the 'secular' is the "enemy". I am more enlightened. Don't mind me saying, but the "enemy" will win; remember who rendered the apology!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 20:22

eklavya wrote: The Constitution of India was written by people with "massively colonised minds".

Yes. There is no doubt about that.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2014 20:27

eklavya wrote:
shiv wrote: Once again I ask

What is Hindutva?
Asking the wrong chap, I'm afraid. I'm just a Deracinated Indian (not so) Elite

i take it you are not a supporter of Hindutva. It is perfectly sensible and sane to not blindly support anything that you know nothing about. But it is also stupid to oppose something that you don't know about. Having no opinion on Hindutva is probably a good stance under the circumstances. Like someone said " Nothing is better than nonsense"

However I was hoping to hear from people who know something about Hindutva rather than a confession and life history.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 14 Dec 2014 20:46

eklavya wrote:
So, everything she says is worthless?

No. 'Durbaar' by Tavleen Singh is a masterpiece that everyone should read.
It exposes the utter perfidy of the Nehru-Gandhi family and the Dilli centric political culture which was the outcome of 'secularism'.

The Constitution of India was written by people with "massively colonised minds".

Yes, unfortunately it was. I believe B.R. Ambedkar called it a "terrible document" or something like that after its completion.
The constitution has a good intent but is flawed in many ways. It will have to be changed eventually, even though it be a long long time from now.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 14 Dec 2014 21:08

shiv wrote:
Murugan wrote: (30) durvacaka-yoga—art of practicing language difficult to be answered by others.
<snip>
(33) kavya-samasya-purana—art of solving enigmatic verses.
(34) pattika-vetra-bana-vikalpa—art of designing preparation of shield, cane and arrows.
(35) tarku-karma—art of spinning by spindle.
(36) takshana—art of carpentry.
(37) vastu-vidya—art of engineering.
(38) raupya-ratna-pariksha—art of testing silver and jewels.
(39) dhatu-vada—art of metallurgy.
(40) mani-raga jnana—art of tinging jewels.
(41) akara jnana—art of mineralogy.
(42) vrikshayur-veda-yoga—art of practicing medicine or medical treatment, by herbs.
<snip>
(51) yantra-matrika—art of mechanics.
Everything is listed as an "art". In other words none of these is "science"

30 is rhetoric

33 is some form of code breaking
34 down involve engineering, chemisrty, materials science, mettalurgy, pharmacy, botany, medicine

But you know "there was no science in india"

That is because we use their definitions to describe us.

The translator wrote "art" there as a convenience. The distinction between "arts" and "science" does not exist in Indian thought. All those people running around trying to fit "economics" or "management" as an "art" or a "science" , trying to classify science and pseudo science etc. are all basically just wasting their time.

In reality the words gyana/shastra/vidya/vikalpa/vidhi/etc. mean specific things that cannot be expressed in the frameworks of "art" or "science".

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Dec 2014 21:16

shiv wrote: However I was hoping to hear from people who know something about Hindutva rather than a confession and life history.

Smashed it out of the park with that one

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 14 Dec 2014 21:40

shiv wrote: Once again I ask

What is Hindutva?

This question cannot be answered.

To be precise, it cannot be answered in the framework of knowledge that comes purely from the Indian ways of thinking, since they do not define the word Hindu and thus attach no meaning to it.

It is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or can God create a rock that he cannot lift. The question itself is embedded in a framework of thought expressed in the form of language, that makes it impossible for the answer to make sense.

Since the word Hindu only exists outside of Hinduism , any definition of Hindu, Hindutva or Hinduism has to come from a system of thought that is also outside of Hinduism and had been created in order to describe Hinduism from the point of view of some thought process that sees itself as different from Hinduism.