Cultural Protectionism - Global & Indian Trends

[Virupaksha]

EJ's infiltrating US military at such a level is very interesting. how will this trend play out over next few decades? for one, will the EJ penetration have an influence on how long soldiers serve? is one of the goals of the EJ's to increase serving time by creating a strong "religious duty"? if so, then, a dedicated army with "religious" background is going to take shape. My take is that they are laying the ground for "internal cleansing", namely, to gradually establish a coercive politico-military regime which places Christianity as a top priority. and down the lane, this might even by the beginning of an "ethnic movement" to cleanse the "inferior people", keeping in mind the emerging dominance of American Southwest by Mexicans.

US military has always been a proselytizing army. During the second world war, there was more than a struggle between US Navy and army. McArthur saw the phillippine war in world war II as protecting Christianity and wrote many letters to US president (forgot his name) regarding the same.

Nimitz book on world war II will show how much the proselytizing theme of US army ran through it. Also note in vietnam, where the protestants are mostly located.

[RajeshA]

A better way, IMO, is to change the rules of the game based on the science/reason realities on the ground. And it is a battle-ground on which, if you fight, without denominational identification, you will find a ripe field of "natural allies". Consider Africa - right now it is a major battleground of Islamic and Christian proselytizers, more often than not expanding their "flock" through financial incentives. Imagine now that Indian charitable organisations of all faiths go in there and do not demand that they change their belief systems, merely improve their living conditions, enable their education, and increase their competitive ability - out of the pure goodness of our hearts with no faith payback expected. In the medium to long term, you will have an undeclared natural ally here (at least in the religious sphere).

Here is a case, which shows that pure goodness of the heart means nothing, when it the environment is vitiated by differences of "ideological identity".

Originally posted by wig
Published on Aug, 31, 2011
By R.K.Kaushik
Compliments returned: Chandigarh Tribune

MR Madan Gopal Singh was the Registrar of Punjab University at Lahore before the partition of India. He had a P.A. named Ghulam Hasan, who was attached with him for more than 10 years and was quite close to him. He, like Mr Madan Gopal Singh, stayed on the university campus.

Once the P.A’s daughter got seriously ill and had to be shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Lahore for an operation. At that time the treatment in a private hospital, specially by a foreign doctor, was very costly. Mr Madan Gopal not only personally assisted the family of Ghulam Hasan in the treatment but also gave him Rs 1,200 (a big amount at that time). He also told him that since he treated his daughter as his own, there was no need to return the money.

Later, Ghulam Hasan suffered a serious attack of jaundice and was hospitalised. Mr Madan Gopal not only deputed his staff to take care of him but also gave him financial help of more than Rs 1,000 and ensured an improved diet for weeks together. Many similar favours were shown by him to Ghulam Hasan and his family from time to time. The kindness of the Registrar was well known and other employees used to feel envious of Ghulam Hasan.

The Radcliff award was announced on 17 August, 1947. Lahore went to Pakistan and Punjab University was to be bifurcated. There were communal riots in which lakhs were killed. There was communal tension and killings in Lahore also. Hindus and Sikhs were migrating in thousands.

Mr Madan Gopal stayed on and attended his office regularly. The Home Secretary, Punjab, Mr A.A. Macdonald, was also holding the charge of the Vice-Chancellor of the university.

On 31 August 1947, Mr Madan Gopal went to his office and started working. After a few minutes he saw his P.A entering his room menacingly who pushed a dagger into his stomach. A second blow followed, which killed him.

The atmosphere was so vitiated with communal overtones that the body remained on the floor for 2-3 hours till the acting Vice-Chancellor came there accompanied by Inspector-General of Police, Khan Qurban Ali, and the acting District Magistrate of Lahore, Mr A.A Williams.

The university staff was dumb struck. No case was registered and there were no investigations to trace the killer. Everybody was saying that Ghulam Hasan had given a brutal return compliment to his boss for the favours, help and kindness shown by him over more than a decade.

Ghulam Hasan was never arrested and a few days later he killed the head of the economics department of the university, Prof. Brij Narayan, in a similar manner. The actions of the P.A were rewarded by the then Chief Minister of Punjab (Pakistan), Nawab Iftikhar Hussein of Mamdot, by making him the Chairman of the Education Board of Punjab.

"Ideological Identity" is a powerful driver. Hindus' cringing about themselves conducting "proselytization" due to some sense, that it violates some Dharmic values, will be our undoing.

Hindus should be on the front-lines teaching Dharma, and moving other people to consider themselves as Sanatan Dharmics. What we should not do, is to demand of them to renounce their traditional culture. Perhaps adding to it, fusing it with some Hindu customs, etc. should be the way forward. Native cultures need to be protected. But ideologically they should identify themselves with one of the Dharmic schools, and consider themselves part of the Dharmic Continuum.

[Arjun]

Hindus should be on the front-lines teaching Dharma, and moving other people to consider themselves as Sanatan Dharmics. What we should not do, is to demand of them to renounce their traditional culture. Perhaps adding to it, fusing it with some Hindu customs, etc. should be the way forward. Native cultures need to be protected. But ideologically they should identify themselves with one of the Dharmic schools, and consider themselves part of the Dharmic Continuum.

Have not visited this thread for a while, but glad to find some congruence between our thought processes.... Its not proselytization per se, but proselityzation based on exclusivist messages that is the core problem.

[Aditya_V]

Rajesh A- > Sadly the history has not been learned by our Delhi Seculars. One fears one day these guys will learnt he hard way, that thier links and favours to the Fundoos in Lahore and Isloo will not protect them from thier hostility.

[RajeshA]

Hindus should be on the front-lines teaching Dharma, and moving other people to consider themselves as Sanatan Dharmics. What we should not do, is to demand of them to renounce their traditional culture. Perhaps adding to it, fusing it with some Hindu customs, etc. should be the way forward. Native cultures need to be protected. But ideologically they should identify themselves with one of the Dharmic schools, and consider themselves part of the Dharmic Continuum.

Have not visited this thread for a while, but glad to find some congruence between our thought processes.... Its not proselytization per se, but proselityzation based on exclusivist messages that is the core problem.

I tend not to use "exclusivist dogma" as the culprit, because that is a religious argument. Then one strays into a "comparison of religions" territory and become judgmental about them. This destroys any higher ground one may have, because one becomes vulnerable to the -phobia argument. One's arguments are rejected, as being only the ramblings of a phobic, envious and "misinformed" individual. One's whole platform comes crumbling down. That is why, I never use "exclusivism" in my arguments.

"Cultural Protection" is the line of argument I advocate. It is a weapon against which the "exclusivist" proselityzing religions have no shield.

[Arjun]

RajeshA ji,
one of the ideas from the "market" analogy is exploring ideas of anti-Trust laws. Enforcing that independent units must be formed as size increases. Kind of preventing mohalla shop from being swallowed up into a retail chain. or any chain formation attempt busted by law.

Bji, the idea of a regulating agency for the religious marketplace is an idea whose time has come. And such an idea can only by championed from India - the West, which would have been the natural place for a development of this sort,is unfortunately in the vice-like grip of a monopolist (the Church) - which would do anything to suppress such a move.

A key problem is that the current marketplace for religions is an imperfect market. A 'perfect' market in any good would naturally tend towards minimising advantage to players who use unfair means and work towards leveling the playing field....one way to therefore bring about change in the marketplace for religions is to increase the level of competition. By that I don't just mean restrict the competition to the current players - there needs to be greater entry of new entrants and religions that use every available means to compete in the marketplace....The advantage of regulation would become very clearly apparent even to the most obtuse, when that state is reached.

[Arjun]

I tend not to use "exclusivist dogma" as the culprit, because that is a religious argument. Then one strays into a "comparison of religions" territory and become judgmental about them. This destroys any higher ground one may have, because one becomes vulnerable to the -phobia argument. One's arguments are rejected, as being only the ramblings of a phobic, envious and "misinformed" individual. One's whole platform comes crumbling down. That is why, I never use "exclusivism" in my arguments.

"Cultural Protection" is the line of argument I advocate. It is a weapon against which the "exclusivist" proselityzing religions have no shield.

But it is a defensive argument nevertheless...You are basically saying 'What you believe in is not wrong but please spare us else we will cease to exist." Wheareas the argument that exclusivism is dangerous is a more aggressive argument that says "Your belief is dangerous. As long as you keep this belief to yourself I am fine with it, but make sure you don't spread the virus around."

You may be right in thinking that the defensive line would work better - on the other hand you maybe wrong. So, the best course is for both arguments to be played out by separate teams who believe in their respective points. To me, the best defense always has been a good offense.

Btw, I would estimate maybe around 10% or more of Christians in the US would term themselves as 'Progressive' Christians...take a look at this website that defines some of the beliefs of 'Progressive Christianity' that make it non-exclusivist: The Center for Progressive Christianity.

I don't see any reason for hesitation in bringing up arguments that are in any case agreed to as being valid by possibly the top 10% elite of Christian society.

[RajeshA]

I tend not to use "exclusivist dogma" as the culprit, because that is a religious argument. Then one strays into a "comparison of religions" territory and become judgmental about them. This destroys any higher ground one may have, because one becomes vulnerable to the -phobia argument. One's arguments are rejected, as being only the ramblings of a phobic, envious and "misinformed" individual. One's whole platform comes crumbling down. That is why, I never use "exclusivism" in my arguments.

"Cultural Protection" is the line of argument I advocate. It is a weapon against which the "exclusivist" proselityzing religions have no shield.

But it is a defensive argument nevertheless...You are basically saying 'What you believe in is not wrong but please spare us else we will cease to exist." Wheareas the argument that exclusivism is dangerous is a more aggressive argument that says "Your belief is dangerous. As long as you keep this belief to yourself I am fine with it, but make sure you don't spread the virus around."

You may be right in thinking that the defensive line would work better - on the other hand you maybe wrong. So, the best course is for both arguments to be played out by separate teams who believe in their respective points. To me, the best defense always has been a good offense.

Arjun ji,

on the contrary, I am fully in favor of using the aggressive line.

There are two ways of dealings with aggressive ideologies, which prove destructive to indigenous cultures.

• The State curbs these ideologies, using laws and law enforcement
• Society fights these ideologies, using awareness programs, Dharmicization, "progressive proselytization"

The State cannot make discriminatory laws towards the right to religious freedom for its citizens. The laws have to be based on universal values, which the State proclaims to uphold, and the security of all it proclaims to hold dear (territorial integrity, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, market access, law & order, ideological fidelity firewall, indigenous culture, linguistic health, etc.).

Society on the other hand is free to use whatever argumentation it wants, including complaints about "exclusivist dogmas".

Btw, I would estimate maybe around 10% or more of Christians in the US would term themselves as 'Progressive' Christians...take a look at this website that defines some of the beliefs of 'Progressive Christianity' that make it non-exclusivist: The Center for Progressive Christianity.

I don't see any reason to hesitate in bringing up arguments that are in any case agreed to as being valid by possibly the top 10% elite of Christian society.

Sure you can bring these up. But those Progressive Christians are not proposing to code their set of beliefs into some US Law. One reason they are not trying is because it can't be coded that way.

[RajeshA]

Ideological Fidelity Firewall

With this term, the State can claim, that the state wants to pursue all avenues to ensure that its citizenry remains loyal to the State, without sacrificing either Truth or the citizen's fundamental rights to religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of thought.

Almost all states try to inculcate in its citizenry a sense of belonging to the State, starting at primary level education itself or through the media. Of course if the conditions of "Truth" and "Protection of Fundamental Rights" have to be met, then it proves really challenging for the State.

The "ideological fidelity" of the citizenry really gets challenged through the influences, that come often from outside, beyond the borders of the country. These challenges often come garbed in the robes of "freedom of religion". These use both the tools of "conversion of identity", as well as "material enticement to effect conversion", as a means of realigning "ideological identity" of the citizen with some entity outside the country, and away from the State, away from the Indigenous Society.

As one can neither curtail the fundamental rights of the citizen, nor can one curb ideas to infiltrate the country, especially not in this age, one thing that can help is to make one's own society impervious to these outside ideas, which would involve that Hindus get off their lazy asses and try spreading some Dharmic word around.

The other way is to sink the aircraft carrier, the proselytizers use to come to India - stop the foreign funding for religious groups in India. One cannot stop ideas from getting in, but one sure can stop the money from getting in, money on which these ideas come flying.

The third way is of course directed at domestic minorities - where they are forbidden from destroying the indigenous culture, though they are free to practice their religions and to proselytize all they want, as guaranteed by the Constitution. They are not allowed to destroy the indigenous cultural treasure that resides in the Indian citizenry, as that is an issue of security of something the State holds dear.

[Arjun]

• The State curbs these ideologies, using laws and law enforcement
• Society fights these ideologies, using awareness programs, Dharmicization, "progressive proselytization"

My approach is not necessarily 100% oriented towards legal enforcement- societal awareness would be good enough to begin with. If it is given legal teeth through legal precepts that are based on universal values it just makes the argument that much more powerful - and therefore while the effort would be towards the creation of such a scenario, it should not be completely dependent on any such occurrence.

The State cannot make discriminatory laws towards the right to religious freedom for its citizens. The laws have to be based on universal values, which the State proclaims to uphold, and the security of all it proclaims to hold dear (territorial integrity, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, market access, law & order, ideological fidelity firewall, indigenous culture, linguistic health, etc.).

You clearly believe that giving legal teeth to the proposition on 'cultural protection' is an easier sell than any other means of legal intervention. Be that as it may, a number of key terms, such as 'culture' - would then need to be defined quite narrowly and unambiguously.

[RajeshA]

• The State curbs these ideologies, using laws and law enforcement
• Society fights these ideologies, using awareness programs, Dharmicization, "progressive proselytization"

My approach is not necessarily 100% oriented towards legal enforcement- societal awareness would be good enough to begin with. If it is given legal teeth through legal precepts that are based on universal values it just makes the argument that much more powerful - and therefore while the effort would be towards the creation of such a scenario, it should not be completely dependent on any such occurrence.

Each has its role - both State and Society. However if Society tries to shift its responsibility over to the State, it would have negative consequences for both. State has to always remain above board, and cannot make discriminatory laws on religion. Millions would be up in arms otherwise. The Society can however incorporate a lot more of positive transformative energy and cleanse itself of potentially harmful elements.

The State cannot make discriminatory laws towards the right to religious freedom for its citizens. The laws have to be based on universal values, which the State proclaims to uphold, and the security of all it proclaims to hold dear (territorial integrity, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, market access, law & order, ideological fidelity firewall, indigenous culture, linguistic health, etc.).

You clearly believe that giving legal teeth to the proposition on 'cultural protection' is an easier sell than any other means of legal intervention. Be that as it may, a number of key terms, such as 'culture' - would then need to be defined quite narrowly and unambiguously.

Yes, indigenous culture would have to be defined - most appropriately at the district level in India. Each community in India would be asked to submit, which indigenous elements of its culture, it wants to declare as requiring recognition and protection. Nothing should be taken for granted.

For a culturally rich and diverse country such as India, it should even be a priority.

[Rony]

Evangelical Christianity: Devils in high places

In his explosive new book The Armies Of God: A Study In Militant Christianity, British-born, Malaysia-based academic Iain Buchanan blows the lid off a subject that most scholars and journalists tend to shy away from: the rise of US evangelism as a force in global affairs.

His book looks at how some of the powerful evangelical outfits operate — often as US government proxies — in countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, and of course, India, and the disastrous effects this has had on the relationship between the Christian West and non-Christian cultures, religious communities and nations. He also unmasks the role played by the seemingly secular ‘success motivation’ industry, and its leadership gurus such as Zig Ziglar and Ken Blachard, who are not only management experts but also conscious agents of US-style Christian evangelism. Excerpts from an interview:

What led you to write this book?
I grew up in an agnostic family with respect for spirituality of all kinds — from animism to true Christianity. I suppose one of my strongest incentives for writing the book was to show how, in the West, inherently decent things like liberal secularism and Christian spirituality (no necessary conflict here!) are so deeply corrupted by political power and so dishonestly vaunted as marks of cultural superiority.

Not many would want to come out in the open and talk about the issues raised in your book. Was that a concern for you?
In the West, certainly, there is a reluctance to enquire too deeply into the affairs of organised Christianity — both at home and overseas. Western culture is a deeply, subliminally Christian culture, and even committed secularists have trouble avoiding Christian parameters in their arguments, and recognising the Christian capacity for wrong-doing. Among other things, this leads to a rather benign view of the behaviour of our missionaries overseas — fed partly by ignorance, and partly by a sense that the Christian mission can be equated with civilisation. And such myopia has increased dramatically over the past 40 years, as the secular West has managed to define a global order largely in its own terms, with decisive help from its Christian missionaries.By contrast, of course, the behaviour of non-Christians (especially Muslims) is scrutinised ruthlessly, misunderstood, and demonised.

Academics who have attempted to study the work of missionaries in India have been accused of helping the right-wing Hindutva brigade. Has this been your experience too?
The glib response to this would be to say that religious extremism of any kind needs to be exposed. But it is more complex than this. There is a need to go beyond the purely religious objection to Christian missionising, and examine the global forces which define it, and which are subverting countries like India in a far more comprehensive and profound way than most people realise.

A key contention of my book is that the extremism of Christian evangelicals is no more benign than the extremism found in non-Christian religious groups. Indeed, its local impact can be hugely destructive — precisely because of its ability to draw upon a vast global network of forces (including powerful secular ones), and its ability to penetrate and shape local forces, whether they be ethnic, religious, political, or social, according to alien priorities.

You speak at length of the US’s use of Christianity for it own geopolitical designs. Is this manifestly part of US strategy worldwide?
Most Western leaders (not just Bush and Blair) will claim they are inspired by their Christian beliefs. Sometimes, as with both Reagan and George W Bush, they quote chapter and verse in support of policy, although usually it is not so blatant. Certainly, deep in Washington, self-professedly Christian pressure groups (like the Fellowship Foundation and the Council for National Policy) have a highly influential membership and a powerful grip on policy.

Of course, one can debate whether US strategy is manifestly Christian in inspiration — few Americans would say it is not, although most would probably insist that such strategy is guided primarily by secular concerns.

But there is no doubt at all that US strategy makes deliberate (and somewhat cynical) use of Christian agencies in pursuit of foreign policy — and that the distinction between the religious and the secular is deliberately blurred in the process. There are over 600 US-based evangelical groups, some as big as large corporations, and between them they constitute a vast and highly organised network of global influence, purposefully targeting non-Christians, and connecting and subverting every sector of life in the process.

Most of the major evangelical corporations (like World Vision, Campus Crusade, Youth with a Mission, and Samaritan’s Purse) operate in partnership with the US government in its pursuit of foreign policy goals. World Vision, which is effectively an arm of the State Department, is perhaps the most notable example of this. There is also the benefit of a custom-built legislation, with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 providing necessary sanction to bring errant nations into line.

This means that evangelisation is an intensely secular pursuit, as well as a religious one. In turn, of course, the secular powers, whether they be departments of state or corporate businesses, find such evangelicals to be very effective partners.

Indeed, most missionaries are not obviously religious. A case in point is the Success Motivation industry.Many of the most popular ‘leadership gurus’ — Zig Ziglar, Paul Meyer, Os Hillman, Richard DeVos, John C. Maxwell, and Ken Blanchard, for example — are not just management experts, they are also evangelical Christians and conscious agents of US-style evangelisation. Conversely, groups which, on the face of it, are primarily religious, may also serve a powerful secular agenda, such as the collection of intelligence, the grooming of political or commercial elites, or the manipulation of local conflicts.

Some accuse the church of fomenting dissent among poor tribals by exploiting them; others say the church is a liberating force. This debate has gone on for decades in India’s North-East. What is your view?
The situation of India’s tribal people, like that of tribal people elsewhere in Asia, is certainly tragic. And it may be that Christian activity offers an opportunity to escape the various forms of homegrown oppression — state and corporate abuse, Hindu contempt, and so on. But Christianity in India is a very diverse thing. There are many situations where the Christian church has taken firm root, and is deeply involved in local administration, social welfare, education, and so on. Nagaland is a case in point. There are movements for tribal welfare elsewhere which are Christian-inspired and doing excellent work.

But there are many cases, too, of evangelical missions which go into tribal areas with little respect for local realities, and with an agenda far removed from tribal welfare. In this, they may be no better and no worse than the home-grown oppressor. But there is an important difference. Such missionaries often belong to an evangelical network whose strategic purpose is defined elsewhere, and which has little loyalty to the local population, its cultures, its communities, and its welfare, let alone to the nation as a whole. This is particularly true of the new breed of US-inspired evangelicals, led by Baptists and Pentecostalist/Charismatics, who have spearheaded evangelisation over the past 50 years. It is the working of this wider, and self-consciously global, structure of behaviour which is of concern.

It is unfortunate that missions doing good work in tribal areas have their efforts tarnished by others whose approach is more opportunistic and exploitative. For the new evangelicals, distaste for paganism is just part of the equation — oppressed tribal groups are a relatively easy target to penetrate in a much wider war against non-Christians generally, and for influence in strategic (especially border) areas. In this respect, even a relatively long-established Christian presence — as in Nagaland — has utility as a strategic outpost.

These are turbulent times for India as its number of hungry and poor are growing exponentially even as the wealthy in the cities are becoming billionaires. Does this make harvesting of souls easy? Do missionaries love turbulence?
It certainly seems, sometimes, that evangelicals thrive on suffering and disaster. India’s own KP Yohannan, for example, welcomed the tsunami of 2004 as “one of the greatest opportunities God has given us to share His love with people” — and he was only one of many expressing such sentiments. There is no question that many evangelicals exploit the poor and marginalised for reasons which have a lot to do with narrow theology and political self-interest, and relatively little to do with long-term practical help.

But evangelicals court the wealthy and the powerful of a society with equal passion. One of the most telling features of the new evangelism is the way it has turned Christianity into a force for protecting the rich and powerful. US Protestantism, in particular, has worked hard to undermine the impulse in the church towards social justice and reform. A measure of its success has been the defeat of Liberation Theology and the remarkable expansion of US Pentecostalism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. More than a quarter of all Christians now belong to Pentecostalist and Charismatic churches.

In these, as in most new evangelical churches, great attention is paid to a ‘theology’ of economics which stresses individual profit, corporate obedience, the sanctity of making money, and the power of “miracles, signs, and wonders.”This ‘theology’ is a key part of modern imperialism: it offers something to both rich and poor, it is safely counter-revolutionary, and it ties tightly into the wider global network of more secular influences (in business, government, education, the media, the military) which underpins Western expansion.

So the evangelical church has a key role to play in a society as disparate as India’s. It is a form of social management: it gives divine sanction to the rich, it gives hope to the struggling middle class, and it cultivates discipline (and distraction) amongst the poor — and it does all this with a keen eye to the West’s self-interest. This is not to suggest that India does not have its own mechanisms for doing the same things. But such evangelisation, as a concomitant of Westernisation, is bound to strengthen as India urbanises and looks ever more Westwards.

A recent issue of the Texas-based magazine, Gospel For Asia, says: “The Indian sub-continent with one billion people, is a living example of what happens when Satan rules the entire culture... India is one vast purgatory in which millions of people .... are literally living a cosmic lie! Could Satan have devised a more perfect system for causing misery?” How and why does such propaganda work in a developed country like the US in the era of the Internet and the media?
There are two important points here. First, we must not assume that the ‘developed’ West is free from wilful ignorance. Indeed, wilful ignorance is often a very useful weapon. We need enemies, and, as religious people, we need demons. The utility of Islamophobia is a case in point.Besides, there’s a useful role for such bigotry within the system: as a foil for the liberal powerful to prove their liberal credentials.

But such attitudes are nothing new, of course. Christians have waged such ‘spiritual warfare’ against their enemies for centuries, and with the same kind of language. What is new is the vastly increased facility, offered by the electronic media, for fighting such a war. And this is the second point.

New technology is spreading, and hardening, such bigotry. Since the mid-1960s, the evangelical movement has systematically computerised its entire global operation, creating huge databases of information on its non-Christian enemies, centralising administration, and linking some 500 million ‘Christian computers’ worldwide for the purposes of fighting ‘spiritual warfare’ against non-believers in strategic places. And ‘spiritual warfare’, for the evangelical Christian movement, is not just a matter of prayers and metaphor: it is also, very decisively, a matter of ‘virtuous’ troops, tanks, and drones.

[Arjun]

State has to always remain above board, and cannot make discriminatory laws on religion.

What is deemed to be discriminatory laws vs what is deemed to be fair, at the end of the day - boils down to whether you can phrase your whole argument in appropriately 'politically correct' terminology that draws upon core human values for inspiration.

Now, you believe that 'cultural protection' is just such a 'politically correct' phraseology that is based in 'universal human values' and I will not openly contradict you on that point - after all, what matters is the end result.

But I would just point out that any attempt to restrict the ill-effects of exclusivism would only be attempted when the masses see for themselves the value of regulation in the marketplace of religious thought. How can that scenario be brought about? By having new religions spring up that extensively and very publicly market their religious dogmas - that Allah and Jesus are false paths to God, that interacting with Christians and Muslims is a sin in the eyes of God, that God mandates that women are to be regarded as inferior to men .....Take out full page ads in major newspapers marketing some of these dogmas as new-fangled religions - then just sit back and wait for the calls for regulation of the marketplace of religious ideas to get louder (this time led by Christians, Muslims and women).

Note- text has been modified slightly upon request from admin.

[RajeshA]

But I would just point out that any attempt to restrict the ill-effects of exclusivism would only be attempted when the masses see for themselves the value of regulation in the marketplace of religious thought. How can that scenario be brought about? By having new religions spring up that extensively and very publicly market their religious dogmas - that Allah and Jesus are false paths to God, that interacting with Christians and Muslims is a sin in the eyes of God, that God mandates that women are to be regarded as sex slaves.....Take out full page ads in major newspapers marketing some of these dogmas as new-fangled religions - then just sit back and wait for the calls for regulation of the marketplace of religious ideas to get louder (this time led by Christians, Muslims and women).

Those who advocate that women are sex-slaves would probably have to answer to the Law, for that is a violation of Women's right to equality, and would go beyond the current level of inequality that is embodied in Personal Laws.

I guess, that at the moment, Islam and Christianity do exactly that, the Muslims proclaim that Jesus though revered, cannot take one to Heaven, and the Christians don't really recognize Mohammed as a Prophet, and one hears sufficient critique of him in the Western circles.

[JE Menon]

>>Those who advocate that women are sex-slaves would probably have to answer to the Law, for that is a violation of Women's right to equality, and would go beyond the current level of inequality that is embodied in Personal Laws. I guess, that at the moment, Islam and Christianity do exactly that...

Do you mean Islam and Christianity advocate that women are sex-slaves. That is incorrect. Unless you mean something else, in which case please clarify.

[vishvak]

State has to always remain above board, and cannot make discriminatory laws on religion.

What is deemed to be discriminatory laws vs what is deemed to be fair, at the end of the day - boils down to whether you can phrase your whole argument in appropriately 'politically correct' terminology that draws upon core human values for inspiration.

Now, you believe that 'cultural protection' is just such a 'politically correct' phraseology that is based in 'universal human values' and I will not openly contradict you on that point - after all, what matters is the end result.

There is this constant chatter on how Hindu right wing RSS killed Gandhi. Usually makes little sense to a Dharmic, but perhaps there is some deep logic to make the most of Gandhi post-mortem:

1) Gandhi said words like 'Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava', said the word 'Bible" at a few places, too.
2) Satyagraha. non-violence, Bramhacharya, etc. could have been taken from new tastaments?
3) Gandhi wore white cloth.

The more subtle issues could be these:
1) Hindus killed someone who also believed in Bible also.
2) A Christ-like fellow. almost(??) a Christian, martyred by Hindus. (introduction of martyrdom nomenclature a.k.a. Saint Thomas)
3) Gandhi was epitome of Catholicism during the time of changing world, while the killer Hindus were barbaric and not completely non-violent.
4) Enlightened Christians have credit to end Colonialism (actually credit only to begin it in the first place) but Hindus spoiled it by killing Gandhi as majority Hindus who did not want nonviolence.
5) The current day historians can prove all this, while tirelessly pointing out Hinduism as cause of death of Gandhi.
6) While Hindus killed Gandhi to save Hinduism from vanishing in India, all over the world people follow Gandhi to understand Jesus better.

etc. etc.

Such kind of misinterpretation of everything and anything should be pointed out and such twists should be taken to the cleaners.

[Arjun]

Those who advocate that women are sex-slaves would probably have to answer to the Law, for that is a violation of Women's right to equality, and would go beyond the current level of inequality that is embodied in Personal Laws.

I guess, that at the moment, Islam and Christianity do exactly that, the Muslims proclaim that Jesus though revered, cannot take one to Heaven, and the Christians don't really recognize Mohammed as a Prophet, and one hears sufficient critique of him in the Western circles.

The part about women is not actual discrimination (which is banned in most countries) but would come under the scope of hate-speech relating to women. Countries that have no hate-speech laws (most prominently the US) will have to allow the statement (for the same reason that talking about homosexuality as a sin is not prohibited)...Where there are hate speech laws (such as the UK and India) - speech that would be otherwise be classified as hate-speech would be protected if it is part of the core tenets of a religion....If you take the UK for example, the only reason 'Jesus is the only way to salvation' does not come under hate-speech criteria is because of the explicit support for propagation of religious dogma in the legal system.

Now this is obviously quite stupid - intolerance is intolerance, whether it is religion-mandated intolerance or otherwise.

As regards the other two dogmas that I mentioned - the big difference is that these will be marketed as religion-based dogma, no question of any intellectual arguments out here. You will notice that the dogmas I specified are not generic statements (like "all Gods other than.." but specifically refer to Jesus and Allah, and to their adherants). Also, I don't think there is any regulation that bars spending say $50 Mil, and taking out full page ads in all major dailys and spots on prime-time TV that market the dogmas directly to the masses.....Has that ever happened ? If not, why not? Only because of imperfect competition in the marketplace of religious thought....a thousand new businesses are launched everyday in various countries that try out every trick known to mankind to advance their products - why is there no similar level of competition in the religions marketplace? Only if that level of competition and usage of sleazy techniques is used will it become obvious that, like businesses - it is very natural to have a regulatory code for religions.

The whole point is to provoke a 'public' debate involving the masses, as to what kind of regulation is acceptable.

[Arjun]

Do you mean Islam and Christianity advocate that women are sex-slaves. That is incorrect. Unless you mean something else, in which case please clarify.

JEMji, he was responding to my hypothetical, though admittedly somewhat provocative, example - of what kind of religious dogmas can pop up in the form of new religions in the absence of any regulation on this matter.

If you'd like I can change this to something less hurtful without altering the essence of my argument.

[JE Menon]

Yes Arjun, please do make the change. It does not become us. Although i understand that in the heat of the moment, things can be said (I myself screwed up the other day - although in a different context - and was called out by a member).

[brihaspati]

Do you mean Islam and Christianity advocate that women are sex-slaves. That is incorrect. Unless you mean something else, in which case please clarify.

JEMji, he was responding to my hypothetical, though admittedly somewhat provocative, example - of what kind of religious dogmas can pop up in the form of new religions in the absence of any regulation on this matter.

If you'd like I can change this to something less hurtful without altering the essence of my argument.

The Quran explicitly mentions female "right-hand possessions" - including those possessed in war/ghazwas - as fit for sexual "use" by the "owner/captor". Look at Al -Baqara. Most interpreters and commentators from the Islamic "scholarship" side have no confusion about what this means. In fact, the controversy over azl - ejaculation "out" of "body" - was specifically forbidden because some jihadis of the prophet in a particular raid, hesitated to proceed with the captive women some of whom were married, and that the husbands were alive and present on the spot. The injunction was meant to expel any doubts as to the legitimacy of such an act on captive already married women.

The New Testament never condemns slavery in general. The gospel that refers to Thomas being sent off to India after being "sold" to the captain of a ship which was scheduled to call on an Indian port should be noted. There are echoes of complaints against Pharaonic "enslavement" of the Israelites - but no condemnation of slavery practised by the subsequent Israeli kings, enslavement of Edomites , or that by the Romans - something to be expected by a "persecuted" sect in 1st century Roman empire.

If you never mentioned slavery at all - then perhaps the excuse would be acceptable - that in your spiritual view slaves/slavery had no existence. But if you mention it and don't condemn it universally - that is a hmmm.... issue. Yes Christian text differs from the Islamic one, in not particularly mentioning explicitly the sexual connotation of slavery on women.

I hope we keep the context of sex-slavery in mind for Islam and Christianity and not fall into the trap of constructing totally whitewashed or totally blackened versions. What is there in the texts should be acknowledged - because the texts are touted as the inviolable divine outpourings serving as the basis of the faiths.

[JE Menon]

Brihaspati,

We can find justification for just about anything in almost any religious text from almost any of the major religions. As far as I know, it is not that "Islam and Christianity advocate that women are sex slaves" (a very specific claim). Not those were possessed in war etc. As for what can be found in the Sahih Sittha and other hadiths, as well as the opinion of Shiite leaders we know that too.

Is it wise? Or should we just go about making statements because we can. These are the points at which a thread degenerates and gets quickly locked and deleted. I am advocating sagacity and a delicate touch. There are a lot of valuable posts here, and I'm loath to see them disappear.

[brihaspati]

Agreed. I said neither whitewashing nor blackening. The fact that "right hand possessions" [who are not only sourced to be from war] are part of Al -Baqara, makes it common to both Shias and Sunnis, and beyond tampering. It is not wise to imply that all texts are equal - or that we can find any justification in any text. Some texts are more potent than others because they are claimed to be inalienable, unalterable, core of belief and practice.

In trying to clear off the name of a faith, we should not deny explicit statements held to be unchallengeable because they come from the supreme law-giver. Yes it does not make all women "sex-slaves", but it also explicitly condones conversion of women into "sex-slaves". If you do not clarify that bit, the impression carried is that it generally does not support sex-slavery of women.

[RajeshA]

As regards the other two dogmas that I mentioned - the big difference is that these will be marketed as religion-based dogma, no question of any intellectual arguments out here. You will notice that the dogmas I specified are not generic statements (like "all Gods other than.." but specifically refer to Jesus and Allah, and to their adherants). Also, I don't think there is any regulation that bars spending say $50 Mil, and taking out full page ads in all major dailys and spots on prime-time TV that market the dogmas directly to the masses.....Has that ever happened ? If not, why not? Only because of imperfect competition in the marketplace of religious thought....a thousand new businesses are launched everyday in various countries that try out every trick known to mankind to advance their products - why is there no similar level of competition in the religions marketplace? Only if that level of competition and usage of sleazy techniques is used will it become obvious that, like businesses - it is very natural to have a regulatory code for religions.

The whole point is to provoke a 'public' debate involving the masses, as to what kind of regulation is acceptable.

Arjun ji,

If I understand you correctly, you would want a lot more exclusivist religions to come up, so that some discussion on exclusivism of religions takes place. You would want religions to start doing 24/7 tv commercials, so that somebody starts objecting to the nature of the marketplace of religions.

I find the line of reasoning a bit disturbing. It goes like this, "the painting is not perfect. I will get neighborhood kids to go to the gallery, give them graffiti spray cans in hand, and encourage them to completely ruin the painting. May be then the gallery would be willing to put up a perfect painting"!

As an extreme analogy, it reminds somewhat of Moonraker film, where Hugo Drax wants to destroy mankind and then to resettle the planet with perfect humans.

These all sound like Bhasmasura "strategies"!

IMO, if one stops the foreign funding of all religious groups in India, or for that matter, the purchase of ad space and tv spots in the media, one would not have to worry about the proselytization drives in India. These religions would not be able to generate such huge sums in India to finance their levels of missionary work.

At the level of society, I would simply encourage the Dharmics to become a lot more pro-active then they are now.

[RajeshA]

I would like to state again that we should look at theology of various religions here, only as far as they impinge on the indigenous cultures.

Perhaps other truths of various dogmas should have their own dedicated threads, like
o "Women's Equality & Emancipation - Global & Indian Trends"

... and one can discuss everything from the message from Da Vinci Code to Treatment of Women in various religions. Perhaps one may even see more women coming to BRF!

[Arjun]

I find the line of reasoning a bit disturbing. It goes like this, "the painting is not perfect. I will get neighborhood kids to go to the gallery, give them graffiti spray cans in hand, and encourage them to completely ruin the painting. May be then the gallery would be willing to put up a perfect painting"!

The analogy is not correct. Using spray cans to deface any kind of public property or property of another individual is against the law. What I am suggesting is all perfectly within the ambit of the law.

My point is very simple...there is no level playing field right now in the marketplace for religious ideas and regulation is an imperative. Regulating businesses (inspite of freedom of entrepreurship being an established tenet in the US) is considered very normal - but somehow regulating religions has been turned by vested interests into an unwinnable game of "The horror!! How can you go against the tenets of freedom of religion and freedom of religious propagation?!?! ".

My suggestion on the other hand results in a WIN-WIN whatever the response. Firstly, there would hopefully be a public debate on- if and whether, regulation of religious thought is important so as to avoid unpleasant exclusivistic sentiments being propagated globally. If the result of this debate is that regulation IS required on what types of exclusivist statemenets are kosher - then the world gains (lowers general level of intolerance in society) and Hinduism gains (removes unfair competitive techniques).

If on the other hand the consensus is that regulation is not required - then what we are left with is the exclusivist religion that I had mentioned would be setup- sort of a mirror image of Christianity / Islam - equally if not more exclusivist but aimed in the opposite direction. Does the world gain - maybe, maybe not. Does Hinduism gain - yes, this also levels the playing ground. And obviously if the majority opinion is that this exclusivism is acceptable - obviously there is no question of claiming that such a religion is unethical !

My final post on this matter.

[RajeshA]

then what we are left with is the exclusivist religion that I had mentioned would be setup- sort of a mirror image of Christianity / Islam - equally if not more exclusivist but aimed in the opposite direction. Does the world gain - maybe, maybe not. Does Hinduism gain - yes, this also levels the playing ground. And obviously if the majority opinion is that this exclusivism is acceptable - obviously there is no question of claiming that such a religion is unethical !

Exclusivism is acceptable to a large number of people. Christians and Muslims would of course belong to that group. But Hindus also. They don't give a damn what others think. Were it not so, one would see Hindus rise up in protest and simply ban other religions.

I for one don't give a damn about the "exclusivism" in any religion. I believe what I will. Let the others believe what they want, even if that includes that my beliefs are crap. I too can believe that their beliefs are crap.

There is nothing stopping one from starting an "exclusivist" Hinduism school. If he believed in it, he would not be waiting for some debate to prove him wrong. If he wanted just to provoke a debate, then he did not believe in it, then he need not start it at all. Why all these useless threats - "Stop being exclusivist, varna main bhi exclusivist ban jaoonga, haan!" He should just go ahead and become exclusivist. He doesn't need the sanction of the whole society to become one! May be it will catch on, and others too would jump on the bandwagon!

[JE Menon]

>>Agreed. I said neither whitewashing nor blackening. The fact that "right hand possessions" [who are not only sourced to be from war] are part of Al -Baqara, makes it common to both Shias and Sunnis, and beyond tampering. It is not wise to imply that all texts are equal - or that we can find any justification in any text. Some texts are more potent than others because they are claimed to be inalienable, unalterable, core of belief and practice.

We are diverting. See the statement which I asked Arjun to adapt, which he graciously suggested himself that he would do. Who implied "all texts are equal"? We can find a lot of rubbish in many of the religious texts, including our own, and people can trot that out here. This is precisely the problem I'm talking about. There is no one here who does not know that some are more potent, etc. But my question is, is it wise to go down that route? If posters think it is, be warned now that the thread will not last long. There are a lot of valuable posts here and it would be a shame to close it down. Restraint and sagacity. Hopefully no one considers this a point scoring exercise.

>>In trying to clear off the name of a faith, we should not deny explicit statements held to be unchallengeable because they come from the supreme law-giver.

Who is denying explicit statements?

>>Yes it does not make all women "sex-slaves", but it also explicitly condones conversion of women into "sex-slaves".

Exactly. Please read the statement of Arjun which he offered to edit. And we haven't even spoken of Christianity here, which was included in that sentence.

Once again, a request for people to exercise restraint and sensitivity and avoid rhetoric as much as possible. This is a delicate topic and we have past experience on the way such threads deteriorate. Lock and delete is easy, and I really want to avoid that in this case.

[brihaspati]

Slavery and enslavement, especially sex-slavery is a sensitive issue. I found it intriguing that "all religious texts" have similar "rubbish" -which when stated in the context of this particular practice- implies a common "rubbish" item in fact, especially where enslavement of a particular variety and purpose is claimed to be divinely condoned or recommended. Or that other texts have other "rubbish" which are equivalent to rules for right-hand-possessions. That equal equal is a misrepresentation - thats all. Very very difficult to find proof for sex-slavery as divinely - directly supreme being ordered and approved - in most major religions, except specifically two - and one mucho mucho more than the other. All the other major religions I know of - push this particular practice into a separate practical law, which also change over time, but never a direct order from the "supreme". It is rather insulting and denigrating for other faiths, to say that all their texts have this in common - as a direct injunction from their respective suprahuman authorities.

Arjun ji is also technically correct, without perhaps being unaware of it. Any good comprehensive text for that faiths personal law, in common to all four legal schools of one group and in common with the sects in the other group - would make it clear, that there is an exchange in monetary price involved, with explicit clarification of what that price is paid for, [which is about objectification of the body and use-value] and what possession rights it gives to the giver of the price. It is clearly stated in jurisprudence - for there are legal implications of that. It confirms the interpretation taken by Arjun ji.

I have simply pointed out technical errors.

Having said that, I do not want this to be the excuse for locking the thread either. Hopefully the discussion ends here and I will not add to this particular digression.

[Arjun]

Did not really want to continue on this theme on this thread, given it would be OT, but I feel I have to respond to one of your points.

Exclusivism is acceptable to a large number of people. Christians and Muslims would of course belong to that group. But Hindus also. They don't give a damn what others think. Were it not so, one would see Hindus rise up in protest and simply ban other religions.

The point about Hindus is patently wrong. After the loads and loads of arguments that you've had with me, and seen posts from Manny, Harbans and several others - you seriously think Hindus don't have a problem with exclusivism? They might not have a problem with the Sikh variety of monotheism that yet respects other's Gods, but they certainly do have a deep problem with Abrahamic exclusivism. Pluralism as in celebrating diverse paths to God - is the essense of Indic civilization, and you think religions that aim to restrict this are not looked down upon by Hindus? There are maybe a thousand articles on the net that talk about exclusivism as a serious problem from the Hindu perspective.

One reason Hindus have not developed the exclusivist religion that I talked about is simply because any such thought has been completely abhorrent to them, thus far.

On the issue of exclusivism, all I can say is - you have absolutely no idea what Indic civilization stands for.

[RajeshA]

Pluralism as in celebrating diverse paths to God - is the essense of Indic civilization, and you think religions that aim to restrict this are not looked down upon by Hindus?

Yes, we look down upon them. Let's continue to look down upon them. What is stopping us? Do we need laws, which permit us to look down upon them?

Just because we feel disgusted at crap, do we need a law which prohibits mankind from crapping?

On the issue of exclusivism, all I can say is - you have absolutely no idea what Indic civilization stands for.

If you wish to believe so ...!

BTW, isn't that exclusivism? It is like, only my understanding of Indic Civilization's thoughts on "exclusivism" are correct, all other are ...!

Just kidding, Arjun ji! No hard feelings, please!

[JE Menon]

>>That equal equal is a misrepresentation - thats all.

But the precise sentence which Arjun offered to correct isn't? The same kind of sensitivity we show towards our own, we must demonstrate towards others. Otherwise we demean our own.

By the way, this does not mean I'm opposed to putting up a stall in the Vatican walkways extolling the virtues of SD. Nor any harm in trying to convert their nuncios at every opportunity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I would personally, were I given the chance to have a conversation, try to convert Ratzinger himself. The point seems extreme, but people should try it with every evangelist or born again moron who comes your way in order to show you the only path to salvation.

>>Very very difficult to find proof for sex-slavery as divinely - directly supreme being ordered and approved - in most major religions, except specifically two - and one mucho mucho more than the other.

Exactly. And even in the one where it is not so difficult to find, there are cases made within the faith for different interpretations. This is why I'm calling for restraint and senstivity in the use of the language.

The other is that if it goes beyond a certain point of acceptability - which it can do, very quickly - once a statement like that is made, we will have to lock/delete the thread. And I really don't want to do that.

[Arjun]

Yes, we look down upon them. Let's continue to look down upon them. What is stopping us? Do we need laws, which permit us to look down upon them?

Just because we feel disgusted at crap, do we need a law which prohibits mankind from crapping?

Well, I was responding specifically to your statement that Hindus don't have a problem with exclusivism. That is wrong - they do. Certainly there are folks like yourself and others who might not have a problem with it themselves, and there is nothing wrong in having an opinion that differs from the majority stance - but what is wrong is to misrepresent what the majority feeling is.

The crapping analogy is again no good because unfortunately it is a basic human need , its not a matter of choice like say exclusivism is....

As regards laws I have a specific suggestion that gells with the cultural protection theme - I will address it in a separate post.

BTW, isn't that exclusivism? It is like, only my understanding of Indic Civilization's thoughts on "exclusivism" are correct, all other are ...!

Exclusivism has a very precise definition in my mind - similar to the way 'discrimination' is in the statutes. 'Discrimination' under the law does not apply to anything and everything but only to certain specific groups and types of situations...Discrimination based on merit for example is perfectly legal and obviously something I would strongly support....similarly 'exclusivism' based on intellectual arguments or matters of doctrine other than religious symbols is not a problem in the least.

Just kidding, Arjun ji! No hard feelings, please!

No worries, no hard feelings at all !

[RajeshA]

Yes, we look down upon them. Let's continue to look down upon them. What is stopping us? Do we need laws, which permit us to look down upon them?

Just because we feel disgusted at crap, do we need a law which prohibits mankind from crapping?

Well, I was responding specifically to your statement that Hindus don't have a problem with exclusivism. That is wrong - they do. Certainly there are folks like yourself and others who might not have a problem with it themselves, and there is nothing wrong in having an opinion that differs from the majority stance - but what is wrong is to misrepresent what the majority feeling is.

My discussion of exclusivism with you is in a very specific context - exclusivism as a basis of a legal injunction to force "exclusivist" faiths to abandon their exclusivism dogma and accept multiple paths to God!

You may have seen my earlier concurrence that exclusivism by the "exclusivist" faiths does irritate and offend Hindus. Now I claimed that the majority of the Hindus are not bothered by exclusivism enough to demand that the State forces these religious minorities to give up their "exclusivist" dogma. Otherwise we would have seen Hindus going on the streets demanding this. But nothing like this is happening.

You are saying that Hindus are so pissed off by the "exclusivism" of these "exclusivist" faiths, that that is exactly what they want. Who is misrepresenting the majority then?

If you use "exclusivism" and "discrimination" to mean something specific, then through our discussion, you should know by now, that it too means something specific, and that it is "exclusivism" in the context of "formalizing a law to ban it"!

[Arjun]

Rajeshji, I would say your idea of focusing on the downstream effects of proseletyzation is not a bad idea at all - I commend you for moving forward on the theme on this thread.

Lets move on from our earlier discussion - I have a suggestion to make regarding the cultural protection bill, that I hope would be an acceptable formulation - how about broadening somewhat the scope of the proposed bill from 'Protection of Indigenous Cultures' to 'Protection of Indigenous Cultures and Communal Harmony'.

Rationale- The two main complaints against proseletyzation has been that (a) it leads to destruction of native cultures and (b) it promotes communal disharmony. Since banning proseletyzation would be against the spirit of liberalism, it is proposed that proseletyzation continue to be an allowed activity, with the caveat that it should only be conducted in a manner such that it does not lead to either (a) or (b) above.

(a) is something you are already working on and defining more rigorously - so I will not get into that aspect in this post.

As regards (b), it has been observed that proselytization often seeks to instil an 'us vs. them' attitude in the new converts where the new converts begin to see themselves as part of a separate grouping from the rest of his/her brethren in the original place of residence. More particularly, since countless wars have been fought down the ages in the name of one's Gods, and God is probably the most emotive and deeply personal issue of all in a religion's doctrine - it is proposed to explicitly state that proseletyzation should not lead to disrespect for those God/ Gods worshipped by the person or by his community prior to the process of conversion.

If its OK with you, I think adding the above would be a good way to cover the two biggest complaints that one often runs into in respect of proselytization.

Adding the phrase 'protection of communal harmony' will also be hugely useful in opening doors in India - communal harmony is top of mind for the government in India, and they are bound to give a patient hearing to any solution that has this magic phrase included.

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

as of now, AFAIU they are trying to push through some law, which would ban all forms of religious discussions on the pretext that it would raise communal passions. Some people are afraid of the argumentative Indian, afraid that he could say something which would open the doors of 'hell' in India.

'Communal Harmony', I believe has been appropriated by those who have caved in to fundamentalist voices, voices who do not wish their religions to be analyzed or criticized.

If you wish to follow the line of "Protection of Communal Harmony", you would have to distill your arguments in a way, which would not allow an abuse of the law, an appropriation by hijacking its spirit.

[Arjun]

Agreed. And therefore the advantage to keep the definition very narrowly restricted only to God - which also happens to be the most emotive part of the entire package that is called 'religion'. It is true that such a definition will then disallow all questioning of Gods of any religion in the name of 'communal harmony' - but that I think is a small price to pay for something which is frankly not very inconsistent with the Indian tradition of pluralsim AND more importantly, all other aspects of religion are kept outside the scope of this law so these can then be criticized by anyone to their heart's content if they so choose to.

One of the problems you might run into is that, since 'culture' cannot be defined equally narrowly - there would need to be a much broader canvas of elements that would have to be accorded 'respect' by the convertee.

[RajeshA]

Only thing different faiths treat God differently and some may not even have a God being. Some would consider the Prophet as part and parcel of God, as God chose the Prophet. Some would consider the Holy Books as God.

Arjun ji,
this is indeed a theological labyrinth. One would have to look for formulations which all can understand in a similar way, and the interpretations are not different, depending on the faith of the interpreter.

[brihaspati]

JE Menon ji,
in fact for one faith Arjun ji is correct. Theologically justified legal arguments in the past in the other faith - also had similar interpretations, and documentary evidence for this exists. For the faith for which even currently Arjun ji is correct - all interpretations - within jurisprudence, agree on one point - as to what the mahr price is paid for - the unlimited and unrestricted possession and enjoyment of the booza - the right of "use" of which no longer rests with the woman's control. From this the Hedaya, and the version commonly consulted by all current sharia schools - make clear cut legal conclusions. A slave is one who has no rights over his/her body, or the products of that body and mind and labour or use of that body. But this is unique to this faith and not found in other texts/legal authorities based on faith. And it is not rubbish as it is accepted as a jurisprudencially valid interpretation within current legal canons of that faith.

Some time ago this came up in legal cases in at least two "western" countries. Where the defendant hubbies claimed right to protect their "cultural values" exactly on this point - of legal sanction for their "rights" according to the Sharia - and that the mahr buys the "use" of the woman's body, so marital rape is invalid for them. People can explore what the reactions of the courts were, and why some legal luminaries in very "western" judicial circles have toyed with the idea of making special "sharia" provisions within western legal framework to extend "cultural protection" to this beleaguered "minority" whose exemplary cultural rights are being encroached on.

[shivajisisodia]

Great thread. Perhaps the following questions are relevent at this point in time.

1) When we talk about cultural protection, let us clarify. We are talking about preservation of distinct cultural practices. These cultural practices are distinct from what we can term as "the global culture", which today is primarily Western culture with some elements from almost all other cultures around the world. So, really on the one hand we have the global western based culture and on the other, distinct cultures of the rest of the world.

2) The question arises, in 2011 AD, how relevent is it to talk about cultural preservation of these distinct cultures ? Is it even possible to preseve these cultures in the global environment of today ? If so, to what extent is it possible to preserve such cultures ? And, whether it is possible or not, is it desirable to preserve these distinct cultures, or is it desirable to move towards a global culture, one human culture ? If so, how feasible is it to have one global culture ?

3) If the answer is, that yes, it is desirable to at least preserve the positive elements of every culture, from the onslaught of one, minimalist, lowest common denominator global culture, then should the Hindus not think about preservation of elements of our culture ?

4) And if the answer to #3 above is yes, then the question is, what elements are desirable to preserve and what would be the game plan (strategy) for preserving these elements of the Hindu culture ? In other words, how exactly will we successfully preserve the Hindu culture ?

5) Again, if it is desirable to preserve, at least some elements of Hindu culture, the question arises, whether it can be done within the context of having no "homeland" for the Hindus ? In other words, will it ever be possible to preserve meaningful parts of Hindu culture in a world where there is no Hindu Nation ?

6) And even if it is theoretically possible to preserve Hindu culture in a world without a homeland for Hindus, if Hindu Nation is one of the easier framework to preserve the Hindu culture, should not the feasibility and practicality of such an option be explored and considered, particularly in a forum like this ?

7) And if the practicality and feasiblity and the desirability of a Hindu Nation should be explored, then clearly the two major questions that should be explored are, 1) How it will come about and 2) Who will take the lead in it

I have only asked questions to stimulate some thoughts, and now I will make just one statement. It is perfectly fine, if the idea of a Hindu Nation or preservation of Hindu culture is rejected, or even discussion of it is rejected, even rejected out of hand. I do hope, however, that it is not rejected for the reason that we as Hindus suffer from insecurities that by being unabashadly proclaiming ourselves as Hindus, we will be considered backward, not with times, akin to Paki, that we will be ridiculed in the dominant media, western media, etc. That if the idea is rejected, it is done for the correct logical reasons and from a position of strength, not a position of weakness.

[RajeshA]

Great thread. Perhaps the following questions are relevent at this point in time.

1) When we talk about cultural protection, let us clarify. We are talking about preservation of distinct cultural practices. These cultural practices are distinct from what we can term as "the global culture", which today is primarily Western culture with some elements from almost all other cultures around the world. So, really on the one hand we have the global western based culture and on the other, distinct cultures of the rest of the world.

The global culture is primarily oriented towards consumer culture, work culture, lifestyle, and globalized culinary and entertainment intake. Globalized refers to the fact that some cultural or culinary product of one place is consumed elsewhere.

2) The question arises, in 2011 AD, how relevent is it to talk about cultural preservation of these distinct cultures ? Is it even possible to preseve these cultures in the global environment of today ? If so, to what extent is it possible to preserve such cultures ? And, whether it is possible or not, is it desirable to preserve these distinct cultures, or is it desirable to move towards a global culture, one human culture ? If so, how feasible is it to have one global culture ?

Of all this we will be both consumers and producers. However whether we are net producers, or considered to be a soft-power powerhouse would also depend on the richness and diversity of what we can offer the world. The unique things we offer the world would in the end define us to the rest of the world. It in fact makes business sense to preserve as much culture we can of the past, even if it is in the form of celebration of our old customs and practices only at certain times of the year or only at certain occasions.

It is okay to consume the culture of the rest of the world and to experience it. The main thing is that we are the biggest game in town.

3) If the answer is, that yes, it is desirable to at least preserve the positive elements of every culture, from the onslaught of one, minimalist, lowest common denominator global culture, then should the Hindus not think about preservation of elements of our culture ?

Hindus should be extremely pro-active in preservation of our culture. We should consider it our treasure.

4) And if the answer to #3 above is yes, then the question is, what elements are desirable to preserve and what would be the game plan (strategy) for preserving these elements of the Hindu culture ? In other words, how exactly will we successfully preserve the Hindu culture ?

Indigenous culture would have to be defined - most appropriately at the district level in India. Each community in India would be asked to submit, which indigenous elements of its culture, it wants to declare as requiring recognition and protection. Nothing should be taken for granted.

For a culturally rich and diverse country such as India, it should even be a priority.

A committee would consider whether the submissions meet the criteria of being indigenous elements of our civilization.

Citizens should be able to approach an "Indian Commission for the Preservation of Indigenous Culture" and lodge a complaint if some process or group tries to "destroy" these cultural elements, by either talking people into ignoring them or doing away with them or speaking ill of these elements for the purpose of terminating their upkeep.

5) Again, if it is desirable to preserve, at least some elements of Hindu culture, the question arises, whether it can be done within the context of having no "homeland" for the Hindus ? In other words, will it ever be possible to preserve meaningful parts of Hindu culture in a world where there is no Hindu Nation ?

India is the national embodiment of the Indian Civilization. The cultural elements addressed earlier belong to this civilization. As such India is the preserver, the protector of all the culture from this civilization. It is simply India's responsibility. It belongs to what a state, in this case India, holds dear, things like - territorial integrity, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, market access, law & order, ideological fidelity firewall, indigenous culture, linguistic health, etc, and needs to protect. Preservation of culture is a secular responsibility. It has nothing to do with faith, belief systems, religion or anything.

For the faithful, many aspects of the religion would be a matter of faith, while for the state these are cultural elements only. For the faithful, it would be theology, while the state deals with it as mythology. The state is only interested in the form and symbology, while the faithful are interested in the essence. This allows the state to remain secular and still act as protector of cultural heritage.

6) And even if it is theoretically possible to preserve Hindu culture in a world without a homeland for Hindus, if Hindu Nation is one of the easier framework to preserve the Hindu culture, should not the feasibility and practicality of such an option be explored and considered, particularly in a forum like this ?

You are welcome to do so. However I feel, dharma/religion is best protected if it is done by the society and the state is left out of this. The state should keep its distance from religion. That is my personal view. Of course the Constitution is free to built using the essence of the teachings, as long as one can argue that those values are universal.

7) And if the practicality and feasiblity and the desirability of a Hindu Nation should be explored, then clearly the two major questions that should be explored are, 1) How it will come about and 2) Who will take the lead in it

In the future I can see two Hindu states eventually coming up - Nepal and Bangabhumi (in Chittagong Hills).

I have only asked questions to stimulate some thoughts, and now I will make just one statement. It is perfectly fine, if the idea of a Hindu Nation or preservation of Hindu culture is rejected, or even discussion of it is rejected, even rejected out of hand. I do hope, however, that it is not rejected for the reason that we as Hindus suffer from insecurities that by being unabashadly proclaiming ourselves as Hindus, we will be considered backward, not with times, akin to Paki, that we will be ridiculed in the dominant media, western media, etc. That if the idea is rejected, it is done for the correct logical reasons and from a position of strength, not a position of weakness.

However India should remain secular and work tirelessly towards strengthening our military strength, technological know-how, economy and trying to bring our population out of illiteracy and poverty. We have a big diversity in India and we should not put it under strain.

However certain groups in India should work single-mindedly towards Dharmification of India and even the world but at the level of society, just as they work for the establishment of these two Hindu states.