Bharat Rakshak

Exactly..we have a classic case of projection going on here. This attempt to play the bhesthern doeniger role is also amusing "myth of indian epics", "cult of Rama/Shiva" etc lol. Comparisons to TSP to boot and attempting to make them pandavas and kauravas and what not. it'd be humorous but for the sheer err..narcissism of it all.

Re. shiv Post subject: Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative senPostPosted: 12 Nov 2014 19:46

Shiv ji, this is exactly why I keep resisting you (unsuccessfully ) from trying to bring too much out into the arena of arguments. It is obvious that people will have their internal gyros in different orientation w.r.t. the plane, to try to figure out the normal orientation. Merely a difference in the perception of which particular aspect is important at what time should not become the final benchmark in figuring out our 'overall positions'.

I don't think you can be convinced. Here for your consumption/consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPFdLWPJGck


Also notice no comments on the channel. Shows something about how things really are. Really as in not getting affected by how a few feel about Hindu Nationalism. Really as in how they do not at all, care for anything but their own lives. These are people who have already taken charge of the least they should, their own lives. It is not important what the other guy thinks I am. What is important is what I think I am and my actions in that regard.

And I bet while there is a massive difference in the positions/opinions/habits/observances, of every single person who was a witness to the lady walking down the street, almost 75% of them would be observant Hindus, at least 30% would be voters or votaries of Hindu Nationalism and at least 100% are going to be dependent on Hindu Nationalism for their futures (again). Hindu Nationalism as already pointed out by RajeshA ji has a context and grows on what came before it and will naturally take its own course in our Sabhyataa.

whats amusing about the above video is how quickly they copy maared some stupid stunt pulled in NY (which incidentally mostly showed hispanics and african americans as the culprits with slick editing) and seem to have been taken by surprise by the results. its classic case of always see something, do something, no idea of what or why.

It is ok for people to be interested in finding out the different - Magie Hot & Sweet - Its different. Sells well too. What is not healthy is to begin obsessing about it.

We can safely ignore the fact the 10 hour walk was a copy cat effort with no brains. But in the two videos there is a world of education that cannot and should not be missed.

Here is another video of "The Story of a Man Who Faked Insanity" which shows how we should not at all approach the contentious subjects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7eAo-qkvw


If you have already watched it then you could revise what is suggested between around 12-15 minutes.

Dont get what you are saying. can you be more concise or clearer? or post a gist. nobody is obsessing about anything - unless you think that merely critiquing the indophobia that exists is obsessing

the problem with the above vid is that its basically a rip off of a video from abroad with completely pointless comparison which luckily turned out well, otherwise there has been enough stereotyping about india and its culture already thanks to the MSM and an ever ready stream of people willing to believe the worst about other countries etc. have been seeing a bunch of these sort of vids on copy cat indian sites recently. qz.com, scroll.in - one is an US democrat supporters site on indian affairs, other is a posh version of countercurrents.org .. as soon as the "internet hindus" started winning the sm war.. the narrative is sought to be changed. interesting times.

RajeshA wrote:

Harpal Bector wrote:I feel this is just opening a can of worms.
It is best to let this lie and pick a different brand that works better for the next fifty years.

Jiski Laathi uski geography !Thorra Aanne wale Waqat ko Aaane Dho. Holy Or Gollie choice will make easy transition into right Boli.

The new poster on this thread reminded me of one Somnathji on BRF.

^^^The one and only Supercomprehension man?

Internet Hindus have won the war they needed to this year. For the next big battle there is still some time left to go. This is the time to help convert people instead of going in for more confrontations. People are looking for a reason to change. Not everybody who is not a Hindu Nationalist is in league with the anti-nationals or even anti-hindus. Most of them are just confused and without choices (a yet untouched part of India). The lists help when you have to make a short job of the opponent which was before May 2014. Then there is a time to sue for peace aka time to catch breath for the next campaign aka time to get the people who could become collateral damage, out of the way and refocus on a narrower opposition. If we have to force fit people into lists even today, then that beats the purpose of the fight and instead directs all our problems back at us.

Also it does not brings any benefits to the Hindu Nationalists to force people into the 'list or death' kind of situation. We have already seen so many big people change tack after May 14 that it is guaranteed their followers will change too.

In the case of the video of 10 hour walks the answer to all the questions is admitted by these western inspired/trained journalists. The bulk of India does not work in a way that can be theorized by western inspired/trained people. Patient people can be very demanding and India is a patient people. With too much focus on countercurrents.org types, we forget that most people who think they oppose or couldn't care any less for the Hindu Nationalism, are actually merely people wishing for fresh choices. Instead of arguing, within themselves or even against the weak opponents (who would not take it to next level) Hindu Nationalists would only lose time to focus on the larger crowd out there. Wrong choices. Hindu Nationalist who is merely a subset of the Hindus and Bharatiyas is not going to gain more without taking it all to the larger masses and instead restricting the argumentation to a smaller forum. The new government is already working in this direction. The Internet Hindus are the ones getting left behind the main agenda of affecting the people in general instead of being particular about nitty-gritties.

See I can talk only of myself. I never felt it a pejorative to be defined a Hindu Nationalist which I am called by people at the office. Despite all the stereotyping in the MSM and Bollywood, of which I remain aware. Probably there are some who do feel otherwise. But getting a list out and starting to check mark the points will end up a funny effort esp. considering the out-of-office mailer from the IT Cell.


.............

@Jhujar ji, the above two guys are talking about you .

ravi g, the problem is there are people who think they are too sophisticated and post highly intellectual sounding gibberish - like "cult of Rama", cult of "Murugan (son of Shiva)" (as if folks here dont know who Murugan is) and do stupid equal equals with TSP & think they are somehow conning people into becoming the usual INC types "oh so secoolar yaar" to conform to their limited worldview. using some silly terminology borrowed from elsewhere to introduce fake divisions in indian society ("cults") just shows the mindset. its always ok to curse, disparage one's own people.

INC their favorite lost, so lets make these nationalist indoos, INC and oh so nice yaar. make them "tolerant" and realize they are just one step away from TSP yaar. here, my highly intellectual argooments will convince these poor sods.

they dont get the fact they are talking to people who too have used their own thinking caps and come to their own choices. as long as that occurs, they provide a fascinating insight into how their mind works.

they have no problems with all sorts of people appropriating indian culture and making it their own. they have very little issues with those people then passing judgement on hindus and even claiming to know more about india and hinduism than the original inhabitants.

but they have huge issues with hindus claiming ownership.

a self confident and unapologetic indian society scares them because such a society no longer needs these sophisticates to act as their interlocutors with the wider world. it no longer gives them the gravitas to be considered the betters of a chaiwallah who rises to the top despite all the pish posh types.

and they project & pass these phobias on to others - some of whom anyways hate Indians but others who are impressionable.

enough is enough and we no longer need these mishras or roys or bectors to tell us about what to believe.

Yes Karan M ji,

what you observe is right. Also like you I am also focused on the impressionable s. Hence the general request to all the members on this thread, to be charitable esp. in cases where there is a shubh history involved with a member (who was not Harpal Bector ji, BTW).

Also I too had seen the particular post that you take exception to and knew the guy is exposing himself. All I am asking for in such cases, is not to set a tiger against a mouse. We should be enjoying our outings to be able to convert people and harvest some souls. What would you play with, next, if you kill all the fun so soon. Instead we should be thinking of allowing more self-exposure.

>>This claim of being the fountainhead cannot be historically substantiated.

Well, the easiest way is to name another more appropriate fountainhead. Feel free.

Harpal Bector wrote: Without a historical cut-off the "sacred geography" cannot be defined.

The closest we have come to this in recent memory has been the attempt by the Cult of Shakti to define 52 locations where the pieces of the body of the Goddess fell. These 52 sacred locations (or peethas) define a geographically connected landmass creating an effective "sacred geography". This prescription may seem too sectarian for some people who do not subscribe to the ideas of the cult of Shakti.

The cults of Shiva/Oesho speak of a "sacred geography" that encompass modern day Central Asia.

The cults of Murugan (the son of Shiva) speak of a body of faith that straddles most of modern south-east Asia.

The cult of King Rama can easily lay claim to all of modern Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar as part of a "sacred geography".

The Pakistani Army's Ashraf Biradaries claim to be the true inheritors (and therefore masters) of the legacy and land of the Pandava clans. And despite professing that they have "come into the light" - they strongly adhere to kshatriya caste maryada as defined by the conduct of the Pandava Princes in Mahabharata. They go to great lengths to indicate that their "coming into the light" was merely a way to rid the "sacred geography" of a kuru-dynasty style misrule.

While this "sacred" Pandava land is poorly defined geographically, the Mahabharat and Ramayana are the national epics of Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. As my relative who lives there once told me - the Indonesians see these as *their* myths that were borrowed by the people who call themselves "Indians".

Well there a big difference some of us still like to be associated with what we actually were rather than what we are told to be today by people whose narrative by and large has been influenced by outsiders .

Btw what is this Aman ki Asha attempt of mentioning Pakistani Army and Kshatriya mariyada in same sentence ? Those chootiyas cannot even pronounce Kshatriya properly.

JE Menon wrote:>>This claim of being the fountainhead cannot be historically substantiated.

Well, the easiest way is to name another more appropriate fountainhead. Feel free.

apparently it is indonesia

^^No that's not serious. It's an anecdote.

In reality, with the best knowledge available at the moment, nothing can sustain a case that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma has its birth elsewhere - not without conclusively proving that the Vedas, the Upanishads, etc originated elsewhere. Technically of course everything originated in Africa, after the first homo sapiens farted and the guy next to him tried to make the same sound with his mouth!!! But that's no argument.

negi wrote:Btw what is this Aman ki Asha attempt of mentioning Pakistani Army and Kshatriya mariyada in same sentence ? Those chootiyas cannot even pronounce Kshatriya properly.

full Aman ki Asha onlee. from post #1 drawing tenuous parallels between Indians and TSP, claiming that "some" yindoo nationalists are as bad as those meanie ashrafs (throwing around brf terminology apparently makes everything intellectooal) and now its how TSP is all about pandavas and kshatriyas and what not..so indoos in india cannot really claim their "myths" are local. apparently "cults" are widespread.
romila thapar on highest grade hallucinogens couldnt have done better in project equal-equalitis.

I obviously speak only for myself but somehow I feel I am not the only one who questions the need to do this.

I may be a minority on this forum in asking for a cost benefit evaluation of this proposal, but that is hardly out of the ordinary.

JEM - I don't think there is a fountainhead that can be claimed with any historical accuracy. To demand that there is historical accuracy is to ask too much of the documentary evidence. The only thing that is left here is to generate an arbitrary cutoff and just label anyone outside the geographical cutoff as irrelevant. People have done that sort of thing from time to time, but
when one does that one just alienates a bunch of potential investors and that adds to the cost side of the balance sheet. In time the costs catch up and I just don't think it is worthwhile to alienate potential investors. More investors in my view means spreading the risks across a wider base.

Negi - w.r.t the Pakistanis, one may disagree with what they have deemed religiously acceptable/necessary but one cannot deny that they have gone to great lengths to secure sanction from their religious castes. They have done their due diligence. And yes there is clear evidence of them having violated the bounds of good conduct, but even in myths that has happened.

And if it is that much of a struggle to come up with a non-toxic brand to use for the next 50 years - then quite frankly regardless of who the pilot is - this flight is not going to be very smooth.

Why not just leave the past behind on this?

Start with a blank sheet and ask yourselves what would you like to see in India in the next fifty years.

The brand will emerge naturally from that.

prahaar wrote:The new poster on this thread reminded me of one Somnathji on BRF.

This one sounds more, er, "maverick"-y

Harpal Bector wrote:Start with a blank sheet and ask yourselves what would you like to see in India in the next fifty years. The brand will emerge naturally from that.

In Case of Paki , Kaaua Challa Haans Ki Chaal and In case of India, Haans Na Karre Kaaua Jaise Baat.
Only The Blank Sheeters having nothing worth can start over a blank sheet. Indic wont and this is Indic Exceptionalism, Ancient Indian Brand (AIB) . Time to ask is gone, time to advise is now and time to tell will be tomorrow and after that 'Jo Arre Woh Charre, Jo Kharre Woh Marre". From lowly simple man to Lofty idealist in India are all sensing the millenium long waited change. Whichever part is not understood by few is not issue any more, after all not everyone is from perfect continuum like indics are.

If starting from a blank slate is that hard for people then the idea of a new India is stillborn.

One can rest easy in the knowledge that the true aukadh to turn the knob really doesn't exist. People might fiddle with the knob but the feedback built into the system will restore it to its original position.

Discussing the sources of negative perceptions about Hindu Nationalism is perfectly fine - nothing is going to come of it.

ravi_g wrote:It is ok for people to be interested in finding out the different - Magie Hot & Sweet - Its different. Sells well too. What is not healthy is to begin obsessing about it.

We can safely ignore the fact the 10 hour walk was a copy cat effort with no brains. But in the two videos there is a world of education that cannot and should not be missed.

Here is another video of "The Story of a Man Who Faked Insanity" which shows how we should not at all approach the contentious subjects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7eAo-qkvw

If you have already watched it then you could revise what is suggested between around 12-15 minutes.

Ravi, did you see the link between the first video and the second?

I have a lot to say about that NooYawk/copy Mumbai video - but not for this thread. What I will say for this thread is that the first video exposes exactly what the guy says from 12-15 minutes in the TED video 2. And let me also say how these are relevant to what I am doing.

The New York/Mumbai videos are not science. In science the conclusion could be "The woman passed by 60,000 people in New York and 60 passed comments. More than 99.9% of New Yorkers do not comment. There is no statistically significant difference between New York and Mumbai"

This conclusion may be right or wrong, but it at least tries to take into account the people who do not attract attention by commenting in New York. The man in the TED video admits to exactly the opposite in that area between 12-15 minutes - but never mind that. The point is that "being good, nice and "normal" is never noticed. It is the deviants who attract attention that are used to smear people.

Technically "haters, bigots and murderers" are deviants. If Hindu Nationalists are being clubbed deviants, is it because Hindu Nationalism represents such deviant behavior or is it because the deviants are being utilized to smear an entire group.

What do you think?

In psychology, training helps to be both very destructive and very constructive. It is expected that certain trained people (such as doctors) should restrict themselves to constructive use, but certainly in the US this has not been the case. I think that "Broadmoor case" in the TED video is one where the psychiatrist screwed the inmate royally for trying to be too clever. The doctor had nothing to lose. There may be some link with dharma in this topic but it is a digression.

Harpal Bector wrote:If starting from a blank slate is that hard for people then the idea of a new India is stillborn.

One can rest easy in the knowledge that the true aukadh to turn the knob really doesn't exist. People might fiddle with the knob but the feedback built into the system will restore it to its original position.

Discussing the sources of negative perceptions about Hindu Nationalism is perfectly fine - nothing is going to come of it.

Bectorji, if nothing will come of it then no one needs to pay any attention to this discussion.

But may I point out a contradiction in your post above? You ask that we must start with a blank slate. A blank slate means that there is no "previous state" that one could reset to from that blank slate. But in the very next sentence you are saying that people who reset the knob will find that the knob returns to the previous state. How can you start with a blank slate under the circumstances?

i will answer that question because it has been answered by dozens of societies over thousands of years.

A "blank slate" for a society can be achieved by destroying all its previous knowledge, memories, culture and memes. Unfortunately what happens next is also well known. the "blank slate society" that remains after such a catastrophe simply adopts the ways and knowledge of the society that destroyed the old one.

For example, if there were pagan societies in Europe, they were replaced by the Church. Pagan societies in Arabia too were wiped clean and replaced with a blank slate upon which was written the goodness of the religion of peace. This happened in Persia as well - but the slate was not rubbed clean.

The dirtiest slate was left behind in India. That dirt is being exposed as "Hindu nationalism" don't you think?

I think one should start with the basics:
What is Hindhuism? Who are Hindhus?
I think Vedhas are the foundation of Hindhuism.

johneeG wrote: In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.

-----
Then, there are Tantras or Agamas. The Tantras like Darshanas(Philosophies) can also be Vedic or Non-Vedic. All the Tantras/Agamas (or the aspects of Tantras) that are in consonance with Vedas are acceptable. Rest are rejected.

The Tantras also claim their origin from divine beings. Even so, if the teachings are contradictory to Vedas, they are rejected.
-----

Then, there are Smritis or Dharma Shaastras. Smritis are authored by the Rishis. They deal with the rules of conduct. There are several Smritis.

The general rule is that the whole (or part) of a Smriti which is conflicting with Vedas is rejected.

-----

Then, there are Itihasaas(Ramayana & Mahabharatha) along with the 18 Puranas and 18 Upa-Puranas. Generally, they can be treated similar to Dharma Shaastras.

-----

Finally, there are traditions of family. Each family follow certain traditions and customs which it has inherited from its ancestors. These traditions are also acceptable and encouraged as long as they are not in conflict with the above mentioned scriptural teachings.

------

IMHO, the above is the outline of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

Link to post

Whenever this definition of Hindhuism is given out, people generally object that lot of Hindhus may have never heard about Vedhas and other aspects. The answer is that they may not have heard the names and definitions but traditionally(i.e. inherited from fathers and fore-fathers), they follow the ideas prescribed by these aspects of Hindhuism.

And all of these various aspects have Vedhas as their basis. Everything in Hindhuism is up for debate as long as one can prove one's point using pramanas.

What are Pramanas?

johneeG wrote:Pramana means 'means of knowing a truth'.

There are 3 pramanas:
a) observation (Prathyakshya)
b) words of others (Shabdha or Aptha-Vakya Pramana)
c) inference (anumaana)

Observation (Prathyaksha) and words of others (Shabdha) form 'facts'.
Inference (anumaana) forms 'theories/hypothesis/opinion'.

Link to post

The most authentic Shabdha pramana is supposed to be Vedhas.
Of course, nothing can beat the direct observation i.e Prathyakshya.

The above 3 are major Pramanas.

johneeG wrote:There are twelve kinds of pramANa accepted by various darshanas:

1. pratyakSha
2. anumAna
3. upamAna
4. shabda/Agama
5. arthApatti
6. anupalabdhi
7. itihAsa
8. sambhava
9. aitihya
10. abhAva
11. cheShTA
12. yukti

nArayaNa summarizes the pramANas accepted by various schools in mAnameyodaya thus:

chArvAkAstAvadekaM dvitayamapi punarbauddhavaisheShikau dvau
bhAsarvaj~nashcha sA~NkhyastritayamudayanAdyashchuShkaM vadanti |
prAhuH prAbhAkarAH pa~nchakamapi cha vayaM te.api vedAntavij~nAH
ShaTkaM paurANikAstvaShTakamabhidadhire sambhavaitihyayogAt ||

chArvAka: pratyakSha
bauddha, vaisheShika: pratyakSha, anumAna
sAMkhya: pratyakSha, anumAna, shabda
nyAya, tarka: pratyakSha, anumAna, shabda, upamAna
prAbhAkara: pratyakSha, anumAna, shabda, upamAna, arthApatti
bhATTa, vedAnta: pratyakSha, anumAna, shabda, upamAna, arthApatti, anupalabdhi
paurANika: pratyakSha, anumAna, shabda, upamAna, arthApatti, anupalabdhi, sambhava, aitihya

There are other pramANas accepted by certain darshanas such as parishesha, svabhAva li~Nga etc.
Link

Link to post

So, theoretically, anyone can propose any idea as long as he can back it up using pramanas and showing its basis in Vedhas. Then that idea would be part of Hindhuism. Other Hindhus have the freedom to refute that idea using Pramanas and showing that it is not supported by Vedhas. Simple.

Is Hindhuism connected to any particular geography or history?
Strictly speaking, no.

johneeG wrote:The only religion that is not history centric is Hinduism. And this is attributable to the concept of Vedas being eternal according to Hinduism. If Vedas had a human author, then even Hinduism would have become history centric. If Vedas were born at particular event, then that particular moment would have become historically important for Hindus. If Vedas were born at a particular place, then that place would have become historically important for Hindus.

Everything else, in all religions(including Hinduism) is history centric. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are history centric. Rama is born at Ayodhya. That place is an important pilgrimage for Hindus. Sri Krishna was born on Janmashtami, that date is important for Hindus. This is history-centricism as far as I understand.

The only differentiating factor between all other creeds and Hinduism is Vedas. Hinduism started with Vedas. This is the reason, Hinduism is never going to accept that Vedas are created by Human authors. Hinduism is never going to accept that Vedas are born in particular time or place. At best, one can only discover Veda by revelation. Yajnavalkya was revealed Krishna Yajur Veda by Surya. Essentially, Surya passed down Krishna Yajur Veda to Yajnavalkya. Neither Surya nor Yajnavalkya created Krishna Yajur Veda. Even Brahma does not create Vedas. They simply manifest, according to Hinduism.

Link to post

So, strictly speaking, Hindhuism is not limited to any particular time, location, circumstance or object.

Does that mean there are no sacred geographies, times, circumstances and objects in Hindhuism?
Hindhuism has sacred geographies.
Hindhuism has sacred times.
Hindhuism has sacred circumstances.
Hindhuism has sacred objects.

For example, Kailasa, Ayodhya, Mathura, Kaashi, Somnaath, Raameshwaram, ...etc are sacred holy places.

One can see Shakthi-peethas and Jyothirlingas which clearly are based on sacred geography.

Just to give an idea about the spread of this geography:

These are 51 Shakthi-peetas.

Actually, there are a total of 108 according to Puraanas. But, only some are identified. There are many which are spread all over the place. One thing is certain, they are in the are of Bharatha-Varsha.

What is Bharatha-Varsha?

Approximately, the colored part is Bharatha-Varsha.

This is treated as sacred geography in Hindhu epics and literature. Having said that, wherever Hindhus stay, they worship the nature and the geography becomes sacred over a period of time.

Still, the connection that Hindhuism has with Bharatha-Varsha cannot be ignored regardless of whether one likes it or not.

For example, Alps and Himalayas both may be snow-clad mountains. But Himalayas are treated as sacred places by Hindhus while Alps are treated as just beautiful locations.

Can Alps become sacred?
Yes. If Hindhus settle down in and around Alps. If there are Pujas and Yagnyas and Thapas in Alps. Then, at some point, it will be treated as holy place. Any place can become holy but it requires some time and certain conditions.

Now, what is nationalism?

wiki wrote:Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.[1]

Wiki Link

So, nationalism is a sense of loyalty to nation.

So, what is a nation?

wiki wrote:Nation has various meanings, and the meaning has changed over time. The concept of "nation" is related to "ethnic community" or ethnie. An ethnic community has a myth of origins and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests.[1]

Wiki Link

So, broadly, nation means a cultural or political or ethnic community.

Then, what is Hindhu nationalism?
Hindhu nationalism would be a loyalty to Hindhu community's cultural, ethnic and political interests. What is wrong with this kind of loyalty?

Please notice that neither Hinduism nor nationalism has anything to do with geography.

But, in practical world, abstract concepts require physical manifestations to keep people's interest. Geography is one such physical manifestation of abstract concept. Sacred geography in Hindhuism is similarly physical manifestation of the abstract concepts of Hindhuism.

But, it is precisely these things which cause problems to the entity which was created in 1947.
Do Hindhu owe loyalty to the entity which was created in 1947 or do Hindhu owe loyalty to the entity which was freed 1947?

a) kongis and dynasty lovers claim that the entity which was created in 1947 was the most sacred and its founding fathers are demi-gods. They create a hagiography for these demi-gods and claim infallibility for the entity created by them even though it has largely failed in all its stated goals. These people claim themselves to be nationalists but not Hindhu nationalists.

b) The other group is loyal to an ancient entity which was freed in 1947. To them, there is a hoary past from which they get inspiration and lessons. For them, there is an ancient culture which they hold dear. Of course, these people will be loyal to entity that was created in 1947 also because they see it as a continuation of an ancient entity. These people are considered as Hindhu nationalists.

Why should some people have problem if anyone is loyal to the ancient geography and culture of Bharatha-Varsha?
a) Because Bharatha-Varsha today is divided into many different nations. But then, this was true in history also. Political unity was rarely achieved. And when it was achieved, it was considered a feat.
b) Because loyalty to ancient cultural claims are not palatable to commies, islamists and evangelists who want to convert the Hindhus.
c) Because claims of same ethnicity are not acceptable to Aryan invasion theory proponents.

Are their other religious nationalisms?
Obviously. Infact, other religious nationalisms are much stronger than Hindhu nationalism. X-ist nationalism and malsI nationalism are extremely strong. Infact, they are so strong that they have split into sectarian nationalisms.

What is the difference between these religious nationalisms and Hindhu nationalism?
Generally, in the most extreme case, other religious nationalism are secessionist forces while Hindhu nationalism asks for akand dhesh in its extreme form. So, from dhesh's point of view, Hindhu nationalism is better than other religious nationalisms.

But, Hindhu nationalism is not compared with other nationalism. It is contrasted with universalism or with nationalism in general.
So, Hindhu nationalism is portrayed as narrow because it is a loyalty to only Hindhus and their interests instead of being loyal to interests of entire mankind or all countrymen.

The implication is that if you are concerned about Hindhus, then you are not about non-Hindhus. This is a clever strawman which has been created to portray Hindhu nationalism in negative light.

BTW, this is not a new ploy. Initially, when the great brits were ruling dhesh, then the same tactics were used to discourage even nationalism, not just Hindhu nationalism. (Generally, Hindhu nationalism has been closely associated with naitonalism in dhesh. Vande Maathram is the best example)

I read somewhere that Tagore disliked nationalism proposed by the narrow-minded people who wanted freedom. He instead talked about humanity, universalism and global world. West liked it so much that they kept giving him awards and rewards.

On the other hand, someone like Bankim Chandra Chaterjee who played a key role in inspiring nationalism soaked in Hindhu nationalism was never rewarded or awarded by the west or their lackeys.

Bhest and dynasty want Hindhus to remain loyal to them. They don't want Hindhus to be loyal to any other culture, tradition, family structure, geography, history, language, ...etc. Just be loyal to the dynasty and bhest. Thats all.

Why should Bhest and dynasty place so many restrictions on Hindhus?
I think that both of them realize the potential of Hindhus. If you know that your opponent can beat you hands down if he is allowed to study, then you simply don't allow him to study by distracting his attention all the time.


Religious nationalism raises a very uncomfortable question for nationalism. Because the loyalty of the people is divided between nation and religion. In few instances, these two are reconciled.

In case of saudi arabia or Turkey, sunni nationalism can be reconciled to nationalism.
In case of persia, shia nationalism can be reconciled to nationalism
In case of Bhaarath, Hindhu nationalism can be reconciled to nationalism.

In Europe, this has been a thorny issue which has led to many wars and confrontations.

So, religious nationalism can be reconciled to nationalism in only few cases and Bhaarath and Hindhu nationalism happen to be one such case.

In other cases, religious nationalism is not reconcilable to nationalism because the loyalty gets divided. As long as, religion and nation are not pitted against each other, there may be no problem. But, if they are pitted against each other, then either the religion will have to change or the nation will have to change or both will have to change.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 128867.cms

http://www.hipkapi.com/2012/02/16/what- ... angadhara/

What do these historiographies accomplish? They teach us, for instance, that the Mahabharata war could have taken place, except, of course, it was probably a war between a collection of tribes. It is merely the poetic exaggeration that has provided us with a description of epic proportions. So, in all probability, these historians assure us, there was some kind of a war, somewhere in the north of India about a few thousand years ago. As far as Krishna lifting the mountain with his little finger or about Ghatotkacha fighting the war with ‘the magic’ of the Rakshasas, they do not even bother to hide the snigger: of course, it is all either nonsense or mere poetic exaggeration. Surely, we know that no human individual can lift the mountain with his little finger and, in all probability, the ‘Rakshasas’ was the name of another tribe, which, perhaps, was neutral in this tribal war. In other words, Mahabharata and Ramayana (and all our stories about the past) are merely disguised historiographies or lies and exaggerations of our incompetent ancestors (‘incompetent’ because they could not even do what Thucydides did or the Chinese did so many thousands of years ago) which only the current generation of historians can decipher.

So, can it be surmised that there is no such thing called "Hindu nationalism"?

Hindus can be nationalist for many reasons, but none of them can be pinned down to being "Hindu" nationalism? In other words "Hindu nationalism" is a fake, concocted expression that has simply been used to smear Hindus and paint them as being murderous bigots?

I have claimed on this thread that I am and others are Hindu nationalists not because of hatred, but because of love of geography. This feeling (loyalty to geography) is not restricted to Hindus and therefore cannot be claimed as a valid expression of "Hindu" nationalism. So any nationalism that I claim from geography that I consider sacred is nationalism, but not Hindu nationalism.

Does Hindu nationalism exist? In earlier posts Atri and Rajesh pointed out that there are specific aspects of Hindu nationalism that arose to oppose the ravages of religious Islamic and later invasions into India. If people who oppose aspects of Islam and Christianity are the only people who lay claim to the term "Hindu nationalism" then Hindu nationalism does exist and it exists specifically as a reactive anti-Islam and anti-Christian movement.

Would this be an accurate description of Hindu nationalism, given the diversity of opinions?

^^ So if a Hindu Kingdom uses conquest to spread Hinduism, which is not reactive at all, would that fall under Hindu nationalism? To me, it seems so and has already happened in India. So with that parameter, it may not be reactive alone.

No one has control over as to which country and in which creed one is born into but people if willing to look into the past and search for one's roots will be able to get an idea of where they come from ; let us be honest here lot of us who are called Hindus have several reasons to be proud of we belong to a country where our forefathers had learnt to read, write , count and even predict celestial events when those who control the world narrative today were in darkness , the developed west of today rides on a pile of cash which was accumulated over centuries of loot of our civilization so it is totally understandable as to why no one wants to give a Hindu a place on the high table they cannot make eye contact and make that conversation so they have Macaulayputras and Dalrymples here to continue to influence the narrative .

Nationalism at very fundamental level is being proud of one's roots I mean look at the way an average gung ho American wears his love of everything American on his sleeve and good for him/her but look at their past and history it does not even span about 1/10th of ours and when someone here wants to proclaim that love for one's country and wears it on sleeve he is viewed with contempt .

I wont dismiss Bectorjis views lightly inspite of his glaring blindspots.

As I see it,this is his view-India is highly pluralistic and has a bad bad caste system.India has a vast population which requires huge investment in infrastructure.Jobs have to be found for millions of people.Also he is against marathi 'chauvinism'.India has to sort her problems with pakistan.Also Indias muslims should not be demonised.Further only efficient capitalism can create wealth and goods and services at economic price.indias politicians have to be paid hafta for development.Thats a small price to be paid for development.India requires investment in S&T and highly skilled scientific manpower.Also we need to improve on social indicators like safety for women,treatment of tribals,etc.All this requires coming out of a paternalistic caste system.Further the Cong had created a concord between the classes and masses.The BJP needs to do too.

In fact in essence this view is not different from the worldview of the Jewish-Anglosaxon elite in say NY.Perhaps its sort of 'natural' for some people in Bombay and Delhi to have this view given these two cities are most liberal and have a vantage view of India and her population with all her angularities and merits.This world view would also be in tune with the mainstream western worldview of indvidualism,society,development etc.I would call HBsviews as a worldview of Indian capitalist upper caste elite who want investment from outside but would like Indian mediators sympathetic to western worldview to play an important role in the process.Such mediators would use terminology compatible with their(and western) worldview.It would be wrong imo to dismiss this view as unpatriotic.

Let us not forget that recently Jayant Sinha was inducted as MoS,Finance.I will not be surprised if he says the same things in public .

A_Gupta wrote: http://www.hipkapi.com/2012/02/16/what- ... angadhara/

What do these historiographies accomplish? They teach us, for instance, that the Mahabharata war could have taken place, except, of course, it was probably a war between a collection of tribes. It is merely the poetic exaggeration that has provided us with a description of epic proportions. So, in all probability, these historians assure us, there was some kind of a war, somewhere in the north of India about a few thousand years ago. As far as Krishna lifting the mountain with his little finger or about Ghatotkacha fighting the war with ‘the magic’ of the Rakshasas, they do not even bother to hide the snigger: of course, it is all either nonsense or mere poetic exaggeration. Surely, we know that no human individual can lift the mountain with his little finger and, in all probability, the ‘Rakshasas’ was the name of another tribe, which, perhaps, was neutral in this tribal war. In other words, Mahabharata and Ramayana (and all our stories about the past) are merely disguised historiographies or lies and exaggerations of our incompetent ancestors (‘incompetent’ because they could not even do what Thucydides did or the Chinese did so many thousands of years ago) which only the current generation of historians can decipher.

As usual, a very good article that teaches me a lot, and confirms exactly what I wrote about Plato in the Islamophobia thread, but for the first time I find myself with a couple of points of difference of opinion that probably does not go as far as being "disagreement"

Why do humans recall the past? This is what Balu says:

Consider the following question: why talk about the past at all? Or, why do human communities feel the need of talking about the past of their communities? These and analogous questions are raised in order to make the human present representable to those who live. Why represent the past and present to ourselves at all? An answer to this question requires appealing to some kind of an idea about what it is to live as a human being, what we aim at in life and why. Because we are interested in human flourishing (“live a good life”, whatever ‘good’ means in this context), we need to think about ourselves as beings with some kind of a past. In other words, one looks at the past for the sake of living well and flourishing in the present. In most groups that have evolved into cultures, some kind of an implicit consensus is present regarding what human flourishing is, that is, what it means to live a good life. This consensus is as general and as abstract as the question itself (‘human flourishing means to be happy’). In this sense, each human group has some kind of story about its past.

Memory is survival. Memory is a survival trait. Human histories or mythology are a complex recounting of survival of the group. What were the threats. What actions appeared to help survival. And here I agree with Balu that history and mythology are one and the same. Equal-equal. Historians may not like it but their accounts are no more "the truth" than mythology.

Group memory, whether characterized as "history" or "mythology" it transmitted within the group as an important component of the "self" - that which is part their being - that which helps survival. If you try to break down group memory you get only anger or denial of cognitive dissonance. Telling a devout Muslims that his prophet was wrong will make him angry because he has had it instilled in him since birth that his prophet is right and that information is needed for his survival. Hindu too grow up with a "past" that has "histories' from the puranas, Mahabharata and Ramayana. Arguing with logical fallacies in these "Hindu histories" is only rabble rousing. It is not a "search for the truth". It is only bound to cause an angry reaction.

If Hindus have a history, that is their history no matter what others may think. As long as their history is no skin off anyone else' nose why should anyone dispute it? If Hindus believe that Ayodhya is located at a particular spot and that Rama was born there, arguing against their belief is asking for a fight. And as you can see we have a fight. Of course a fight or dispute then becomes a disturbance of public order and a disturbance of public order needs to be dealt with under the law of the land. The law of the land is neither Ram Rajya nor Sharia.

But if you look at the historiography of Ayodhya, it was a place believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Rama even before Babar came. Until the mosque was brought down, no one questioned the existence of Rama. It is "historiographically" recorded fact that a king called Babar existed. it is also recorded that he specifically built a mosque in Ayodhya to show his dominance over the Hindus he had defeated. In other words Babar believed that Ayodhya had some significance for Hindus. He may not have asked if Rama existed or not, but he certainly realized that Hindus thought Rama existed and that this fake birthplace should be shamed and dominated.

What did Hindus do? Not a lot at first, but some centuries later, they had not forgotten who Rama was in their memes. They went right ahead and tore the mosque down, seemingly avenging an original insult. It does not mater whether Rama existed or not. It is what the people believe. The word "historiography" is merely a word that says "my history is the truth. Your mythology is not". This is exactly as Balu says. For different groups of people, accounts of their past is "their history" whether anyone disputes it or not.

Logic and "reason" from some other cultural viewpoint means nothing. I think more people should read and digest that Balu article

SV

>>In fact in essence this view is not different from the worldview of the Jewish-Anglosaxon elite in say NY.

>>I would call HBsviews as a worldview of Indian capitalist upper caste elite who want investment from outside but would like Indian mediators sympathetic to western worldview to play an important role in the process.

>>Such mediators would use terminology compatible with their(and western) worldview.It would be wrong imo to dismiss this view as unpatriotic.

LOL, le ke bol rahen ho sab theek hain.

People who are so diffident about their identity and expect everyone else to be like them, won't even understand real India, despite claiming to be its interlocutors.

Re. shiv Post subject: Re: Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative senPostPosted: 13 Nov 2014 06:37

Now you are turning me into 'your rat in your favorite lab'. So I will let it pass. Yes it is true that Hindu Nationalists are treated as deviant and the whole majority is put to a test because of that. I am quite happy to be a deviant. Only in my case I submit my deviant behavior/desires to the will of the masses. I have little hope of finding a singularly driven prophet like figure among Hindu Nationalists who will curse the masses. Thus there being no klesha, I can proceed further into my own lab. I (and I hope many more who got branded Hindu Nationalists, willingly or unwillingly, rightly or wrongly) never owed anything to the outsiders. Hence again no klesha caused. In all this not being able to hold on to something today does not preclude me from trying to reach out for it tomorrow. If that gets the BP of someone on the outside, higher then I can sympathize but cannot offer any good help. Outsiders will have to learn to live with it. BTW thanks for pointing out the 'Broadmoor case' will watch it in the evening today.


Re.

The New York/Mumbai videos are not science. In science the conclusion could be "The woman passed by 60,000 people in New York and 60 passed comments. More than 99.9% of New Yorkers do not comment. There is no statistically significant difference between New York and Mumbai"

This conclusion may be right or wrong, but it at least tries to take into account the people who do not attract attention by commenting in New York.

That is why we cannot rely on statistics in an absolute manner. Zero passes in India also gives infinite possibility of not getting molested in Mumbai (which I agree is false hope) and against per unit time it would still constitute a statistically significant difference (which I agree is rather near the true hope).

svenkat wrote:I wont dismiss Bectorjis views lightly inspite of his glaring blindspots.

It would be wrong imo to dismiss this view as unpatriotic.
<snip>

His views are definitely not unpatriotic.

In fact I could be accused of rabble rousing more than Bectorji who is asking that waves not be created over a minor issue. The issue is admittedly minor compared to say maternal mortality, economy, lack of toilets etc. But I see the issue as one that contributes to the shaming and smearing of Hindus in general. And I see Hindus as going through this world apologetically and accepting prescriptions partly out of shame and self hate. The degree to which this affects the nation is difficult to quantify, but it is my personal judgement that this has a huge economic impact on the nation - when it translates into things like import versus local.

I have been reading and not joining some inane arguments in the LCA thread on the lines of "Why talk of export when you have none in the IAF" and "if the IAF does not take them no one else will take them"

Oddly enough the IAF took an aircraft rejected by everyone else as not good enough. It was not particularly easy or safe to fly either. It was called the Gnat. It is another issue that the IAF did a great job with it. But why did we do something that everyone argues that no sane nation would do, take a reject aircraft that the air force of the country of origin did not want as a fighter?

shiv saar, am backing up step by step to see your question in its full scope and its getting bigger and bigger

Agree,that was poor wording.I am no one to issue certificates.

ravi_g wrote: Yes it is true that Hindu Nationalists are treated as deviant and the whole majority is put to a test because of that.

I used to think that was an unfair characterization of Hindu nationalists, but after all the responses on this thread I am wondering if I was wrong.

Not many people seem particularly keen to defend "Hindu nationalism" against the "deviant" accusation. It appears (to me) that the phrase "Hindu nationalism" has more or less been rejected by many people, leaving any Hindu nationalists that exist open to face all the criticism they get. And if, like you, they are happy to allow the criticism to continue while they do not allow it to affect them, then I have to think whether I am a Hindu nationalist or not because the criticism of people for being Hindu nationalist seems to bother me more than it bothers anyone else.

Somehow I don't think it is right or healthy to stand by and accept the characterization of Hindu nationalists as religious bigots. But I seem to be more keen than others to change that. To me the question is important to resolve in my mind. If it can be resolved that Hindu nationalists are religious bigots, I will change my stance and say that I am not a Hindu nationalist because I am not a religious bigot. Either way - the question has not been answered to my satisfaction - so I will see what I can learn.

Dr. Mohan Bhagwat, current Sarsanghchalak of RSS, has himself said, that for Hindus there is no need to worship any gods, it suffices if they worship Bharat Ma. Now what kind of "religious fundamentalism" or "religious nationalism" is that?

Where the hell is religion in there?

The way Hindus (or for that matter Hindu Nationalists) see this is that Hindutva has absolutely nothing to do with what is understood under religion, or faith, or Moksha, or Bhakti, and nor has the "Hindu". "Hindu" is a term only for use in combination with Bharat, as that is its etymology. Hindutva is the protective instinct of Bharatiyata.

Now under the initiative and guidance of the British, there has been an effort to package the classical elements of faith and any forms of social organization of the Bharatiyas into a religion box called Hinduism, and then posited that only people who follow this boxed framework are Hindus. Corollary of this is that people who are not knowledgeable enough to know all that is in this box, for most an impossible task, they are then deemed somehow superficial or ignorant Hindus, and Western Sanskritists can lord over them! While all those Hindus who live by their age old local beliefs and traditions and thus do not comply by the classic definition are simply written off as superstitious Hindus and degraded. After doing enough dissing of this Hinduism package using Freudian analysis, ridicule of icons and questioning all historicity, the West ridicules those who try to abide by it, as exotic but primitive polytheists. And those Hindus who try to flee this ideological terrorism either by going up the ladder seeking classical Hinduism but distancing themselves from Durga and Ganesha or simply washing off their hands off Hinduism altogether and embracing Western modernism, though still retaining their Hindu names, are given a guilt complex saying Hinduism is under influence of those Talibanic Hindu Nationalists and even such Hindus are proclaimed guilty by association. So there is nowhere for any follower of Hinduism to run to, except into the arms of a waiting missionary.

What one gets is Hinduists attacking Hindutvavadis for embarrassing them as Hindus, and Hindutvavadis get puzzled where did that come from - after all for them being Hindu is all about being protective of Bharat and Bharatiyata.

The only alternative I see is
- to express our Sanskriti using a different architecture than a religion box, and call it something else rather than "Hinduism";
- to seek our unity in Dharma, Sabhyata, Sanskriti and Rāshtra;
- to defend it by embracing Hindutva (Hindu Nationalism).

In my case atleast, I am looking forward for an evidence that causes immense takleef to non believers, not absence of any evidence. I would wear it on my sleeve too.

Using lists is an old requirement &/or tactic. But live people, live societies, aspirations, the essentially dynamic sense of balance, keeps refusing to force fit itself into those lists. That is what I guess you yourself are feeling Shiv ji. It makes clear sense to me why you should do something that always came naturally to you and then feel bad about getting boxed into a corner of 'Hindu Nationalist' or 'Not Hindu Nationalist'. Since I have allowed myself to feel comfortable with Hindu Nationalism, and since I love and respect you as an elder, I can only offer you freedom from myself and my stance. I could try an active defence too but the attacks are simply too many and my presumption is that these attacks are only going to grow thus I will have to conserve energy for taking on only those attacks that I can do justice too. After all the wise man is expected to let go of what cannot be saved and hold on to what he can save.

In any case, my getting into this thread was meant to avoid the tyranny of the lists for all sides to the debate.


..........

Added later:
Re.

If it can be resolved that Hindu nationalists are religious bigots, I will change my stance and say that I am not a Hindu nationalist because I am not a religious bigot. Either way - the question has not been answered to my satisfaction - so I will see what I can learn.

See again I can only speak for myself. Yes I guess, I am a hindu religious bigot too. I have formed the opinion that I would be wasting my time if I do not go deeper into Sanatan Dharm and instead submit to ever more lists and models so outsiders can feel comfortable.

shiv wrote:His views are definitely not unpatriotic.

Perhaps we should draw out Shri Shri Harpal Bector ji into sharing some pearls of wisdom as to whether PM Modi was responsible for planning 26/11. You may want to reserve judgement on his patriotism or otherwise until you've heard this one through.

But more than the issue of 'patriotism' - I really wonder, based on his views shared so far, the extent of his familiarity with economics. Sure - building infrastructure, increasing growth and increasing investment is THE central priority of this government, and one where admittedly Modi and his team have inspired far more confidence in all serious economists and institutional investors than the failed leadership of the last decade that brought India down. But what makes Shri Harpal Bector ji think that social reform of the 'Hindutva' type cannot actually be an aide to this effort ? After all, the 'Hindutva' laboratory of the last decade - Gujarat, has performed far better on growth and other parameters as well as on the parameter of controlling riots over the last decade than has the rest of India.

In order to avoid that Hindus are embarrassed by calling themselves Hindu Nationalists, it is important for Hindus to know that Hindu Nationalism is not

- against either the freedom of some Muslim or Christian to pray to Allah or Jesus, or
- against Muslims and Christians as people and members of society.

It is not a question of hating Muslims or Christians.

Hindu Nationalism is however against Rāshtra compromising on its history, its values, its identity in order to accommodate the political agendas of Islam and Christian Evangelism, not to speak of giving Islam and Christian Evangelism a free rein in India to pursue their political agendas and follow their predatory instincts.