Cultural Protectionism - Global & Indian Trends

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Sep 2011 23:07

RajeshA ji,

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

Populated by academic experts on "civilization" I suppose? In the transitional phase, when you do not yet have generations of products in a reformed academic system, that also deconstructs its own academic false constructions of culture - you will have to rely on existing "products" - which will be full of Thaparites and will be NAC II.

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.

Yes, suppose in the example I have given above of legalized marital rape - is claimed to be part of "indigenous culture" of one indigenous culture out of the million diverse cultures all of which must be protected in India. I am sure you realize that both Islam and Christianity will have to be declared indigenous - under current thinking?

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.

The state pretends or spokespersons of the state pretend [or they perhaps genuinely believe] that "cultural" elements are all mythology, and somehow the state is independent of "culture". It is impossible for a state to be completely value-less, because in that case it cannot evaluate between contesting claims or positions. If the state is also an arbiter between contested positions, it needs a third comparator value-system. Or it has to develop one to remain functional.

This is where we should be aware of what value-system is used by the current Indian rashtra. It does intervene in "cultural" practices, doesn't it - but what it chooses to intervene in, and what it does not, should show you what value-system it follows. The simplest example would be the very early obsession in the new post-Independence rashtra to "reform" the Hindu onlee - and no reform at all, even when legal cases and precedences continue to arise - to reform the Islamic or the Christianity. Courts intervene to define "Hinduism" and "Hindu culture" as pure "tolerance onlee", and the rashtra does not intervene - but when it is about contravening Shariati claims, and judicial activism dares to intervene to change it as in Sha Bano case - the rashtra promptly intervenes to delete such interventions.

This shows what value system is currently followed, in which Islamic or Christian values take precedence for the rashtra over the Hindu.

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.

The pretension of equi-distance in the Constitution is a legacy of imperial pretension, by which one particular post-"enlightenment" European Christian value-system underlay as the comparator to evaluate all else. Because the Constitution formally tries to preserve certain value-systems more than others, and is derived from a continuity of formal ambience of neutrality towards all religions while actually allowing selective special preferential treatments - it shows up the original biases in how it orders the preferences. In that, the Abrahamic memes are preferred - which are therefore protected more, even under a bluster of propaganda about modernism and "humanism".

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Sep 2011 23:11

brihaspati wrote: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 that's the way to put it. Not in the way that it was done in that rather unfortunately phrased sentence. That is the point. There is no harm in using the language of restraint, fact and reason, rather than that which will inflame.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Sep 2011 23:13

There is no way to avoid a reconstruction - or a construction project for values of a modern rashtra. It is that value-system that must remain supreme. A rashtra that does not know which one of two contradictory claims - from two different ideological positions - that impacts a citizen's life, - should be retained and which one to be rejected, is a paralyzed rashtra.

Not every contradiction is solved by being avoided and continued forever.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Sep 2011 17:34

brihaspati garu,

after reading your post, I've had to do some thinking, on the subject of what constitutes 'Culture'. Considering that the thread deals with its protection, it was just a matter of time, when one needed to deal with this. I've however not looked up in the dictionary, but wanted to first try to define it according to my own understanding.

One can of course define Culture through example, e.g. Music, Art, Theater all belong to culture. I'll try to define it using a definition though as abstract as I can.

I'll define as follows:
Culture is a field of Human Activity which encompasses the following:

distinct objects, products, patterns and practices, which are meant to enhance the sensual experience of a natural activity
distinct objects, products, patterns and practices, which are meant to stimulate the emotional and intellectual experience
distinct objects, patterns and practices, which embody symbolism, as established by a community
distinct objects, patterns and practices, which are meant to commemorate historical, mythological or otherwise significant events related to a community
distinct objects, patterns and practices, which capture the interactions within a community which go beyond the needful, including traditions, rituals, etc.

Culture is interested in the form, and not in the essence or motivation of various practices. Thus motivations such as spirituality, faith, value systems, dogmas, prescriptions and proscriptions, convictions, etc. are beyond the realm of culture, even as a cultural practice is annotated with the motivation. Culture does not make any statements regarding whether some practice is moral or not.

Culture is the treasure of a society, because it is the living and perceivable embodiment of multiple generations of that society's development and evolution.

However the argument of culture in itself does not provide any justification for the preservation of a practice. That is ultimately done by the accepted ethics and morality of the day. But any cultural treasure that passes the test deserves to be preserved and thus protected.

*************

When you speak of whether "legalized marital rape" should enjoy cultural protection, my answer would be NO. First because culture does not say whether the practice is moral or not. Secondly only after it passes the test of morality and ethics would it be accepted as deserving of preservation.

The issue is more of sovereignty, where a community can plead sovereignty and thus autonomy in social matters dealing with its members. This is where the outside world has to make a decision - whether its laws are applicable universally over its area of domination, or whether the principle of non-interference is practiced for matters dealing with the community.

In India and most societies a distinction is made between criminal and civil law. As long as the fundamental rights of a citizen are not being violated, a society could be given autonomy to deal with its own matters through a civil law, even if a uniform civil code is not introduced.

I would assume that in "legalized marital rape" a fundamental right of a citizen is being violated, and deserves to addressed through criminal law. If such a practice does not pass even the test of criminal law, much less the test of morality and ethics in a society, how can it be considered deserving of "cultural protection".

"Cultural Protection" comes much later, after all other tests have passed.

On the other hand, if somebody wants to enact out some traditional theater piece which involves marital rape, then that can be called culture, simply because that is using symbolism, and nobody's fundamental rights are being violated.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 Sep 2011 18:01

I could care less if the govt of India helps preserve Indian culture or not. In fact, I rather they stay away from this. These blokes can't even manage some of the most important responsibilities, the last thing we want is this incompetent and inefficient group to mess around with Indian culture.

But the least we can expect is, maintain basic law and order. There are laws in the books already like that Indians cannot spread communal hatred.

Take the christian evangelicals today in India. If he tells a Hindu the divinity of Jesus and that Jesus is the son of god, the Indian may accept it and place the iconography of christianity like the cross or a picture of Jesus next to his pantheon of other deities and would pray to Jesus with all the earnest. But the missionary is not contended with that, he now demands from this Indian, a rejection of all other deities and become an enemy of other faiths. And then he expects this new convert to go and spread this hatred to others.

So it is not someone praying to another deity that is an irritant to people like me.. it is turning Indians against other Indians that is a violation of the constitution of India and it is violation of the law. I expect the govt to lock up these blokes. And if the govt does not implement the laws in the book, My suggestion is to form a militia just like the "Minutemen" of Texas and help maintain law and order by the citizens. Make citizens arrest and take them to court and file a case under the penal code below. Be civic minded and do civic duties. Citizens patrol.

Section 153A of the penal code says, inter alia:

Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.[3]

Enacted in 1927, section 295A says:

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.[4]

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Sep 2011 18:19

Manny wrote:Take the christian evangelicals today in India. If he tells a Hindu the divinity of Jesus and that Jesus is the son of god, the Indian may accept it and place the iconography of christianity like the cross or a picture of Jesus next to his pantheon of other deities and would pray to Jesus with all the earnest. But the missionary is not contended with that, he now demands from this Indian, a rejection of all other deities and become an enemy of other faiths. And then he expects this new convert to go and spread this hatred to others.

Just asking, why is the Indian listening to the Christian Evangelical? Why is the Indian allowing the Christian Evangelical to make demands of him? Why is the Indian converting?

o Can it simply be that the Indian's rootedness in his own culture and dharma is weak? And if yes, why?
o Can it be that the Christian Evangelical is free to disparage local culture? And if yes, why?
o Can it be that the Christian Evangelical has too many resources at hand? And if yes, why?

Manny wrote:Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, . . . shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both

Does that include proselytization?

India's Fundamental Rights provide for "Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion"

If the Indian has converted, obviously he has not felt any disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will towards the Christian Evangelical. Other Indians cannot protest an act of "propagation of religion" as that is the fundamental right of the Christian Evangelical (who may be an Indian as well)!

As things stand, the Christian Evangelical has only propagated "a rejection of other deities" in conformance with his own religious dogma. He is not promoting "disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will" as his primary motive. If others feel that way, can it be considered that he is at fault, that he promoted it?

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 Sep 2011 18:25

RajeshA wrote:
Manny wrote:Take the christian evangelicals today in India. If he tells a Hindu the divinity of Jesus and that Jesus is the son of god, the Indian may accept it and place the iconography of christianity like the cross or a picture of Jesus next to his pantheon of other deities and would pray to Jesus with all the earnest. But the missionary is not contended with that, he now demands from this Indian, a rejection of all other deities and become an enemy of other faiths. And then he expects this new convert to go and spread this hatred to others.
Just asking, why is the Indian listening to the Christian Evangelical? Why is the Indian allowing the Christian Evangelical to make demands of him? Why is the Indian converting?

o Can it simply be that the Indian's rootedness in his own culture and dharma is weak? And if yes, why?
o Can it be that the Christian Evangelical is free to disparage local culture? And if yes, why?
o Can it be that the Christian Evangelical has too many resources at hand? And if yes, why?

That's like asking, why is an Indian becoming a criminal... and then list out all the ills of India to excuse the criminal.

The issue here is not an individual praying to any specific deity. It is the unlawful spreading of communal hatred by christian missionories. The offender here is the missionary. Not an individual on his own volition praying to whatever/whoever he/she chooses.

What has Indian culture have to do with the evangelicals spreading hatred against Hinduism.

If you say Hindusim is evil and that is the impetus for the evangelical. Why are the same evangelicals doing this to Buddhists cultures of Asia? Why are the Buddhists of Sri Lanka outraged at the methods of christians evangelicals there? Buddhism does not have the "evilest" thingi in the world... Oh the Horror "The caste"

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Sep 2011 18:35

Manny wrote:It is the unlawful spreading of communal hatred by christian missionaries.

Is the encouragement to reject other deities, the same thing as "spreading communal hatred"?

If something else is meant by it, then yes, the current law would be sufficient. But if only the above claim is meant by it, then the argument may not suffice.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 Sep 2011 18:40

RajeshA wrote:
Manny wrote:It is the unlawful spreading of communal hatred by christian missionaries.
Is the encouragement to reject other deities, the same thing as "spreading communal hatred"?

If something else is meant by it, then yes, the current law would be sufficient. But if only the above claim is meant by it, then the argument may not suffice.

It would not be possible for the evangelical to tell the Hindu to reject the other deities without giving him reasons for the rejection. He has to give reasons. Here is where the hate speech comes in. Those two are one atomic unit.

Here it is. You have to really scratch the barrel to say they do not do missionary work without deriding Hindus and Muslims. There is the theory and then there is the reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8jm3y6x ... ature=plpp

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Sep 2011 18:47

Manny wrote:That's like asking, why is an Indian becoming a criminal... and then list out all the ills of India to excuse the criminal.

Propagation of religion is allowed in India as a fundamental right. If somebody changes his religion, that is hardly a crime. If somebody rejects Hindu deities, that is hardly a crime.

You say you don't like this development, so I ask you why were the conditions allowed to develop which allow this development, this conversion? What can you do to prevent that? Can you stop somebody in India from enjoying his fundamental rights?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Sep 2011 18:59

Manny wrote:It would not be possible for the evangelical to tell the Hindu to reject the other deities without giving him reasons for the rejection. He has to give reasons. Here is where the hate speech comes in. Those two are one atomic unit.

Here it is. You have to really scratch the barrel to say they do not do missionary work without deriding Hindus and Muslims. There is the theory and then there is the reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8jm3y6x ... ature=plpp

Manny ji,

thanks for sharing that link. Too bad the response of the Clergyman was not available.

I would contest that they are an atomic unit!

However as is fairly clear from my posts here, I too am in favor of putting a stop to the Christian proselytization drive and success in India.

The issue is one of evidence. If the evidence is there, that Christian Evangelists have brought out, or distributed literature or done propaganda deriding Hindu Gods, then that is in fact spreading hatred, and the might of the law should be brought to bear upon them.

Christian Evangelicals however are not only guilty of spreading "disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will" but in the course of history have destroyed many cultures and civilizations completely. I am trying here to explore the angle, where any effort by them to destroy other cultures is countered through law as well.

The reason I consider "freedom to propagate religion" as important is because without it, Hindus too would not be able to reconvert the Abrahamics back to the Dharmic path.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 02 Sep 2011 19:20

The important thing that needs to be mentioned here is, the vast majority of Christians do not indulge in the vile predatory and hate mongering practice of the missionaries in India. The vast majority of Christians in India and around the world do not do this. The vast majority of Christians are charitable and do not partake in this vile conversion activities. Are they not good Christians? When I think of Christians, "Charity" is what comes to my mind. Second comes the evil practice of the hate that is being spread by a small yet very very powerful group...the evangelicals... particularly the Southern Baptists and the Pentecostals. IMO, these two groups should be treated as hate groups.

I only wish the majority of christians who do not spread hate would be more assertive and stand up against this evil and vile practice of these evangelicals rather than be a silent majority and be passive about this. They have a civic responsibility to fight this evil as well. For in any religious conflicts, its the non evangelical christians who end up getting hurt in places like India.. And then these evangelicals would use the death/destruction of innocent christians as a tool and cry victim to recruit and collect more monies for their nefarious activities and continue the cycle. They have used this "victimization" strategy for 2000 years. This is their M.O.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 02 Sep 2011 19:25

When I think of Christians, "Charity" is what comes to my mind.

Crimes against humanity is more like it.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 Sep 2011 20:22

RajeshA wrote: The issue is one of evidence. If the evidence is there, that Christian Evangelists have brought out, or distributed literature or done propaganda deriding Hindu Gods, then that is in fact spreading hatred, and the might of the law should be brought to bear upon them.

Is this an evidence?
From the book Saint Francis Xavier, apostle of India and Japan: (page 44-45):

the popular forms of repulsive, and when not repulsive, grotesque.

onwards... a lot of that page.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Sep 2011 04:07

Manny ji,
the insistence from the organized Churches is that "care" is not enough. Which is categorically stated and explained that when non-Christians do "good" or "care", it is still not good enough in the eyes of the Christian "God" - and such "souls" will still not be saved. Onlee submission and acceptance of the "belief" that Jesus is the sole saviour and salvation onlee lies through acceptance of this sole belief, will save the soul from eternal condemnation.

Also look at the concept that "grace" - "ishwar anugraha/krpa" being the closest cognate translation for Indics - is supreme, comes above "good works" - and therefore charity - by both counts above, is not the defining characteristic of Christianity - by their own Church dogma.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Sep 2011 04:14

Charity is when you take from the people,

Church in the New World, formerly heathen and suffering in darkness.

and give to the people.

Children in Mexico

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 03 Sep 2011 08:37

My opinion that Christians at large are charitable is not theoretical or academic. It is real life experience of having many Christian friends. Both Indian and American.

Its not that Hindus and Muslims and others are not charitable..they are. I have known quite a few Muslims who are very very charitable. So have I known Hindus who are charitable. But I feel Christians at large are more charitable.. and I do not count charitable for conversion. I am discounting those kind. And still, IMO, Christians generally have a culture of charity.

I have major issues with evangelism but that cannot hide other facts.

This is my opinion and I stand by it.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Sep 2011 10:32

What explains Christian organizations like the Republicans or the Tea party fighting against charitable help given to the needy?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Sep 2011 11:36

Arjun ji,

this is especially for your attention.

Continuing from our discussion in Protection of Liberalism - International and Indian trends Thread on making use of Laws modeled on Anti-Trust Laws as a means curtailing "exclusivism"

There is one law which I find interesting:

The European Law on Comparative Advertising:

Comparative advertising

“Comparative advertising” is defined as any advertising which explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor.

There is a need to establish criteria to determine whether a comparative advertisement is permitted since comparative advertising, when it is not misleading, can be a legitimate means of informing consumers of what is in their interest.

Comparative advertising is permitted if the following conditions are met:

it is not misleading;

it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose;

it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods or services, which may include price;

it does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser and a competitor;

it does not discredit or denigrate the trade marks, trade names or other distinguishing signs of a competitor;

for products with designation of origin, it relates to products with the same designation;

it does not take unfair advantage of the trademark or other distinguishing sign of a competitor;

it does not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name.
Remedy
........

Perhaps India can pass a "Law on Comparative Propagation of Religions by Religious Groups"!

This law would debar religious groups from referring to other religious groups, in the context of discussing doctrine, dogma, practices etc. or in the larger context of propagation of religion. It is to prohibit propaganda against other religions.

It could be restricted to people claiming some religious position - clergy, missionaries, foot-soldiers of the religion, etc. They would not be allowed to either preach or otherwise distribute material which makes references to God(s) of other religions either explicitly or by implication.

"by implication" can be a growing list of methods to make references to some religion.

Summary: Abrahamics would not be allowed to deride Hindu Gods!

I came to this line of thinking after a post by Manny ji,

Manny wrote:It would not be possible for the evangelical to tell the Hindu to reject the other deities without giving him reasons for the rejection. He has to give reasons. Here is where the hate speech comes in. Those two are one atomic unit.

Here it is. You have to really scratch the barrel to say they do not do missionary work without deriding Hindus and Muslims. There is the theory and then there is the reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8jm3y6x ... ature=plpp

This does not stop "exclusivism" - One can still say one's God is the only real God. But one would not be allowed to make a statement about the Gods of other religions.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 03 Sep 2011 23:23

The current christian govt wont allow any such restrictions to conversion gains

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 04 Sep 2011 20:17

Rajeshji,

Exactly ! And this is broadly the formulation I had in mind in my arguments in the Liberalism thread....Abrahamic preaching and proseletyization should not assume any license to deride Gods of any other faith in the course of their activity. I am not so sure they should even be allowed to deride image-worship as a concept...

Needs to be implemented ASAP.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Sep 2011 22:04

The great thing about the modern west is their willingness to re-examine their own cultural narrative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/books ... eview.html

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 13 Sep 2011 02:24

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affa ... ghley.html

Brian is as pecksniffian as the Christian clergy who have historically done much worse.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 13 Sep 2011 02:54

Hope he does not get exposed to be as peckersniffian as well.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Sep 2011 10:39

IMHO, Indics have been conned. They have been conned because a narrative has been imposed on the nation, which revolves around religion. So it becomes Secularism vs Religiosity, Pseudo-Secularism vs. Majority Extremism, etc.

Religion, in this narrative, however is being defined through the prism of Abrahamic religions, including what is religion, what constitutes religion, etc.

Now Dharma does not really fit into that religious definition, but the secular narrative is pushing and squeezing the circular Dharma to fit into the square Religion. This is deforming Hinduism, so much so, that much of our society has started viewing Hinduism just as any other religion. They have started viewing it through the "Religion Definition" prism imposed by the "Secularists".

However much of Hinduism's content and strength is in its liveliness, culture, philosophy and history/mythology. For sake of naming, I call these 'cultural components'. There are of course components of spiritual devotion, dogma, places of worship and social mores as well, like in other religions, e.g. like in the Abrahamic ones. But Secularism is trying to bury the cultural components of the Hindu Continuum along with the devotional components in the religion narrative.

The Pseudo-Secular narrative on the other hand goes one step further, and claims that minority beliefs and interests need to be given extra consideration, because of the danger from 'majority extremism', thus putting another layer of soil over the Hindu narrative.

If the Hindus wish to regain control over their Rashriya, they have to destroy these two narratives.

a) Secularism - Hindus would need to OFFLOAD the 'cultural components' - Liveliness (festivals), culture, philosophy and history/mythology out of Hinduism as religion, and into some collective terminology, calling it all perhaps just "Indic Culture". On the other hand, Hinduism can offer its 'devotional components' to the State to be considered as 'religion', establishing the target for secularism, along with the Abrahamic religions. With time, one would have to define Secularism from the prism Dharma perhaps, but that can take place in some future iteration.

b) Pseudo-Secularism - This narrative cannot be destroyed by propping up Hinduism as its opponent. Any aggressiveness of Hinduism here would only strengthen this narrative. Pseudo-Secularism has to be defeated by a vigorous exercise of the now tweaked Secularism. With a strict use of secularism, one could suffocate all religions in India equally, where they receive neither State support, nor they receive Foreign support. Secularism has been used as a weapon. It is time that in India, the Indics regain control over this weapon from the Abrahamics.

c) Support for Indic Culture - By promulgating the "Law for Protection of Indigenous Culture", Indian State can offer the "cultural components" of Hinduism significant support, be it in preventing slander to them or be it in encouraging them in school education in India.

d) Support for Dharma - India is still over 80% Hindu. That is our biggest strength. Secondly Hindus are still in the forefront of Indian economy, and there is a big middle-class, much of it Indic. So it should not be difficult for Dharmic institutions and causes to find funding for their work in Indian society. However by instituting a "Law for Restricting of Foreign Funding for Religious Purposes", one would cut off the air of the Abrahamic religions, giving Indic religions a big advantage.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Sep 2011 13:44

X-Posting from GDF

With respect to the controversy surrounding the guidelines of the Karnataka Govt. to include the learning of Bhagavad Gita for all students, I would say, the Govt. should proceed in a slightly different manner:

In "Cultural Protectionism - Global & Indian Trends" Thread, I spoke of the "Law for Protection of Indigenous Culture".

This law can be used by various educational institutions to encourage the learning of indigenous culture. We need not call it learning of "faith systems". One can teach the school children, a lot about Indian scriptures, mythologies, rituals, semiotics, etc. simply by calling it "culture" instead of "religion". Of course there will be a certain difference in structure and content, but one can basically arrive at the same result.

Such education should follow three main aims:

Instill a deep sense of pride in the student for the Indic Civilization, making him aware of all the accomplishments of the Civilization, its world-wide influence, and its antiquity
Make the child feel comfortable with Indic cultural goods, most importantly with Hindu mythology
Educate the children, about what Hinduism is NOT

Islam and Evanjehadis fundamentally use three methods for deracination:

Instill shame for one's history
Keeping their flock away from Indic culture
Deriding Indic symbols, Gods, customs, etc. using false propaganda

By pursuing the above aims, we can ensure that the proselytizing faiths do not get any firm footing in India. Even those who identify themselves with these faiths, would be far more skeptical about the preaching of their respective clergy.

At the moment, many Hindus are using crude instruments to perform delicate surgery, possibly causing the patient much more harm.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 15 Sep 2011 14:15

Bhaaratiya Plurality and Indianization and assimilation of Islam.

something I wrote a while ago. focus more on Islam.. Khrista-panthis will require different strategy..

There is no political doctrine in Vedas, for that matter Shrutis. So there can't be any Vedic constitution since there is no Vedic Law.. Four Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and associated Karma-kandas is shruti and infallible. The Shrutis do not give a damn about political frameworks or social frame-works. The Dharma, Artha and Kaama aspects of life are not dictated by Shrutis. Shruti is highest and infallible only in Moksha/Nirvana aspect of life.

The first three aspects of life are governed by Smritis which are subject to change with space and time. They are not absolute. The blame is on Hindu majority because we are looking at problem wrongly.. There is nothing like Hinduism. Hinduism is an artificial construct. All the Indic ideologies, except Sikhism, have evolved in Pre-Islamic India where there was no concept of religion and the term Hindu was meaningless. The term that should be used is Indian religions and Non-Indian religions. Hinduism is conglomerate of thousands of Astika religions which are as different from each other as Judaism is from Christianity.

My Solution -

1. Stop using the term Hinduism. Identify Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Tantra and all the other sub groups which are clubbed together as Hinduism by british as separate religions. That is what they are..

2. So there will be Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Shaaktas, Samkhyas, Tantrics etc etc... all of them separate individual religions.

3. Club them together as "Religions of Indian Origin". No body will object to this term. Since it will be pain in the ass for counting people of thousands of individual religions separately, count them together as Religions originated in India.

4. This means Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are Religions not originated in India.

5. This will bring together all people of following Indian religion under one denomination.

6. Parsees, Jews won't be any trouble.. Most of Christians, except the evangelical ones will be fine as well..

7. Christians can further be encouraged to start a movement to establish a Church of India like Greek orthodox church, Russian orthodox church, Church of England.

8. Build similar pressure on Muslims to start something similar. Ahmediya sect was established in India and can be clubbed along with Indian religions. So can be the Bahai faith.

9. Those who follow Indian religions, including Ahmediya and Bohra people, can be referred to as Indian because it will be a chaos to refer to each religious group by its name. Jews and Zoroastrians can be declared as minorities. Muslims are not by any means a minority and they follow a religion which is not Indian in origin.

10. The socio-political movement for encouraging Muslims to

- read Quran in their mother-tongue.
- Write Urdu in Devanagari script. ban the nastaleeq script in India..
- stop dressing like Arabs and start dressing like the local population
- government subsidies and reservations of Muslim women for their education and self-employment to empower them.

There can be some indirect subsidies on minorities and Indic people. We are not succeeding as yet because we are not unleashing our diversity. It is perfectly safe now because there is very little probability of India being ruled by Muslim rulers in next 150 years. We can afford to take this step. The dire need we had from 1100 - 1800 for uniting under one religious denomination to fight is over now.

Our strength is unity in diversity. This will be the Vishwa-Roop Darshan of all Indian religions. Thousands of them manifesting simultaneously.. The Jihadis will have to either identify the Kafirs individually, Or as Indians. If they identify individually, it is BIG pain in their ass. If they identify Indian religions as kafirs, they will have to be referred as Indians. This will create the identity crisis.. The patriotic moderate Muslims will break apart from the Jihadi core. Anybody who witnesses a Vishwa-Roop Darshan, be it Arjun or be it Abdul, is bound to be overwhelmed and give up the ideological resistance.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 15 Sep 2011 16:46

Merchant Thomas to Saint Thomas

As Christian evangelists intensify efforts to bring India under their sway, their brethren in the south are trying to (mis)use current excavations at Pattanam to revive the myth of Apostle Thomas arriving in the country in the first century AD and establishing a fledgling community. They are trying to link the ancient port of Muziris with Pattanam, where Thomas reputedly landed, though Muziris was more logically Kodungalloor, where the river joins the sea. Dr R. Nagaswamy, former director, Tamil Nadu Archaeological Survey, debunks this mischief and avers that none of the literature on the life of St Thomas claims that he came to India.

Yet, so strenuously has the myth been perpetuated that Swami Devananda Saraswati (pen name Ishwar Sharan), a Canadian Protestant who became a Smarta Dasanani sanyasi at Prayag in 1977, decided to get to its historical roots. The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple (updated 3rd edn.), is the fruit of his labours.

Sharan was intrigued by the story of the alleged murder of the apostle by a conniving Brahmin. In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI declared that Thomas never came to India, but Rome later fell silent after a nudge from the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore. The myth includes the implausible conversion of Tiruvalluvar by the foreign evangelist, though Tamil scholars believe the sage lived around ca. 100 BCE, perhaps even 200 BCE.

The claim that Christianity came to India before it went to Europe is a ploy to make it a sort of native religion, even if it came from West Asia. The origin is a Gnostic Syrian fable, Acts of Thomas, written by poet Bardesanes at Edessa around 201 CE. The text never mentions or describes the sub-continent, but says the apostle went from Palestine eastwards to a desert-like country where people are ‘Mazdei’ [Zoroastrian] and have Persian names. The term India in Acts is a synonym for Asia.

The Acts identifies St Thomas as Judas, the look-alike twin of Jesus, who sells him into slavery. The slave travels to Andropolis where he makes newly-weds chaste, cheats a king, fights with Satan over a beautiful boy, persuades a talking donkey to confess the name of Jesus, and is finally executed by a Zoroastrian king for crimes against women. His body is buried on a royal mountain and later taken to Edessa, where a popular cult rises around his tomb.

One Thomas of Cana led a group of 400 Christians (from seven tribes and 72 families) from Babylon and Nineveh, out of Persia in the 4th century, when christianisation of the Roman Empire made the Persians view their Syriac-speaking Christian minority as a Roman fifth column. The ‘Thomas Christians’ could originally have referred to this merchant. They reputedly landed at Cranganore in Malabar in 345 CE. Sharan warns this migration cannot be treated as historical fact, but says that Cosmas the Alexandrian, theologian, geographer and merchant who traded with Ethiopia and Ceylon, visited Malabar in 520-525 CE and provided the first acceptable evidence of Christian communities there in Christian Topography. This Thomas was probably ‘converted’ (metamorphosed) to St Thomas.

Early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius are explicit that Apostle Thomas settled in ‘Parthia’, and established a church in Fars (Persia). This is supported by the 4th century priest Rufinus of Aquileia, who translated Greek theological texts into Latin, and the 5th century Byzantine church historian, Socrates of Constantinople, who wrote an Ecclesiastical History, the second edition of which survives and is a valuable source of early church history. Nothing much is known about St Thomas. He was called the Apostle of the East in West Asia and India until 1953, when the Church demoted him to Apostle of India, dislodging St Francis Xavier.

Between the 4th and 16th centuries, the Syrian Christians of Malabar reinvented the tale several times, finally bringing St Thomas to India to evangelize the heathen. In the 13th century, Marco Polo embellished the tale with a South Indian seashore tomb and in the 16th century the Portuguese transferred this seashore tomb to Mylapore! The created their own redactions of the Acts of Thomas and began destroying temples in the port city and building their St Thomas churches, pretending these were the sites of Thomas’ martyrdom and burial.

The primary objective of the Thomas-in-India or Jesus-in-India stories is to vilify Brahmins and malign the Hindu religion and community. The second is to present Christianity as an indigenous religion – not a piece of western imperialism. A deeper aim is to insinuate it as the ‘original’ religion of the Tamil people. Finally, it is to help Syrian Christians maintain their caste identity, their claim to be Jews or Brahmins, descendants of Namboodiris converted by St Thomas in the 1st century.

Ishwar Sharan cites a wealth of historical, textual and epigraphic material to prove how various authors and travellers like Marco Polo, mistakenly or deliberately, falsified evidence regarding St Thomas. He traces the Polo mischief to a book the legendary explorer dictated to fellow prisoner and writer, Rustichello, when he was captured by Genoa. The book became a hit in Europe, and the myth of a St Thomas tomb on a seashore was firmly planted.

German scholars, whose work remains to be translated into English, have consistently maintained that most 16th and 17th century churches in India contain temple rubble and are built on temple sites, just as in Europe they took over pagan sites. In fact, at the end of the 19th century, a landslip on San Thome beach revealed carved stone pillars and broken stones of mandapam found only in Hindu temples.

The Portuguese in the 16th century had one of their earliest settlements at San Thome, and razed many Hindu temples to the ground. Vijayanagar ruler, Rama Raya, waged war on them in Mylapore and Goa simultaneously, to save the Hindu temples. After his victory, he exacted a tribute from them for their vandalism. But when Vijayanagar fell before the Muslim armies at the Battle of Talikota (1565), the Portuguese resumed their iconoclasm.

The book has a treasure trove of information that an article cannot do justice to; a must read for lovers of Hindu temples and history.

[The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple, 3rd ed., Voice of India, Delhi, 2010; Pages: 407; Price: Rs 450/-]

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Sep 2011 11:38

X-Posting from behind Burqa

Killing of animals in urban areas outside of specially designated butcheries and slaughter houses should be banned - for reasons of hygiene, as well as for reasons of public brutality. As soon as an area declares itself urban, this rule should come into play.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Sep 2011 13:44

Rony wrote:Merchant Thomas to Saint Thomas

There may be actual complications for not having such kind of views.

In India people just think that Christianity spread peacefully, just as elsewhere.

The reality is that not only Muslims and Christians but also other minorities like Jews, Parsis have found a safe heaven in veer Bharata because of exact opposite realities.

The swansongs are compulsory needed to hide the reality and create villains out of native cultures at the same time. It is not a pure choice as such to spread such myths.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2011 17:33

X-Posting from "Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II" Thread

brihaspati wrote:Any "guru" who does an equal equal between all possible theological memes, and declares that both contradictory memes flourish - is acting as an agent of the destructive ones. If both peaceful and violent ones flourish together, both have to be equally nurtured, both equally protected as ideas - the violent ones necessarily wins. Because the peaceful one is prevented from becoming violent to defend itself from violence.

Obfuscation of the essentially violent underlying memes, and their justification as injunction from a supra-human authority, justifying land, wealth, women grabbing and enslavement [at least in one theology directly and in the other controversially and indirectly -"neither support" nor "opposition", and opposition also conditional on ethnicity - i.e., it is a crime to enslave the "chosen" people, not necessarily a crime to do so on the not-chosen] - is actually working in the interest of these imperialist ideologies.

It is an insidious line because it is also a psychological warfare to neutralize resistance in populations targeted for culturicide and subjugation, to emasculate them ideologically and keep them confused.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 25 Sep 2011 15:09

In the meanwhile, back at the ranch...........

This should not be allowed in India.

[url]http://zeenews.**********/news/delhi...ts_733318.html[/url]

Sorry, unable to post the full link as I picked it off a paki site, but I saw this news on some Indian sites too

Delhi: Quran exhibition called off after protests

New Delhi: An exhibition on Quran and the message of Islam being held here was called off Saturday mid-way through its schedule after facing protests from other Muslim groups.

The three-day exhibition was organised in the constitution club by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, a group of representatives of Ahmadiyyas sect of Muslims. The exhibition was supposed to end Sunday, however, following strong protests from majority of Muslim groups, led by the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari.

The exhibition was wrapped up after apprehensions of tension as Bukhari announced a protest. This also resulted in a brief detention of Bukhari, spurting up tension in the area of old Delhi.

"We had to wrap up our exhibition after a protests from the hardliners," a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat told agency.

"We were spreading the message of love, to tell the world that Quran is for everyone. But the hardliners don't want this," he said.

Bukhari was briefly detained and taken to the Daryaganj police station of old Delhi. The Shahi Imam said that they were protesting against the exhibition as it was not spreading "correct messages" of Islam.

"They don't consider Prophet Mohammad the last prophet, hence they are not Muslims," Bukhari said.

"We had urged the government to stop the exhibition as what they are promoting is not authentic. We gave the government time till Friday to close the exhibition, but our requests were not heard, so we decided to protest," Bukhari told IANS.

"However, when we were to start the protest, I was detained along with my supporters and taken to Daryaganj police station," he said.

Bukhari said that he then refused to leave the police station premise till the exhibition was called off.

"Protestors were gathering, they (police) then said that the exhibition was being wound-up," he said.

Bukhari was at the police station from 12 noon to around 4 p.m.

According to police, the situation in the area is now normal.

"Bukhari was detained for some time in the morning. The situation in the area is normal now," Central Delhi DCP Vivek Kishore said.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 25 Sep 2011 19:07

St Vincent De Paul Forane Church in Kalpetta has promised 10000/- to Catholic couples on the birth of their fifth child. This novel initiative by the Catholic Church with intentions to augment the Christian population in Kerala has become a widely discussed issue. USA based Catholic News Agency were the first to expose the news to the public. We at dool news contacted Salu Mecheril, the regional coordinator of the programme and confirmed the news...

http://english.doolnews.com/is-the-kera ... -2810.html

Note only Hindus were not asked their opinion in the article, even the Jammat-e-Islami fellow gave his opinion saying that nothing is wrong with this.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Sep 2011 17:48

Originally posted by Rony

Published on Sep 25, 2011
By Aubrey Belford
Borneo Tribe Practices Its Own Kind of Hinduism: New York Times

On paper at least, most of the people of Tumbang Saan are now followers of Hinduism, the dominant religion on the distant island of Bali. Few here could name a Hindu god or even recognize concepts, like karma, that have taken on popular meanings even in the West. But that is not the point. In a corner of the world once famed for headhunters and impenetrable remoteness, a new religion is being developed to face up to an encroaching modern world and an intrusive Indonesian state. The point, in short, is cultural survival.

“The Hindus have helped us,” said Mr. Udatn. “They’re like our umbrella.”

What exists in Tumbang Saan is a strange compromise, born of the Indonesian religious system, where government functionaries play a key role in allocating funding and guiding religious doctrine. Called Hindu Kaharingan, it is a religion for the Dayak of Central Kalimantan, one of the four provinces that make up the Indonesian part of Borneo. Just 30 years old, it is administered by Indonesia’s official Hindu bureaucracy. It exists in no other province.

Hindu Kaharingan polarizes opinions. Some see it as a fake faith, invented for appearances; others hail it as a rediscovery of long-lost beliefs. But in both government offices and remote villages, Hindu Kaharingan leads a precarious existence.

At the complex that houses Hindu Kaharingan’s Grand Council in Palangkaraya, the capital of Central Kalimantan, the head of the advisory board of the religion, Lewis Koebek Dandan Ranying, bristled with suspicion at questions.

“Christians are the ones who are pushing hardest into Central Kalimantan, and we’re still in a fight to the death with them now,” Mr. Lewis said.

Government officials in Jakarta, he alleged, routinely ignore Hindu Kaharingan’s existence in the province, while Christian and Muslim bureaucrats at all levels deliberately undercount the religion’s adherents so as to limit its funding and political influence.

In Mr. Lewis’s view, the Dayak people have been Hindus for centuries; they just did not know it. The beliefs of the various Dayak tribes, he says, descend from the Kutai kingdom, an eastern Borneo state dating from the fourth century whose religion was imported from India. Over time this was lost amid colonization by the Dutch, and the Christian missionaries who came with them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Oct 2011 02:05

X-Posting from "Indian Interests" Thread

RamaY wrote:BBC: Kerala churches reward big families

Several Christian parishes in the Indian state of Kerala have begun offering incentives to couples who produce more children, officials say.

One church of the Syro-Malabar denomination in Kerala's Wayanad district has offered 10,000 rupees ($200) for a couple's fifth child.

The move comes after a report submitted to Kerala's chief minister proposed imposing a strict two-child policy. {So much for rule of law. India's population problem by west and (sic)secular dhimmis etc}

But church groups have aired concerns about dwindling numbers of Christians.

Census statistics show that the number of Christians has been in steady decline. Unofficial estimates say they could slip below 18% of Kerala's population in the latest census.

But the figures also show that the Hindu population in Kerala may be declining faster than the Christian one. Muslims are increasing in numbers.

The state's Hindu and Christian populations declined by 1.48 and 0.32 percentage points respectively, while Muslim numbers increased by 1.7 percentage points between 1991 and 2001.

As one sees here money is being offered by Churches to do social engineering, which is not simply humanitarian or religious in nature, but rather demographic engineering.

Now this is going against India's interests as they are defined now. According to current policy, Indian state is carrying out propaganda to restrict family sizes to just two children. It may not be against the law to have a different opinion. And as restricting the size of the family is voluntary, so the government cannot really tell the Church to stop.

But at least the government can take other measures to stop such institutions acting contrary to the official policy of the Indian Government, and that is to restrict their capacity to do so.

GoI should put a stop to all foreign money coming in from outside to prop up religious institutions in India - religious institutions of all kind - Christian, Muslim and Dharmic as well. However religious institutions are free to generate their resources in India itself.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Oct 2011 02:48

Glad Tiding : The grip of gropputangs loosening in USA.
Al Guradian
Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive'

About 400 people are preparing to gather for a conference in Hartford, Connecticut, to promote the end of religion in the US and their vision of a secular future for the country.Those travelling to the meeting will pass two huge roadside billboards displaying quotes from two of the country's most famous non-believers: Katharine Hepburn and Mark Twain. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so," reads the one featuring Twain. "I'm an atheist and that's it," says the one quoting Hepburn.At the meeting, members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) will hear speakers celebrate successes they have had in removing religion from US public life and see awards being presented to noted secularist activists.The exact number of faithless is unclear. One study by the Pew Research Centre puts them at about 12% of the population, but another by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford puts that figure at around 20%.Most experts agree that the number of secular Americans has probably doubled in the past three decades – growing especially fast among the young. It is thought to be the fastest-growing major "religious" demographic in the country.There are other indications, too. For a long time studies have shown that about 40% of US adults attend a church service weekly. However, other studies that actually counted those at church – rather than just asking people if they went – have shown the true number to be about half to two-thirds of that figure.More Americans are now choosing to get married or be buried without any form of religious ceremony. At universities, departments devoted to the study of secularism are starting to appear. Books by atheist authors are bestsellers. National groups, such as the Secular Coalition of America (SCA), have opened branches across the country.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 08 Oct 2011 03:57

Hallelujah we are saved.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Oct 2011 15:56

Prem, please post that video "India Mission" which you posted in another thread, in this thread and the "Analyzing Political Christianity" thread in GDF. Very useful for people to get an idea of the methodology and the semantics of conversion activity.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 08 Oct 2011 17:30

Charity is what Jomo Kenyata said:

Before the christians came, we had the land and they had the bible.
They asked us to close our eyes and pray to jesus.
When we opened our eyes, we had the bible and they had the land.

It is the same kind of charity that the west practices - they steal entire countries' wealth and then give back a piddling amount via ActionAid or Oxfam.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Oct 2011 18:06

Never mind Prem, I got it. Folks this is "Mission India" by the Methodists. For your viewing pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nQcG5JQ ... r_embedded