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

[csaurabh]

Let me point out another observation of mine - right or wrong.

The British or Americans, for whom English is a first language are excellent at rhetoric and in the use of their language to frame arguments that are difficult to refute - even if elements of the argument are lies.

An early generation of Indians were taught to use English like this. But along with the language came the attitudes - so it was these people who became "seculars". Of course there are some fantastic examples of Indians who are able to put English to effective argumentative usage and are still not pseudosecular. Viveknanda, Aurobindo and Subramaniam Swamy fall in this group.

But by and large the seculars of India have produced a far greater number of people whose facility in English far exceeds the ability of Hindutva supporters to argue in English. Maybe the explanation for this is simple. The language brings the attitude with it. So a person who studies "vernacular" (LOL what a silly colonial word ) till 4th or 7th standard typically finds it difficult to match the English skills of people who have been exposed to English from age 1. This "late English learner" group are also less likely to have colonial attitudes and more likely to have Indian attitudes. But in debate the seculars will thrash them.

(Pseudo) Secular spokespersons typically have fantastic ability in English. Arundhati Roy, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Manish Tiwari, Shinde. Even on BRF I find that people with so called secular views are able to pose arguments in English that easily turn the debate away from what is being discussed to something else, and then the proceed to utarify the chaddis of the "lesser competence in English" people whom they mock as chaddiwalas. I have observed this from time to time over that last 15 years. it is frustrating, but true and IMO reflects a fundamental flaw in our education. What is worse is that such people typically receive ideological support from outside India from native English speakers like Doniger and Witzel

I came to the conclusion some time ago that 'secularism' is the result of English speaking Indians and not the other way round.

There is no word for religion in Indian languages. The closest one is 'Dharma', but all that means is 'ethics', not 'religion'.
Unbeliever, 'infidel or 'kaffir' does not exist either. There is simply no concept like that.

Similarly the word secular does not exist either. When this word was added into the Indian constitution by IG in 1975, it was translated as 'Dharmanirpekshita'. One of the ministers of IGs cabinet fought to get it replaced with 'Panthnirpekshita' , arguing that a government without Dharma is no government at all. And 'Panthnirpekshita' is how it appears in the Hindi version of our constitution today.

None of the ancient Indian kings as far as I know felt the need to call themselves 'Panthnirpekshak' or anything like that. Does it mean they were not 'secular' ?

You see.. all these terminologies like 'secular', 'communal', left wing, right wing, 'Hindu nationalist' etc. were invented by muddle headed English speaking Indians with the help of racist westerners to bash India and Hindus. The moment you try fighting the seculars with these words, you are losing, because you have already accepted their terminology.

The way forward is to simply ignore all of these words because they are poison, and just concentrate on the matter at hand.

[Karan M]

The answer is "Nobody knows. No one has thought about it recently. One group does not want the question examined. the other group accepts it philosophically"

Pakistanis, the Donigers and the Congress and other two-bit "secular" parties don't have any good reasons but are happy to continue to call Hindu Nationalism "toxic" or "bad" or whatever. They do not want to rock the boat. If it ain't broke don't fix it. They do not want to explore the question because they are afraid that the answer will go against what they have been insisting. But this is fine.

What is an order of magnitude worse, is that people who support Hindu nationalism are themselves unable to say why it has been given a bad name. They too have not explored the question and this group too are not going beyond the tactic of simply and reactively opposing Pakis, Donigers and Congressis, who are themselves unable to say why Hindu nationalism is bad. The supporters of Hindu Nationalism have simply accepted the accusation and some actually come up with rationalizations and explanations to prove that the accusations are correct, rather than applying themselves to disproving this egregious association of Hindu nationalism with murder and bigotry.

But we have thought about it.

The Pakistanis, Donigers and the Congress all hate Hindu nationalism for different and sometimes overlapping reasons:

Pakistanis - Hindu nationalism is the vehicle to empower Hindus. They fear it. One, the thought of a resurgent "Hindu empire" led by strong Hindu leaders is their greatest fear. They were Hindus/Buddhists once. They ran to Islam and embraced it. Now the thought of being forced into a change makes them cringe, because deep down they worship/look at only power and that may mean they can revert. Second, and a strong Hindu civilization which treats them the way they have treated Hindus (projection) is also part of the process. How would Bectors "Angels of Aabpara" feel about getting their comeuppance?

Donigers - racism mixed with ego and making sure they retain their influence. Folks like Doniger were lucky enough to be born in a time when the average Hindu was either not educated enough to research and undercut Donigers claims or not priviliged enough to have all the tools (be in the west, have the connections or vehicle to speak up etc). As such there is a powerful network of charlatans like Doniger who have made good moolah out of interpreting Hinduism for the west, while at the same time, being able to hold onto their racist structures and beliefs and projecting them.

Congress - power. Hindu nationalism means an assertive, bunch of folks who evaluate the Congress for its performance on national aims - security, economics, and how it has contributed to societal challenges and divided Indian society. The power brokers in the INC dont want to lose power. Also, the Congress also has many EJs and Islamists in its ranks, cultivated for reasons of vote grabbing. They viscerally hate Hindu nationalism too.

Progressives - these are brainwashed folks who hate Hindu nationalism because they have internalized all the arguments of the groups above and will stick to it. Some will change, revert to the mean.

Many groups, some overlapping reasons..

[Arjun]

But by and large the seculars of India have produced a far greater number of people whose facility in English far exceeds the ability of Hindutva supporters to argue in English. Maybe the explanation for this is simple. The language brings the attitude with it. So a person who studies "vernacular" (LOL what a silly colonial word ) till 4th or 7th standard typically finds it difficult to match the English skills of people who have been exposed to English from age 1. This "late English learner" group are also less likely to have colonial attitudes and more likely to have Indian attitudes. But in debate the seculars will thrash them.

Not true at all. It is the pseudo-seculars whose "chaddies were utarofied" to use a colloquial expression - in all debates in social media over the past two years. Contributing to Modi's win in large part. And there are enough surveys out there that show for a fact that support for the Hindu Nationalist party was much higher among the higher-IQ and more educated than among the lower classses (which incidentally was always the case even in 2004 - just that the support for "secular party" among the less-educated more than made up for the lack of support from the educated).

I wouldn't be too harsh on Bector ji. The world around him is collapsing - as it is for all seculars of his ilk. The idiocy that got passed around as 'truth' by the Dynasty-worshippers got shown up for its extreme retardedness. We should allow this breed to pass on to their sunsets watching 'Parzania" & attending Urdu shairies - India will emerge immeasurably stronger once this happens.

[Karan M]

This thread will continue while you watch your movie - a description of the movie scene was unnecessary rhetoric - people with powerful arguments usually don't need such buttressing, used as a "rubbing it in" tactic. Your opinions should be able to stand on their own sans the "While I enjoy a movie you may not like" statement. That is an indicator of your state of mind, but let us see.

Exactly. The same kind of thought process we saw on display with the "cult" stuff, "angels of Aabpara" as well. These motifs - glorification of Islamism, the contemptuous references to Hinduism etc etc. All the stuff about toxic brand, resetting the knob etc seem to be sophisticated ways of saying: "I like/empathise with x, I dislike y, but I need to couch it in terms these guys will buy".

After I am done watching Parzania I will watch that movie "Final Solution" by Rakesh Sharma.

Why stop there? Do download & read every piece by Pankaj Mishra, Arundhati Roy, take a lifelong subscription to the NYT and Economist (if you don't have them already), subscribe to the official LeT & Ghazwa e Hind channels on youtube, cheer along with Zaid Hamid...knock yourself out by surrounding yourself with folks who agree with you. They also say the same things, make the same arguments etc.

The answer appears to be - no - it doesn't make sense to revive it for that purpose but as a way to stick it to the "seculars" who love the "Nehruvian/INC" model, it is ideal to revive it - purely as a tool of cynical realpolitik.

Uh no - I merely pointed out the cynical real politik is that the powerful want to make money and are not too bothered about the Hindu/XYZ nationalist brand even as they use it to curse others who are not docile. Abe is a Japanese nationalist. China has communists. So what? The world goes on.

As Karan explained to me - no one but me is going to care if the "seculars" get beaten up.

LOL - I didnt even use the term "beaten up". Thats another pointless claim you are introducing. Physical violence is what you allege in your quixotic quest to demonize the Hindu right. "Mass orgies of violence" was another try from your side.

I neither claimed this sort of stuff & your attempts to attribute it to me are touching, but ultimately, untrue.

I merely pointed out the "seculars" (or rather the pretend seculars) will be reduced to political irrelevance & nobody really cares, because the actual issues that face the Indian people are far beyond the asinine secular-Hindutva posturing the secular crowd has engaged in so far.

I suspect this becoming irrelevant thing will hurt the pysche of the secular vadis far more because it means their days of influence peddling & name dropping & positioning themselves as thought leaders of Indian society, are over.

Some of them will suddenly discover the virtues of Modi-ji and selfies and how he is so different than the eebil RSS and Hindutva types (one prominent sec-vadi has already tried this). But "divide et impera" is an old tactic known to Modi ji and wont work.

Any attempts by the sec-vadi crowd to act as agents of influence for other countries, NGOs etc wont be taken kindly either.

Interesting times.

[shiv]

if you consider hinduism a religion rather than a cultural concept. So it seems to me that the confusion here is that if you claim "hinduism is a religion" then "hindu nationalism" is different from "Indian nationalism" and that leaves out a lot of people who are of different religions. so if hindutvavadis claim hinduism is a religion in the western sense of the word, so they themselves distort the meaning of hindu nationalism, by being more emphatic that hinduism is a rigidly defined religion, as opposed to a way of life that is orthogonal to the concept of religion. I'll stop now and leave quietly.

The story is something like this.

When the British first came to India there were no seculars and no Hindutva-vadis. (there may have been nationalists - as there have been for millennia). The Britiesh asked Indians (Hindus) questions that Hindus had no answer to give. Hindus never looked at the world with the frame of reference that the British were asking about.

The British asked them "What is your religion?". Hindu had no concept that they had a "religion" that stood apart from other "religions" with well defined lines between X religion and Y religion that would cause anger if crossed. The British asked them "Who is your God? Who are your prophets? What is your holy book". Hindus had no clear specific answer to any of these questions and questions were probably answered contextually depending on who was asked.

The British then built up a picture of a "Hindu religion" about which they found a lot of seriously bad and immoral things. Then in the process of re educating Indians they fed Indians with the idea that "This is your religion. These are the things that your people say that your religion does. This stands apart form Christianity and Islam which are different religions". Good Hindu students promptly mugged up and internalized this information along with the three R's. Even at this time there were no secularists and Hindutvavadis. But Hindus had now been taught by the British that they too had a "religion" called Hindu-ism. they had their prophets, holy book et al, but were idolators which was wrong, and that their "religion" made them a degraded people. This too was internalized.

Then, before independence, a fight was set up between the two "religions", "Hinduism" and Islam. It became my God versus yours. Egregious "Hindu religious culture" versus high Islamic culture. Hindus were unable to evoke concepts of dharma and unable to explain "sarva dharma sambhava". It was "Your religion which say "Quran holy book and sharia" versus my religion. And then we had two nation states - one for Muslims and the other was for "everyone" according to Indian leaders, but "For Hindus only" according to Pakistanis. At that time both Hindu nationalists and Hindu seculars were pretty much united in lamenting the misrepresentation of indian culture as a "crass religion" that was in a state of competition with Islam.

But it was after partition that the real fissures came out. The "seculars" accepted that Hindu-ism was flawed and set about making "corrections". But they said - Islam is fine, and Muslims in India should remain fully Islamic with 4 wives, 2 minute Talaqs and freebie rides to makkah. Islam was perfect and should not be touched. Hindus needed cure. Unfortunately this angered some Hindus whose minds were as colonized as the seculars. They said "Our religion is fine, why are secular favouring Muslims with sops and freebies". When Hindus took this argument to the political arena, the political arena became divided into "secular" and "Hindu=anti-Muslim"

Hindu tradition per se is not against any God and not against worship of any particular kind. To that extent Muslims and Islam are accepted exactly like Hindus accept other Gods. But when a fight is set up, Hindus will fight back. Hindus will reserve the right to worship as they please without coercion and others too will be allowed to do the same. This is pluralism. Not secularism. Hindu are pluralist. Islam and Christianty are not.

It is for those religions, Islam and Christianity that one needs a secular constitution. You can have a pluralist society and a secular constitution, as long as that secular constitution treats all religions and Dharma based cultures equally. But if religions get favors and dharma based cultures get restricted because of "flaws" the least that is needed is to ask why these dharma based cultures are being dubbed as flawed and why they need restriction. That has never been asked in India. The idea that they are flawed have simply been swallowed from British times and peddled as reality by the continuous rule of a family based "pseudosecular" polity.

I posit that Hindu nationalism is an inclusive form of nationalism that agrees to give Christians and Muslims and all other religions equal place under equal laws.

[shiv]

Let me make an OT statement:

"Whoops - I've just been masturbating and enjoying it a great deal - but I stopped for a bit to come and post this reply on this forum. And goodbye for now while I carry on with my onanism"

The problem with this post is that for this forum - it is my post that counts, not whether I am masturbating or not. To that extent Bectorji has scored a stupid self goal by speaking of some movie or other that he was enjoying until he stopped for a minute to come on here and say something

[peter]

I have a new hypothesis regarding "Why is Hindu Nationalism spoken of in a pejorative/derogatory sense?"

The answer is "Nobody knows. No one has thought about it recently. One group does not want the question examined. the other group accepts it philosophically"
........

My 10 paisa. The reason is that "seculars" routinely hit the hindu nationalists for a six in the debates. Be it television, newspaper, or the various internet fora.

One reason that the hindu nationalists (HN) are getting hit so badly is Information! Rather lack of it. HNs read some info on the net which is not complete and then they become internet warriors with half baked data.

This can only get fixed if HN is given info in a manner similar to how the historigraphy standards of today dictate (with complete references, etc).

Bector is saying that Hindu nationalism is bad for various reasons. Perhaps I missed it but has he defined what hindu nationalism is?

As far as bringing the "Eeendoo" right wing bomb makers like the army colonel etc may I pose a simple question: Harpal Bector ji it is agreed (please let us know if you dont) that overwhelming majority of terrorism cases in the last couple of decades have been done by Moolahs and a miniscule amount by right wing eendoos.

What is the expectation from "secular topiwalas" that ordinary Eeendoos should just allow terrorists to bomb their places of worship, places of livelihood? Especially when they perceive that "secular topiwalas" aint gonna a do a thing in stopping these attacks?

[Arjun]

My 10 paisa. The reason is that "seculars" routinely hit the hindu nationalists for a six in the debates. Be it television, newspaper, or the various internet fora.

One reason that the hindu nationalists (HN) are getting hit so badly is Information! Rather lack of it. HNs read some info on the net which is not complete and then they become internet warriors with half baked data.

This can only get fixed if HN is given info in a manner similar to how the historigraphy standards of today dictate (with complete references, etc).

Well, clearly Shiv and you seem to be inhabiting a completely different planet when it comes to the issue of which side has been winning the debates (esp on social media) in the recent past. Interesting only.

A critical reason why the Hindu Nationalists won in 2014 and not in 2004 is because of the advance of the Information Age in India - and the spread of Information and analysis to every nook and corner of the country. The greater the information and availability of unbiased two-way media (currently only the internet) the greater are the chances of Hindu Nationalists winning.

[Karan M]

He's probably going by the scripted tv show debates where hand picked folks from assorted political groups gang up on some hapless joker from the BJP who could barely string two sentences together. Even that has changed with newer folks who speak their mind.

[Comer]

I guess in Western systems, there is a need for checks and balances and the balancing force need to be found "explicitly outside their religion". Whereas, I think, Hinduism needs no external balancing system to keep check. Any unnecessary system propped would need several justifications for it, hence the pejorative labels keep tacked on.
JMT onlee.

[Arjun]

Let me try and answer Shiv's original question.

The reason 'Hindu Nationalism' is so bad is because of the horrors that one tends to associate with Islamic Nationalism (Pakistan, ISIS and innumerable other examples) and Christian Nationalism (Spanish Inquisition, Goa & Portuguese atrocities, colonialism....).

This is a classic case of 'guilt by association'. One can either fight against this fallacy and prove that Hinduism is not as destructive as Islam or Christianity - or one can use a term that raises less hackles and is less likely to be brought into disrepute by association with the Abrahamic religions.

[Pratyush]

Let me try and answer Shiv's original question.

The reason 'Hindu Nationalism' is so bad is because of the horrors that one tends to associate with Islamic Nationalism (Pakistan, ISIS and innumerable other examples) and Christian Nationalism (Spanish Inquisition, Goa & Portuguese atrocities, colonialism....).

This is a classic case of 'guilt by association'. One can either fight against this fallacy and prove that Hinduism is not as destructive as Islam or Christianity - or one can use a term that raises less hackles and is less likely to be brought into disrepute by association with the Abrahamic religions.

A classic case of projection.

I have a feeling that Shiv Ji well is aware of this fact and my would guess be that, it is the problem he is trying to address. It is a problem because Hindus lack of internal control over our own narrative. Which allows others to put labels on us. While defining the meaning of those labels.

HN is one such label along with the associated meaning that is given to it.

[peter]

My 10 paisa. The reason is that "seculars" routinely hit the hindu nationalists for a six in the debates. Be it television, newspaper, or the various internet fora.

One reason that the hindu nationalists (HN) are getting hit so badly is Information! Rather lack of it. HNs read some info on the net which is not complete and then they become internet warriors with half baked data.

This can only get fixed if HN is given info in a manner similar to how the historigraphy standards of today dictate (with complete references, etc).

Well, clearly Shiv and you seem to be inhabiting a completely different planet when it comes to the issue of which side has been winning the debates (esp on social media) in the recent past. Interesting only.

A critical reason why the Hindu Nationalists won in 2014 and not in 2004 is because of the advance of the Information Age in India - and the spread of Information and analysis to every nook and corner of the country. The greater the information and availability of unbiased two-way media (currently only the internet) the greater are the chances of Hindu Nationalists winning.

We are talking about two different things. Modi winning by getting his point across is what you are talking about. I am referring to the stance of HNs on Saraswati river, AIT, benevolence of Invaders rule, now add the benevolence of British and English on the "betterment" of India as pappu says etc.

The latter debate HNs are not winning. Even on Indian TV shows like NDTV etc when it comes to defending RSS or highlighting the nehruvian blunders BJP and its speakers come out looking horribly devoid of solid arguments.

Take the latest example of Rahul praising brits and english lang and compare it to the response of BJP wallahs. Horrible I say.

[peter]

He's probably going by the scripted tv show debates where hand picked folks from assorted political groups gang up on some hapless joker from the BJP who could barely string two sentences together. Even that has changed with newer folks who speak their mind.

The newer folks admittedly are a bit better but still they loose the debate.

[peter]

Let me try and answer Shiv's original question.

The reason 'Hindu Nationalism' is so bad is because of the horrors that one tends to associate with Islamic Nationalism (Pakistan, ISIS and innumerable other examples) and Christian Nationalism (Spanish Inquisition, Goa & Portuguese atrocities, colonialism....).

This is a classic case of 'guilt by association'. One can either fight against this fallacy and prove that Hinduism is not as destructive as Islam or Christianity - or one can use a term that raises less hackles and is less likely to be brought into disrepute by association with the Abrahamic religions.

What is wrong with spanish inquisition? I do not get your point. Can you please explain a bit more?

[Arjun]

What is wrong with spanish inquisition? I do not get your point. Can you please explain a bit more?

Treatment of Jews for a start. More details in the Wiki for Spanish Inquisition:

Expulsion of Jews and repression of conversos

The Spanish Inquisition had been set up in part to prevent conversos from engaging in Jewish practices, which, as Christians, they were supposed to have given up. However this remedy for securing the orthodoxy of conversos' religion was eventually deemed inadequate, since the main justification the monarchy gave for formally expelling all Jews from Spain was the "great harm suffered by Christians (i.e. conversos) from the contact, intercourse and communication which they have with the Jews, who always attempt in various ways to seduce faithful Christians from our Holy Catholic Faith".[15] The Alhambra Decree, which ordered the expulsion, was issued in January 1492. Historic accounts of the numbers of Jews who left Spain have varied enormously. Historians of the period give extremely high figures: Juan de Mariana speaks of 800,000 people, and Don Isaac Abravanel of 300,000. Modern estimates, based on careful examination of official documents and population estimates of communities, are much lower: Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[16] The Jews of the kingdom of Castile emigrated mainly to Portugal (whence they were expelled in 1497) and to North Africa. However, according to Henry Kamen, the Jews of the kingdom of Aragon, went "to adjacent Christian lands, mainly to Italy", rather than to Muslim lands as is often assumed.[17] The Sefardim or Anusim descendants of Spanish Jews gradually migrated throughout Europe and North Africa, where they established communities in many cities. They also went to New Spain, the Ottoman Empire and North America (the American Southwest), Central and South America.

Tens of thousands of Jews were baptised in the three months before the deadline for expulsion, some 40,000 if one accepts the totals given by Kamen: most of these undoubtedly to avoid expulsion, rather than as a sincere change of faith. These conversos were the principal concern of the Inquisition; being suspected of continuing to practice Judaism put them at risk of denunciation and trial.

The most intense period of persecution of conversos lasted until 1530. From 1531 to 1560, however, the percentage of conversos among the Inquisition trials dropped to 3% of the total. There was a rebound of persecutions when a group of crypto-Jews was discovered in Quintanar de la Orden in 1588; and there was a rise in denunciations of conversos in the last decade of the 16th century. At the beginning of the 17th century, some conversos who had fled to Portugal began to return to Spain, fleeing the persecution of the Portuguese Inquisition, founded in 1536. This led to a rapid increase in the trials of crypto-Jews, among them a number of important financiers. In 1691, during a number of autos-da-fé in Majorca, 36 chuetas, or conversos of Majorca, were burned.

During the 18th century the number of conversos accused by the Inquisition decreased significantly. Manuel Santiago Vivar, tried in Córdoba in 1818, was the last person tried for being a crypto-Jew.

The generally accepted number burnt at the stake by the Inquisition (including all categories such as Protestants, blasphemers, bigamists and crypto-Jews) is below 5,000 (see below).

Wiki kindly informs us that the number of people burnt at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition is not more than 5000. Quite humanitarian of the Christist Spaniards I must say.

[Pratyush]

What is the issue if BJP jokers loose the debates. The more important debate is in the academia, there with the exception of the JNU and a few other secular heavens. The HN are winning, and are crafting our own narratives. Dinanath Batra is one example of this. At the other end are people such as Kaushal and his colleagues. Who have kept the flame alive, though the years.

The battle is long and hard but it will be won by the HN.

[peter]

What is wrong with spanish inquisition? I do not get your point. Can you please explain a bit more?

Treatment of Jews for a start. More details in the Wiki for Spanish Inquisition:

Expulsion of Jews and repression of conversos

The Spanish Inquisition had been set up in part to prevent conversos from engaging in Jewish practices, which, as Christians, they were supposed to have given up. However this remedy for securing the orthodoxy of conversos' religion was eventually deemed inadequate, since the main justification the monarchy gave for formally expelling all Jews from Spain was the "great harm suffered by Christians (i.e. conversos) from the contact, intercourse and communication which they have with the Jews, who always attempt in various ways to seduce faithful Christians from our Holy Catholic Faith".[15] The Alhambra Decree, which ordered the expulsion, was issued in January 1492. Historic accounts of the numbers of Jews who left Spain have varied enormously. Historians of the period give extremely high figures: Juan de Mariana speaks of 800,000 people, and Don Isaac Abravanel of 300,000. Modern estimates, based on careful examination of official documents and population estimates of communities, are much lower: Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[16] The Jews of the kingdom of Castile emigrated mainly to Portugal (whence they were expelled in 1497) and to North Africa. However, according to Henry Kamen, the Jews of the kingdom of Aragon, went "to adjacent Christian lands, mainly to Italy", rather than to Muslim lands as is often assumed.[17] The Sefardim or Anusim descendants of Spanish Jews gradually migrated throughout Europe and North Africa, where they established communities in many cities. They also went to New Spain, the Ottoman Empire and North America (the American Southwest), Central and South America.

Tens of thousands of Jews were baptised in the three months before the deadline for expulsion, some 40,000 if one accepts the totals given by Kamen: most of these undoubtedly to avoid expulsion, rather than as a sincere change of faith. These conversos were the principal concern of the Inquisition; being suspected of continuing to practice Judaism put them at risk of denunciation and trial.

The most intense period of persecution of conversos lasted until 1530. From 1531 to 1560, however, the percentage of conversos among the Inquisition trials dropped to 3% of the total. There was a rebound of persecutions when a group of crypto-Jews was discovered in Quintanar de la Orden in 1588; and there was a rise in denunciations of conversos in the last decade of the 16th century. At the beginning of the 17th century, some conversos who had fled to Portugal began to return to Spain, fleeing the persecution of the Portuguese Inquisition, founded in 1536. This led to a rapid increase in the trials of crypto-Jews, among them a number of important financiers. In 1691, during a number of autos-da-fé in Majorca, 36 chuetas, or conversos of Majorca, were burned.

During the 18th century the number of conversos accused by the Inquisition decreased significantly. Manuel Santiago Vivar, tried in Córdoba in 1818, was the last person tried for being a crypto-Jew.

The generally accepted number burnt at the stake by the Inquisition (including all categories such as Protestants, blasphemers, bigamists and crypto-Jews) is below 5,000 (see below).

Wiki kindly informs us that the number of people burnt at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition is not more than 5000. Quite humanitarian of the Christist Spaniards I must say.

You miss the point. Jews were the collateral damage. SI was to make the moor utter the last sigh. Please investigate that.

[peter]

What is the issue if BJP jokers loose the debates. The more important debate is in the academia, there with the exception of the JNU and a few other secular heavens. The HN are winning, and are crafting our own narratives. Dinanath Batra is one example of this. At the other end are people such as Kaushal and his colleagues. Who have kept the flame alive, though the years.

The battle is long and hard but it will be won by the HN.

BJP loosing debates on tv channels is a bit shameful. They should know more facts and shuld be able to shut up the secular topiwallas. But does not happen.

Dude dinanath batra is of no consequence. Getting something banned is neither interesting nor intellectually enriching. Remember Indians never worried about other philosophies becuse Hinduism is such a logical religion.

Buddhism , Jainism rose as a revolt against Hinduism.

[Arjun]

We are talking about two different things. Modi winning by getting his point across is what you are talking about.

I am talking about the clash of 'ideas of India' between Nehruvians and Modi supporters, that was played out all over social media. The latter pretty much won the debate hands down - beating the Nehruvians black and blue. Perhaps you are not aware that there was a thread even on BRF where this same clash of ideas of India played out ?

I am referring to the stance of HNs on Saraswati river, AIT, benevolence of Invaders rule, now add the benevolence of British and English on the "betterment" of India as pappu says etc.

Saraswati river and AIT are complicated historical debates - if anything it is clearly the non-AIT side that has improved its position over the last few decades.

Re benevolence of British etc - MMS or Pappu are definitely not winning any kind of battle of minds on this issue. The fact that 'seculars' even think this latter topic is one worthy of serious debate is a laughable notion.

[Shanmukh]

You miss the point. Jews were the collateral damage. SI was to make the moor utter the last sigh. Please investigate that.

From what I have read, IIRC, Isabella & Ferdinand had run up huge debts. They set up Inquisition to grab money from the Jews (there were plenty of rich Jews in old Moorish areas. In fact, just a century before, one of the Castilian Kings had a Jewish mistress - a noble Jewess, in fact). In fact, Ferdinand's letter to the Pope mentions tracking down and converting the `hidden Jews', and not the Moors. Plenty of Jews had converted to Christianity, but it was still profitable for Ferdinand to rob them, and cast them as `hidden Jews', while rewarding his own followers. By the time of the Inquisition, Moors were reduced to a pitiful state, all congregating on the Andalusian coast, and were mostly farmers and shepards (whom it was not exactly profitable to rob). Usually, the Pope would refuse the Spanish monarchs authority to set up Inquisitions without Papal oversight, but at this point, the Turks were threatening the Italian Peninsula, and Ferdinand threatened to withdraw his ships if the Pope didn't consent to Spanish Inquisition. So, the Spanish Inquisition began as a money making enterprise for their Most Catholic Majesties of Spain.

[MurthyB]

But we have thought about it.

The Pakistanis, Donigers and the Congress all hate Hindu nationalism for different and sometimes overlapping reasons:

...

Many groups, some overlapping reasons..

To add an important group: cultural Marxists. Their motivations are also simple: everything is class struggle, a fight against injustice, that can only be solved if the dominant cultural and religious establishment is discredited and overthrown, after which revolution can take place. Of-course, this leftism originally was a reaction to European religio-racist fascism of the yore, that has be blindly adopted by some "hindus" who do a cut and paste of "Hindu" into all European Christian/White villainy. A right wing American summarized the leftists thusly, as re-summarized by Slavoj Zizek, a rock start for Marxists everywhere:

MacDonald devotes many pages to The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a collective project coordinated by Adorno, the purpose of which was, for MacDonald, to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder: everything, from patriotism to religion to family—and race—loyalty, is disqualified as a sign of a dangerous and defective “authoritarian personality.” Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties—even close family ties—are “prejudice.” MacDonald quotes here approvingly Christopher Lasch’s remark that The Authoritarian Personality leads to the conclusion that prejudice “could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy – by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.”

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty: “Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.” Although he came later, the “French-Jewish deconstructionist Jacques Derrida” followed the same tradition when he wrote: “The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants…” As MacDonald puts it, “Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.”

You can replace Christian/White/European for Hindu and American with Indian in the above and see where the mishras and roys are plagiarizing their ideas from. In fact the charge of psychotherapy does not seme far fetched given Donniger's application of precisely that to Hindus and Hinduism.

Therefor, Donniger and Dalrymple are are also, I suspect, cultural Marxists. Of-course, in Donnigers "Hindus", she dedicates the book to Dalrymple, "her comrade in arms", which may not even be sarcastic or ironic.

[Pratyush]

Peter, if Hindu religion was a logical religion, as claimed by you. Then a revolt against it would not be required.

IIRC, Siddharth did not leave home because of Hinduism. Please don't project the prejudices of Hindu haters on the actions of Siddharth, when he left his palace. It was an act of renunciation but was it against the "Hindu"? Also are his original teaching against Hindu?

Am not so clear about Jains.

Dinanath Batra, is an example of one of the approaches that is available to HN's in the present context. Within the current constitutional setup. As such it a valid approach in order to take control of the narrative on the basis of purely classcal texts available to the Hindus.

[Comer]

Why could we export Buddhism to China/Japan but not Hinduism? We could do it in the Southeast Asia.

[member_22733]

When my ancestors moved from one end of India to the other (migration trail of 600 odd years, not many useful records exist before 600 years), they always found a home wherever they went.

At this time in history Our "community" or "jati" is spread around almost 2000 miles in a very "linear/nomadic" fashion (sometimes crisscrossing each other), in doing so they crossed many Rajyas (Nations), but they never had any issue with it. No one was kicked out as an illegal immigrant and no one was burnt at the stake for being an "alien".

Even more interesting is the fact that today a person of my community living in this end of India finds it very difficult to understand his own community's culture on the other end of India.

What I am trying to say is, my nomadic ancestors were welcome everywhere in India, and its not an exception it is the rule. This fact is of course well know in BRF circles, and this is why some of the responses here puzzle me to no end.

The concept of a "strict" border is alien to India. We have welcomed everyone with open arms. From Alexander who came to wage war and ended up dying to a mass murderer like Aurangzeb and his illegal children. From the business minded middle eastern Jews and Arabs, to the genocidal but "civilizing" Brishits.

"Hindu" "Nationalism" is an interesting word, ironic I would argue. A real Hindu nationalist would say, well I dont have any borders and neither should you. A real Hindu nationalist would say: You and I have our differences, but we can co-exist without burning each other or raping each other's women. A Hindu nationalist would say: "You are atheist and that is ok by me, there is nothing in my books that say you should be beheaded for that". For some strange reason, a Hindu "Nationalist" is the opposite of any other kind of "nationalist" that you will find. He is the original believer in all the modern day "liberal ideas" of a "free" and "border free society".

Indics historically never had a concept of religion or even a nation with strict socio-economic boundaries. Our boundaries were always political and as Shiv saar says: Geographical. Our boundaries were never tied heavily into socio economics.

That is a key change in how things evolved in the west and the middle east (esp during crusade and other "world conquering" missions conducted by Greeks, Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Turkish, Oiropeans etc). So the current very western/Abrahamic idea of a "nation-state" that is exclusive to its citizens and its associated "exclusivism": "nationalism" is in itself alien to India.

Let me stick my neck out and say this: If we define nationalism as another exclusivist philosophy, then Hindu Nationalism can only be defensive and reactive. We are defending ideological and geographical territory as a reaction to those exclusivist people who are proactively trying to deny us our own intellectual, economic, political and geographical freedom.

Ultimtely, I would like everyone to be a Hindu nationalist. No borders on the planet and freedom to practice any form of non-exclusive religion. Compared to that, what we have now is a distortion that denies a large part of the world, to a large part of its population.

[Pratyush]

Self Deleted...............

[Pratyush]

Why could we export Buddhism to China/Japan but not Hinduism? We could do it in the Southeast Asia.

May be because of the missionaries that were sent by Ashoka and the process was continued by the disciples. It also spread by trade. Whereas, when you look at what you think is "Hindu" in the present context, You will realise that it was non existent when Buddhism was expanding.

All so called "Hindus", had at that time was the Vedas and they may have been exported but that export was freed from the religious compulsions (may be the phrase religious compulsions is wrong in this context). This is one of the reasons why, when some Indians speak of Greater India, they mean all parts of Asia, that were once under the influence of the Vedas. We have Vedic temples as far away as Vietnam.

[peter]

We are talking about two different things. Modi winning by getting his point across is what you are talking about.

I am talking about the clash of 'ideas of India' between Nehruvians and Modi supporters, that was played out all over social media. The latter pretty much won the debate hands down - beating the Nehruvians black and blue. Perhaps you are not aware that there was a thread even on BRF where this same clash of ideas of India played out ?

Modi won not because any ideology toppled Nehruvain crap. Look at Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, MP people voted not on account of some debate that HNs won. Reasons for voting are different. Can you please paste a pointer to the thread you are referring to?

I am referring to the stance of HNs on Saraswati river, AIT, benevolence of Invaders rule, now add the benevolence of British and English on the "betterment" of India as pappu says etc.

Saraswati river and AIT are complicated historical debates - if anything it is clearly the non-AIT side that has improved its position over the last few decades.

Sure. The HNs are questioning more and consequently the invasion has turned into a trickle or an assimilation of a small group. But the direction is still from west to east ! IMHO course of saraswati lies in India and if after BJP having been in power earlier (when we missed the chance) and now again if we cannot bury the saraswati debate deep underground with the weight of so much evidence that no westerner or their stooges ever again even dream of raising the saraswati issue ever then I will consider it a big failure.

Re benevolence of British etc - MMS or Pappu are definitely not winning any kind of battle of minds on this issue. The fact that 'seculars' even think this latter topic is one worthy of serious debate is a laughable notion.

Laughable to you. But there is a large part of India where these jokers are held in high esteem. HNs need to conquer that territory.

[peter]

You miss the point. Jews were the collateral damage. SI was to make the moor utter the last sigh. Please investigate that.

From what I have read, IIRC, Isabella & Ferdinand had run up huge debts. They set up Inquisition to grab money from the Jews (there were plenty of rich Jews in old Moorish areas. In fact, just a century before, one of the Castilian Kings had a Jewish mistress - a noble Jewess, in fact). In fact, Ferdinand's letter to the Pope mentions tracking down and converting the `hidden Jews', and not the Moors. Plenty of Jews had converted to Christianity, but it was still profitable for Ferdinand to rob them, and cast them as `hidden Jews', while rewarding his own followers. By the time of the Inquisition, Moors were reduced to a pitiful state, all congregating on the Andalusian coast, and were mostly farmers and shepards (whom it was not exactly profitable to rob). Usually, the Pope would refuse the Spanish monarchs authority to set up Inquisitions without Papal oversight, but at this point, the Turks were threatening the Italian Peninsula, and Ferdinand threatened to withdraw his ships if the Pope didn't consent to Spanish Inquisition. So, the Spanish Inquisition began as a money making enterprise for their Most Catholic Majesties of Spain.

If you get a chance please read this:
http://www.historytoday.com/roger-boase ... sion-spain
http://www.historytoday.com/matt-carr/s ... m-moriscos

[peter]

Peter, if Hindu religion was a logical religion, as claimed by you. Then a revolt against it would not be required.

Truth can always be subverted by the "keepers" of the religion. Hence the need for revolt.

IIRC, Siddharth did not leave home because of Hinduism. Please don't project the prejudices of Hindu haters on the actions of Siddharth, when he left his palace. It was an act of renunciation but was it against the "Hindu"? Also are his original teaching against Hindu?

See Siddharth went looking for answers. He could not find any in what he had learnt or the gurus that he made on his journey. So he invented his own path , junked whole bunch of things that he did not thing were relevant from his parent faith and started a new faith. It was definetely a revolt against Hinduism. The schism was percieved so even by other Brahamans.

Am not so clear about Jains.

Dinanath Batra, is an example of one of the approaches that is available to HN's in the present context. Within the current constitutional setup. As such it a valid approach in order to take control of the narrative on the basis of purely classcal texts available to the Hindus.

I am not sure I would like to see any book banned. Had he gone and rebutted Doniger para by para and page by page and then evangelised his work and showed how stupid she was that would be in the spirit of Indian shastrarth. Admittedly this is very hard to do since she is in the ivory tower of "academia". Question is there a way to beat the academics like doniger at their own game without having to resort to book banning?

[peter]

Why could we export Buddhism to China/Japan but not Hinduism? We could do it in the Southeast Asia.

Because Hinduism does not allow conversion. These other faiths do. So missionary activity works well for Buddhism.

[RajeshA]

Modi won not because any ideology toppled Nehruvain crap. Look at Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, MP people voted not on account of some debate that HNs won. Reasons for voting are different. Can you please paste a pointer to the thread you are referring to?

Yes and the Congress got to rule over India, not because of their honesty about their pseudo-secularism, but because they claimed to have given India independence!

[peter]

.....
What I am trying to say is, my nomadic ancestors were welcome everywhere in India, and its not an exception it is the rule. This fact is of course well know in BRF circles, and this is why some of the responses here puzzle me to no end.

Which responses puzzle you?

The concept of a "strict" border is alien to India. We have welcomed everyone with open arms. From Alexander who came to wage war and ended up dying to a mass murderer like Aurangzeb and his illegal children. From the business minded middle eastern Jews and Arabs, to the genocidal but "civilizing" Brishits.

Open arms? Alexander fought with us and we seriously kicked his ass. Aurangzed ruled over large parts of India and so did Brits. We did not welcome them with open arms. This open arm thingy is the attitude we are taught in our textbooks and is surely the attitude of the defeated . India fought very hard to keep up its way of living, religion etc.

[peter]

Modi won not because any ideology toppled Nehruvain crap. Look at Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, MP people voted not on account of some debate that HNs won. Reasons for voting are different. Can you please paste a pointer to the thread you are referring to?

Yes and the Congress got to rule over India, not because of their honesty about their pseudo-secularism, but because they claimed to have given India independence!

Congress initially did win because of their claim that they gave India independence. After that the opposition could never unite consistently.

Congress thought that stupid eendoos a large section of them will vote congress way regardless even if they appease the minorities. This is what they have been doing all these years and even now. Saw the recent "posioning the country" remarks by pappu? This strategy does allow the topiwallahs to have banck accts in switzerland with indian tax payer loot. It is brilliant is'nt it?

[Shanmukh]

From what I have read, IIRC, Isabella & Ferdinand had run up huge debts. They set up Inquisition to grab money from the Jews (there were plenty of rich Jews in old Moorish areas. In fact, just a century before, one of the Castilian Kings had a Jewish mistress - a noble Jewess, in fact). In fact, Ferdinand's letter to the Pope mentions tracking down and converting the `hidden Jews', and not the Moors. Plenty of Jews had converted to Christianity, but it was still profitable for Ferdinand to rob them, and cast them as `hidden Jews', while rewarding his own followers. By the time of the Inquisition, Moors were reduced to a pitiful state, all congregating on the Andalusian coast, and were mostly farmers and shepards (whom it was not exactly profitable to rob). Usually, the Pope would refuse the Spanish monarchs authority to set up Inquisitions without Papal oversight, but at this point, the Turks were threatening the Italian Peninsula, and Ferdinand threatened to withdraw his ships if the Pope didn't consent to Spanish Inquisition. So, the Spanish Inquisition began as a money making enterprise for their Most Catholic Majesties of Spain.

If you get a chance please read this:
http://www.historytoday.com/roger-boase ... sion-spain
http://www.historytoday.com/matt-carr/s ... m-moriscos

Yes, aware of it. But the Spanish Inquisition had been in place for more than a century before the Moors were expelled from Spain, whereas the Jews were expelled less than 15 years after the Inquisition began. In fact, when the persecutions of the Jews began under the Inquisitions, the Aragonese nobility protected the Muslims, because they were a cheap work force that maintained the very useful irrigation canals that the Aragonese depended heavily upon. In Aragon, it was always the Aragaonse nobility and the Muejdars (Muslim peasants and workers) on one side and the free Aragonese citizenry on the other. The revolts of the Aragonese peasants against the Muslims was because the Muslims worked for lower prices and undercut them.

IIRC, the real persecutions of the Moors began in the middle of the 16th century (by this time, the Inquisition was in place for more than 50 years) when the Barbary pirates seriously began raiding the coasts of Spain for Christian slaves, and the Moors would be left behind. This led to accusations that the Moors were helping the Barbary pirates, particularly in old Aragon and Valencia. The Spanish crown put several restrictions on them, they tried to revolt, and Don Juan of Austria put them down brutally. Still, large numbers of them lingered till the 1609 expulsion, when Ribera persuaded the King to expel them, and seize their property. Many of those expelled or property seized were really Christian converts of the old Moors, but money was always a necessity for Spain, whose incessant wars drained its treasury.

[Arjun]

Modi won not because any ideology toppled Nehruvain crap. Look at Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, MP people voted not on account of some debate that HNs won. Reasons for voting are different. Can you please paste a pointer to the thread you are referring to?

Your original argument was not over what caused Modi's victory - but rather over which side won the 'idea of India' debates that were played out in social media across India, both in BRF and on other open sites. You can find the 'Narendra Modi vs the Dynasty: Contrasting Ideas of India' thread in GDF. It is BRF's single most popular thread ever - having crossed 1000+ pages. My last post on this. We are digressing from the topic of this thread and I don't think I want to continue on this line which is of marginal value.

[member_22733]

.....
What I am trying to say is, my nomadic ancestors were welcome everywhere in India, and its not an exception it is the rule. This fact is of course well know in BRF circles, and this is why some of the responses here puzzle me to no end.

Which responses puzzle you?

The concept of a "strict" border is alien to India. We have welcomed everyone with open arms. From Alexander who came to wage war and ended up dying to a mass murderer like Aurangzeb and his illegal children. From the business minded middle eastern Jews and Arabs, to the genocidal but "civilizing" Brishits.

Open arms? Alexander fought with us and we seriously kicked his ass. Aurangzed ruled over large parts of India and so did Brits. We did not welcome them with open arms. This open arm thingy is the attitude we are taught in our textbooks and is surely the attitude of the defeated . India fought very hard to keep up its way of living, religion etc.

Will come to the response part later, but let me first address the issue of Alexander:
We had always welcomed people with open arms, but at the same time historically defended ourselves against those who intend to harm us. I have no confusion about that. If Alexander had "come in peace" he would have allowed to be as much a part of India as you and I are. Whereas, the Roma and the Jews who left India and middle east respectively in the last few centuries are still "the other" in Oirope.

Welcoming everyone with open arms is not the same as doing GUBO to everyone. People confusing the two is another thing that puzzles me

[vina]

You miss the point. Jews were the collateral damage. SI was to make the moor utter the last sigh. Please investigate that.

Oh well, whether SI or it's next door variant PI , there was a lot of "collateral" damage including a lot of brown skinned folks here in Goa kind of places who were put to the sword/ burnt the stakes, the Papacy and the "Chief Inquisitor's office" put out hits and passed out sentences on all manner of people, witches, apostates, you name it. In fact, in the history of mankind, if any formal organisation has the most blood on it's hands, it historically must be the catholic church and that is not including it's barbarism in South America.

[RajeshA]

Dear RajeshA

I don't know if this revival is going to lead to all the things you are hoping for. in the past, many revivals have created exactly the kind of circumstances you seem to want to avoid but I'll give you the benefit of doubt - maybe this time will be different. Let us hope it is anyway...

Yes everything is a brand. If you want to make the differences clear to people, then you have to amplify the contrast.

Okay let's say everything is a brand! But a brand is a product of marketing, and marketing is something almost unrelated to the quality of the product, but more a function of the marketing machinery, the media.

May be there is a need to push the "Hindu Nationalist" brand, but it need not be done through secular-controlled media. One can go around it.

That is where IMO "Abhinav Bharat" can come in handy. There is a running court case against them, that can be used to enhance the contrast with "Hindu Nationalism". As so many people have pointed out, "Hindu Nationalists" do not carry out terrorist attacks on Pakistan, but there is evidence that people using this "Abhinav Bharat" brand actually did carry out terrorist attacks - so a simple point of contrast is to bring that difference into sharp focus. And regarding Col. Purohit, a brave Army officer who was attempting to infiltrate this organisation and prevent it from carrying out its terrorism found himself mistakenly victimised by "seculars". Well today the "Hindu Nationalists" have prevented a miscarriage of justice by letting Col. Purohit go free... etc.. etc... It is a pretty compelling narrative.

Not compelling enough!

You may have seen so-called brand "Muslim Moderates" distancing themselves from the deeds of brand "ISIS", but they would not distance themselves from brand "Islam". Both brand "Muslim Moderates" and brand "ISIS" continue to pledge themselves to brand "Islam".

Similarly some section of the brand "Hindu Nationalists", say the brand "BJP" can distance itself from say brand "Abhinav Bharat", and both can claim the brand "Hindu Nationalist".

Brand "Hindu Nationalist" however can hardly distance themselves from brand "Abhinav Bharat", as nobody has exclusive rights on "Hindu Nationalism".

Dear RajeshA, Jhujhar and Karan M,

I think I have the answer to my question.

I had asked if it made sense to revive the "Hindu Nationalism" brand as a template for the next fifty years of India's history given the negativity associated with the brand?

The answer appears to be - no - it doesn't make sense to revive it for that purpose but as a way to stick it to the "seculars" who love the "Nehruvian/INC" model, it is ideal to revive it - purely as a tool of cynical realpolitik. As Karan explained to me - no one but me is going to care if the "seculars" get beaten up.

I feel there could be cheaper ways of doing the same thing

Seculars are a side-show. It is the damage they have done in the 60 years of their rule that happens to be one of the targets of "Hindu Nationalism". As Modi says, Law would take its own course, and Seculars would get their due Karma.

Hindu Nationalists have bigger agendas. The ideological armor of the Seculars was always quite thin. Their strength lay in their control over the education system, the bureaucracy, the media, the vote-banks. All are being freed of Secular control one-by-one! But all this is also simply changing the track of the train. The Hindutva train still has to go places.

but it appears after Modiji's landslide victory there is a euphoric perception among the people who like this "Hindu Nationalism" brand that this victory is entirely due to the popularity of the brand. I can see how that impression might come about and to date no experts have been able to tease apart how much of the victory came from what factor in the mix of issues raised in the election. So there is a desire to use this apparently very strong hammer to strike a nail of some kind and the "seculars" are as good a nail as any.

This means no one is turning any knobs in the cockpit just yet. And that means my concerns are misplaced.

That sounds almost like the Seculars have already started making videos of their sacrifice for "the idea of India", and how they got crushed under the hammer of "Hindu Nationalism"!

I would not have found the answer if I had not asked the question.

I don't think you asked any real question, and the answer you presume to have arrived at, seem to have been in your pocket the whole time!

I will get back to watching Parzania now. I was in the middle of the court scene where Shernaz was testifying before the committee about the day her son disappeared. It is a very gripping movie, I stopped watching it to read this thread. Now I can go back and watch the rest of the movie.

After I am done watching Parzania I will watch that movie "Final Solution" by Rakesh Sharma.

Hail Nero!

[Pratyush]

See Siddharth went looking for answers. He could not find any in what he had learnt or the gurus that he made on his journey. So he invented his own path , junked whole bunch of things that he did not thing were relevant from his parent faith and started a new faith. It was definetely a revolt against Hinduism. The schism was percieved so even by other Brahamans.

I am not sure that the actions of Siddharth can be classified as a revolt against any one. He may have invented his own faith, but was that an act of rebellion. I dont think so. Remember, he left home because of what he saw on the street one day.

We don't know what his teachers told hims about the condition or if he understood what was told to him. Because when you look at the so called 8 path ( My inability to give a better description). He has not tried to deal with that condition that actually set him on that path.

I would not classify his actions as a revolt against any thing. He merely started a new path, once he felt he had an answer that he sought.

I am not sure I would like to see any book banned. Had he gone and rebutted Doniger para by para and page by page and then evangelised his work and showed how stupid she was that would be in the spirit of Indian shastrarth. Admittedly this is very hard to do since she is in the ivory tower of "academia". Question is there a way to beat the academics like doniger at their own game without having to resort to book banning?

Really, which book was banned in India as a result of the efforts of Dinanath Batra. The book was withdrawn by the publisher, as they felt that the work would not stand the judicial scrutiny. If compared against the Scriptures. Which bring us to the crux of the thread that Shiv ji has started. The withdrawn book sought to project certain opinion about the Hindus. It was challenged, by one man. The author and the publisher could have contested the case on the basis of the scriptures and won the case in a court of law. No one prevented them from presenting their own point of view. That female derringer (SP??), could have defended her case on the basis of scholarship and won the case against Batra in the court of law.

Regarding your point of para by para rebuttal of the work. I don't think that he would have gotten within a mile of this female in order to have this debate. She would have insulted him from her ivory tower. So that was out of the equation as an option.

Ironically, the court case which resulted in the withdrawal of the book gave the same option to the Author, to present facts behind her book but she chickened out.

You know what, this option is available to you as well, if you want that book to be reintroduced in this country from the publisher.

But lets be clear on one thing. The book was not banned.