It is always enjoyable to be given a lesson on Ethnohistory.brihaspati wrote:Most people are not "native" if we go back sufficiently in history. Both Angle's and Saxons were not native to Britain, if we go back a couple of thousand years. Saxons appeared as mercenaries and colonizers in Britain after the withdrawal of the Roman legions from Britain. They derive from "Saxonia" in Germany.
One of the problems about those who mock people raising concepts of "Bharatyia" or "Hindu" as abstract, ephemeral and constructed and not reality usually glibly also talk of "Indian" as if it is not abstract, ephemeral and constructed as a civilizational category. Legally, it is possible to define a category of "Indian" by saying all who are Indian citizens. Is that sufficient to characterize the civilizational aspect of "Indian"? But people refuse to see the jump they are making in starting from the legalese characterization and constructing a whole homogeneous civilization from it.
"Indian" is as much an abstract concept and hoped for construction as "Bharatyia" or "Hindu". There is no need to mock one at the cost of the other. "Indian" is the category now sought to be created which hopefully ignores all the divisions and fractures - especially that of the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic. But fun part of this is that "Indian" is insisted on to be the only acceptable category as a single homogeneous one that maintains at the same time the distinctive, separatist claims of the Abrahamic. So we have a supposed homogenous identity which can only be defined by either a legal term (which again by even law does not treat all "Indians" uniformly in civilizational terms and claims) or an abtract "homogeneous" concept that can only be defined as a conglomerate (and not a merger) of distinct faith based claims of identity.
Moreover, the attitude appears to be that only the claims of the "Hindu" as an identity should be mocked or suppressed, but none at all of the Abrahamic. There is a consistent line from the British times, that "Islamism"
and "Islam" should be completely separated. The strategy appears to be to create a false separation between the two. This helps in passing off those aspects of Islam that make it difficult to sustain in the face of altered concepts of humanitarian values in the modern period, as something not rooted in "Islam" proper, but in "Islamism". To be fair this can be imagined to help in a reverse social engineering - based again on the false calculation that the Muslims themselves will buy into this disjunction and not be persuaded by the texts in original Arabic (the only medium through which theology is drilled in at the higher levels).
But those who follow the persistent trends in islamic scholarship and continuing modern representation of Islam by Islamists note that the disjunction is adopted only when the audience is known to contain non-Muslims. Within Islamic circles this disjunction is never accepted. There are many documentaries and investigative reports as well as academic studies (many of which are restricted to general or unlimited public access) on this.
We, non-Muslims can hope to propagate this myth that "Islamism" is not sourced from within "Islam", and pretend to believe when "Islamists" say - "oh so and such is not supported by Islam - these are deviations by people who have misunderstood" (ask them if they would declare this as "ANTI"-Islamic punishable by the full penalty under Islamic jurisprudence meant for Muslims who do anti-Islamic activities - you will get a big blank stare, at most a mumble that Islam is "forgiving" and that these "misguided" interpreters should be "persuaded" to "correct" themselves). But those who insist that we must believe in this myth ourselves are doing as much disservice to the "nation" (yes even their constructed homogeneous "Indian" nation) and even towards those "Muslims" they claim are "nationalists" just as a whole lot of characters have done in the past like Siddharaja Jayasimha of Gujarat - who seems to have turned himself blind to the activities of Islamists in his kingdom perhaps swallowing the glib myth of "Islam" being completely separate from "Islamism".
It is amusing to find a simple post should be turned into an exercise of cerebral showmanship and contrived into context.
It takes two to tango, but this will be my last Coup déjà lance.
The example of the English is an old hat. No one is native of any country since transmigration has been a part of civilisation. Who does not know that?
On England, since it has been raised, it might interest that if one went back into history, the present England was connected to Ireland and Iberia and Eurasia!!
A survey of Y chromosomes in the British Isles suggests that the Anglo-Saxons failed to leave as much of a genetic stamp on the UK as history books imply The Celts weren't pushed to the fringes of Scotland and Wales; a lot of them remained in England and central Ireland, This is surprising: the Anglo-Saxons reputedly colonised southern England heavily.
The Anglo-Saxons and Danes left their mark in central and eastern England, and mainland Scotland, the survey says, and the biological traces of Norwegian invaders show up in the northern British Isles, including Orkney.
The Y chromosomes of men from Wales and Ireland resemble those of the Basques.
It is enough to prove that no one in the world (if the English example given is to be taken as the base) is native.
On civilisation, it is not a construct of one community following one religion. It is a misconception to popularise for political reason, this Indic or Bharatiya homogeneity. Even religious practises and rituals and deities are different, even if accepted. I won’t go into details because that would be a waste of time since most of the posters are well aware of the same even if they don’t indicate that they are ‘scholars’ to impress.
A Hindu can be a Hindu worshipping many gods or one God or no God. The fulcrum of Hinduism lies not in God but respect for truth-Sraddha!
Like it or not, Hinduism is abstract! That is why it has survived. It has the tolerance to ambiguity! Therefore, the attempt to structure Hindusim is misplaced and if it can be structured, then it will die a natural death or, if that is not so, decline!
I may not be a Hindu, but I enjoy the freedom and breathe its fresh air that unstructured Hinduism, gives me. It is a beautiful and a happy feeling!
I just spoke to a Hindu friend of mine who is another Hindu diehard. This is what he had to say –
The Hindu doctrinal tolerance of all religions is not enough, as it is often expressed as an intolerance of exclusivism. Hindu theologians need to explore how they can accept and tolerate exclusivism without compromising their conviction of the transcendence of truth. A clue can be found in the Hindu attitude toward Ista Debata. A Hindu who is totally dedicated and loyal to the Ista would not even recognize other manifestations of the same deity. This is Ista Nistha. The gopis of Vrndavan are examples. They were dedicated to cowhand Krsna of Vrndavan, so they would not even look at King Krsna of Dwaraka.
Indeed, it is wrong to mock the Hinduvta and Indic adherents. However, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If other religions can be bashed and buffeted, what makes Hindusim and Indic stuff beyond analysis? Is it fair?
Why have we to raise our differences? What is wrong to bury the hatchet and think we are ‘Indians’. We have seen how even this is dissected in a parochial way where Bal Tahckeray is justified to throw out Biharis for the Marathi manus. Soon, our divisions will go to district levels, even if we are of the same religion and community! Is that what we want?
Islam and Christianity are mocked in this forum, so what is your howl of Abrahamic distinctions? The fact that that there is only a few Christian and possibly no Muslim in this very active forum is your witness before God!
I could go on, but it is boring!
Get a life.
We are Indians.
