Rakesh wrote:*CHANGE* the constitution and only then is the map wrong.
I hope, I live to see that day when those two words in the preamble "secular" and "socialist" are dropped in favor of Dharma - akin to the US's constitution being under "God".
The above is not a sectarian view but a truly nationalist and humanistic view that seeks to make the nation strong. I believe, those two words in the preamble have not helped and indeed made us weak and bickering.
So Hindus are the only ones that contributed anything that is architecturally significant to India?
Not at all. The issue is with the means through which any such foreign architecture was introduced into the country and the very negative attitude of secular historians to flush Hindu architecture down the toilet and praise Islamic architecture, culture, music, etc. There is also a scholarly question of how much of this music and architecture is a result of Hindus converting to Muslims to gain state patronage and changing its symbologies to reflect the tastes of Islamic ideology - no figures in sculptors et al.
I would be Hindu. That is how I think of it.
Another way to think about the issue is to say, you are still a hindu, being a resident or non-resident Bhartiya and your faith and belief in god is no one's business. I think most Sanatanis will agree and fight for your rights to believe and practice your faith in peace and without a value judgment on your beliefs.
Instead of looking at Hinduism from a sectarian, POV, which is, I believe, conditioned by the theology of the monotheistic faiths, look at it from a truly nationalist view point participating in all the customs, rituals and festivities of your community.
Some do. Many do not. This veto grounded in the theological premise of monotheistic faiths prohibits such integration of communities. The result is the ghettoization of such communities and damaging the cause of national integration and unity.
That is not my belief, although I am afraid that is the way it came out. Were the Islamic hordes bad in the fact that they killed millions of Hindus? Yes. Should we blame all the Muslims in India currently, for what their ancestors did? No. Should we start destroying their mosques, for what their ancestors did to your temples? No. Should we start erasing their culture, for what their ancestors did? No. That is what I am saying.
Let us assume (this is *really* stretching it) that you have a Muslim friend whom you figured out, through whatever means, that one of his ancestors raped one of your ancestors? Is that your Muslim friend's fault? All I am saying is condemn the rape, but don't condemn the baby. For that baby is yours, as much as it is mine.
The violent reactions you see are a result of the failed and discriminatory policies and vote bank politics practised by our leaders.
When the grown baby starts saying, oh what my biological father did was horrible, but he did some nice things too, is where the problem starts. Why look for positives in a character or narrative, whose net-net balance sheet by that one single act becomes negative forever - even if that person gets reformed, the act has done the damage.
So, accept the result and move on, yes, but let us not glorify any acts of the rapist for it is bound to bring on negative memories too.
All this brings on a fundamental issue to the fore. There is a certain conflict between the theological precepts of Islam and Christianity with that of SD. In the real world, these theological differences matter little for they get clouded in the hustle and bustle of politics and tribal instincts in people.
I would love for these threads to explore these differences. They will tell us a lot about Why, to a certain extent, one narrative has to super cede the other, in order to have true national integration for some of these narratives are indeed in perpetual conflict.