I'm half-Hindu. The other half is Muslim. I've spoken about one aspect of this earlier and am therefore going to skip some parts of the preamble.
I grew up accustomed to people marvelling at my knowledge of "Hindu" mythology, and other religions. I also grew up practically unaware of what Islam was about. Since my family didn't pay much attention to it, I was only aware of who the "heroes" of Islam were: The Prophet, Hazrat Ali & his martyred sons Imam Hasan & Imam Husain, and their clan.
As I grew older, I mixed with more Hindus than Muslims, by virtue of the simple fact that they're in greater numbers in India. Also by virtue of the fact that my parent's mixed-marriage effectively precluded our either staying in areas determined by ethnicity or fraternizing based only on it.
Apart from a few stray incidents I rarely met a religion obsessed Hindu (churkhi & janayoo notwithstanding). This may have to do with the fact that my Muslim sounding name may have deterred them in some way, but despite that I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the Hindus I met were not the kind that carried religion outside on the street with them. Only once when I was about six or seven was I asked in the park, "What religion are you?" by a group of similarly aged youngsters. I am still unable to comprehend how 7 year olds could ask me a question like that. Unless they had instructions from home to ask... Wierd, very wierd.
So my best friends were Hindus right through school, graduation & post-grad. Irrespective of whether I was in UP, Rajasthan or Maharashtra.
It's important for me to state however that I hadn't scratched the surface yet. Young & forgiving I ignored the people who refused to rent me a room to stay in upon hearing my name. I told myself that they're an aberration.
So what has changed now? Have the recent events in India, made me change my opinion of the average Hindu? Have people like bal-t & advani & modi, have babri & gujarat made me rethink? Has the rise in the number of bjp supporters made me rethink my stand? Has the absolute glut of hindutvis on web forums everywhere made me rethink?
To be honest, the first few did not. But the last two really have!
I've just needed to look at my friends in order to dispel any doubts about the first few questions. But the second set of questions bothers me... Is is because I've realized that there's another world lurking behind the anonymity that the Internet offers? Is this a new phenomenon or has it always existed & I've been oblivious to it?
I have also been bothered by some of the statements that some of my Hindu relatives make. Something about Hindus being tolerant & being taken for granted. These are well educated, high ranking, retired people! To be fair, they've always voted the jansangh and to be fair they had to leave Lahore leaving everything behind, but it worries me nonetheless.
So to answer my own question... has all of this changed my stance towards Hindus outside my family? Frankly it hasn't. 5 or 6 incidents are not representative of the attitude of all Hindus. And 15 idiots on web forums do not make up the entire Hindu population!!!
My experience with non-family Hindus has been largely great. I continue to enjoy the love & admiration of friends & family. There is no reason for me to being doubting the larger populace of Hindus, even those that don't have the advantage of a Western education!
So how do we deal with the sections in the media that are right-wing? How do we deal with pronouncements of bal-t, advani & modi? How do we deal with the extremists in web forums?
This is the second part of my mission. I intend to meet them head on. Ignoring them is dangerous, so they must be countered. In every forum! People like Alyque Padamsee are doing it in the offline world, using the clout they have. People like us should do it in the areas where we have the clout.
I will volunteer time at schools & colleges & teach children & youth about tolerance & communal harmony!
I will debate them in web forums, TV shows, wherever I get a platform. I will present facts to them. Most importantly, I will show them how they're hurting the image of the average Hindu by doing all of this. How they're giving an opportunity to the extremists to showcase their hatred to potential recruits!
Educated, liberal Hindus should use media to clear the air about what the religion stands for. They should showcase the lives of Hindus like themselves using TV, papers, novels, films whatever is available. They must undo the damage that the conservatives have caused. A PR exercise is as desperately needed to safeguard the image of the tolerant, secular, progressive Hindu as it is by similar Muslims!
Work should be done to improve the lot of minorities & backward sections like Dalits. Educated Hindus should actively condemn when something goes wrong in areas like that!
My mission going forward is to impress upon each uber-conservative Hindu I come across, the importance of being as modern & liberal. And how it's important for their community to come across as that, if they're to contribute to solving the problems that face all of us today. We must sow the seeds of the idea in their mind.
If you agree dear readers, please help me do the same. Please speak to every hardliner you come across & tell them to live their life as they would like their religion to be perceived. If they want to be viewed as progressive, educated, liberal, loving & peaceful, then they must be that themselves. Do spread the good word.
I read your article and it gave me another perspective. I too have been wondering what has changed in Muslim mind.. or was it like this all the time.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing is we need revolution which is only possible by following DHARMA. Let's be honest Islam is not a Indian religion - by this I mean it does not have same framework of thoughts that other Dharmic religions have. India was never a religious country.. we were Dharmic country.. and constant oppression first by Mughals and then by Britishers and now by politicians is the main reason why you are observing the polarization. We are becoming more and more religious and less and less Dharmic.. This is a natural phenomenon. The only solution I see is having ONE law for everyone. Making religion, caste etc negligible in running the country. We need to educate people about their powers and responsibility.
We need to make this country Dharmic based not religion based. Dharma creates unity. Religion divides people. Would like to know your views.. and definitely ready for a debate to figure out right solution.
Thanks for the visit Shalinder.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, I don't see the difference between Dharma & Religion. Both of them essentially prescribe a "way of life", don't they?
For a moment I thought you had Communist views when you said "no religion" & I was inclined to agree. Then you recommended that the way forward is Dharma. That is a part I'm not inclined to agree with unless I understand how your definition of Dharma differs from mine.
Also, what does Islam being a foreign import have to do with anything?
Also the Mughal oppression theory has been taken a bit too far according to me.
Are you aware that there are Buddhist & Jain caves in Ellora that have been defaced but the sole Hindu cave hasn't been defaced? Does that make the succeeding Hindu kings like the Taliban? Oppressors of Buddhists & Jains?
> So how do we deal with the sections in the media that are right-wing?
ReplyDeleteBy discarding your Hindutva-phobia. That's how!
Hindus, just like the Jews, are being attacked by external Islamist forces. True, the Muslims in India largely have a secular outlook, just like other Indians. But the story is quite different with a lot of Muslims in our neighborhood. To them, India is the Kafir (i.e., Hindu) nation that is an enemy of Islam.
Keep in mind that there are possibly hundreds of millions of dollars and pervasive propaganda supporting these anti-Hindu forces. The Hindu right-wing is a reaction of the larger Hindu community to this threat. It's an act of defense, not aggression. Hindus are not a community that's magically insulated by India's borders - they are very much susceptible to communal stresses from outside.
You must *not* attack the majority community's right to get organized under the banner of their religion if they consider it necessary to defend themselves. Instead, insist that this organization must not take anti-Indian forms that attacks other Indians.
*Demand* this on the basis of Indian nationalism - don't plead for it. The tone should not be, "You're evil-incarnate for being right-wing.", instead, "Remember your responsibility to our country and our countrymen. Keep in mind that we're all in this together."
Not even taking the attempt to understand where a good number of otherwise sane, level-headed middle-class Hindu Indians are coming from only will get you labeled as virulently anti-Hindu. Do you really want that?
It's a little difficult Arun. That's almost the equivalent of giving them a free hand. Journos like Amit Varma are decidedly anti-hindutva & not at all phobic of them if you recall the barkha dutt show! If we have the likes of Amit & Dilip d'Souza keeping quiet against hindutvis like modi, advani etc, who will be left to keep them in check???
ReplyDeleteIt's paranoia to believe that Hindus are under attack by external Islamist forces. Hinduism is like a Sphinx. It has risen again & again. It will not die. Stop worrying about it! India was largely Buddhist at one time and majorly Jaini at another time. Along came a few Hindu kings, broke Buddhist cave carvings, put up their own temples there; along came Shankaracharya & Vivekananda to revive Hindusim. I just wish that Rammohun Roy's brand of Hinduism had succeeded instead of Vivek's.
So the right-wing is not "reacting" to any real threat. They imagined a threat & now they've become the worst threat to Hinduism. Where is the Snatan Dharm in all of this? The moniker Hindu is not Hindu enough actually, since the Arabs & the Persians are responsible for it!
> insist that this organization must not take anti-Indian forms that attacks other Indians.
Has this helped in the past? It has been tried. Did Gowalkar's speeches on national unity despite differences in religion help??? How will our pleas help?
What you're suggesting is great on paper. And celluloid as it worked in Munnabhai-2; but I suspect it won't work with these guys.
And do you really think I care about being labelled? For years my family labelled me as anti-Muslim, now if some of them label me as anti-Hindu it wouldn't hurt either. I am anti-idiocy and I have an aggressive streak in my arguments. I am going to come across strongly. Don't think I haven't tried the pacifist approach before. I have. It doesn't work with indoctrinated bigots. See this protracted argument:
http://mutiny.in/2008/06/17/mtv-khalistan/#comment-55111
Do you think it works?
> If we have the likes of Amit & Dilip d'Souza keeping quiet against hindutvis like modi, advani etc, who will be left to keep them in check???
ReplyDeleteI just don't think that Vajpayee, Modi and Advani are "pure evil". They are conservative politicians who are not ashamed of not being magnanimous liberals.
Liberal media has every right to attack them, but keep in mind that they end up only aggravating even the moderate Hindus into supporting them even more.
> It's paranoia to believe that Hindus are under attack by external Islamist forces.
You're patently wrong!
Here are a few Islamist organizations that have waged or supported jihad against "Hindu" India:
Lashkar-e-Toiba
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Hizbul Mujahideen
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
United Jihad Council
SIMI
Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan)
The list goes on!
This is in addition to the significantly Islamized ISI and Pakistan Army. There are thousands of radicalized Madrasas in Pakistan that provide material and ideological fodder for Islamist organizations. These are not only funded by Arab money, but also through local donation drives - a fact acknowledged world-wide.
When you attack the land where Hindus primarily live on the basis that primarily Hindus live there, by extension, you attack Hinduism.
> Hinduism is like a Sphinx. It has risen again & again. It will not die.
Yes, Hinduism has survived over millenia. It did precisely because of the likes of Shankaracharya, Swami Vivekananda, Raja Rammohan Roy, Swami Dayananda Saraswati and even Savarkar who worked relentlessly for Hindu revival.
Hinduism doesn't defend itself automatically. It has to be explicitly defended, and it's the Hindus' responsibility to do so.
> And do you really think I care about being labelled?
Of course, you may not *personally* care what you're called.
But surely, you care about whether you're effective in influencing those Hindu Indians who lean towards right? Your arguments will be ignored by this class if you are prima-facie anti-Hindu. That was all I was saying.
> pacifist approaches
Our national motto is that truth alone triumphs. I firmly believe in this - the sheer moral power that comes from being RIGHT is invincible.
What I propose is that if anyone needs to be challenged, do not take a pacifist approach, but use your righteousness (in a positive sense) as your weapon.
Anti-Indian religious extremists of all hues must be challenged in India. Challenge them on the basis that they are anti-Indian.
However, Hindus' organizing under the banner of their religion for the defense of their religion and their ancestral land is *not* anti-Indian behavior. On the contrary, it's one of the sources of our firm national will to defend our republic.
This is what I meant by discarding your Hindutva-phobia.
Arun...
ReplyDeleteNot being able to see modi & advani for the evil they represent is a great disadvantage. One that you will hopefully overcome with a lot of rational thinking.
Hoping that the moderate Hindu will slowly gravitate towards advani & modi by the liberal media analysing & exposing them (different from "attacking them"), is just that; Hope! I haven't seen the moderate Hindu gravitate towards the right. There is an equal chance of a moderate Muslim gravitating towards fundamentalism because they feel the hindutva forces are being allowed a free hand.
I'm never wrong.
The organizations you've mentioned have waged a war against India. Not against "Hindu" India. India is as much Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain & Buddhist as Hindu. Hindu India is an aggressive stand, and a pipe dream that will never materialize. The war that you mention kills people from all walks of life not just Hindu. HOW is the war against a "Hindu" India then?
Similarly pakistan. Pak is waging a war against us. Not Muslims, not Islam but pakistanis who for some convoluted reason consider India their enemy. Or because they want certain parts of India. Or because they'll feel more secure with a weak, divided neghbour. Or because they want to avenge Bangladesh, by splitting India up. The thing to remember again is that the war is being led by a country NOT a religion or it's followers. Followers of the religion are marrying into Indian families (& vice versa!!), sacrificing their paki nationalities to become Indians. I really hope you're aware that these things are happening too...?
NOW to your "by extension" argument here:
> "When you attack the land where Hindus primarily live on the basis that primarily Hindus live there, by extension, you attack Hinduism."
I'll give you a few reasons why you should drop the "by extension" argument:
Ex-rss member & active member of the hindu mahasabha, nathuram godse killed Mahatma Gandhi in cold blood. Should I "by extension" assume that the rss & the hindu mahasabha are anti-peace, pro-assassination & even anti-gujrati???
The shiv sena, rss, bajrang dal, vhp etc. were actively involved in bringing down the babri masjid. Should I "by extension" assume that they're all rabidly anti-Muslim & pro-violence & anti-National Integration???
The sena was most active during the 1992 post babri riots in Bombay. Should I "by extension" assume that they're anti-Muslim???
They also attacked South Indians about 30 years back, broke their restaurants etc, drove them back home, caused widespread damage to property & worse to the tolerant fabric of Bombay & India!
SHOULD I "BY EXTENSION" AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THAT THEY ARE ANTI-NATIONAL INTEGRATION, ANTI-SOUTH, ANTI-MUSLIM???
dara singh from the bajrang dal burnt alive Christian priest Graham Staines & his two sons. Should I "by extension" assume that the b-dal is anti-Christian???
Keeping all of the above attacks in mind, can I "by extension" attribute a large degree of divisiveness, a quantum dollop of destroying our unity in diversity claim?
Aren't these organizations the poster-boys of hindutva? Is that what hindutva "BY EXTENSION" stands for???
AND you expect me to have respect for this brand of hindutva that masquerades as an integrating, nationalist force???
With all due respect, you HAVE to be out of your mind Arun!!!
sarvarkar was the progenitor of hindutva. He was also the kind of freedom fighter that signed a deal with the Brits to buy his freedom (as opposed to other martyrs). He was also an avid supporter of the two-nation theory! Since he made 2 grave errors of judgement, can we safely assume that his hindutva was also the genesis of a mind demented?
If the Hindus feel responsible for defending Hinduism let them do it the Dayanand Saraswati, Rammohun Roy way. The pacifist way maybe?
I will only come across as anti-hindutva, not anti-Hindu. At least to anyone who reads what I write or hears what I say. As for the Hindus that lean towards the right are concerned, I don't intend to appeal to their emotion. I intend to appeal to their logic. Even if I can turn two, it'll be an achievement. It can't be that difficult. People manage to convince others to embrace a whole new religion; I'm asking for much less. :-)
> "However, Hindus' organizing under the banner of their religion for the defense of their religion and their ancestral land is *not* anti-Indian behavior. On the contrary, it's one of the sources of our firm national will to defend our republic.
This is what I meant by discarding your Hindutva-phobia."
Hindus can organize under their banner for sure. They always have. What else are movements like the Arya Samaj??? No one minds that.
Yes, organizing into a guerilla unit under the guise of a religous or a qusi-nationalist organization, is what we mind. hindutva is just that. Not what is says it is, but what it does! The hindtuvi is not defending the Indian landmass, it is defending the Hindu landmass. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two, if you think about it carefully! :-)
As for pacifist approaches, would you like to engage the LeT, jaish, simi etc in talks to figure out what they really want from us? I truly would. That however will not stop me from calling their methods terrorist. Similarly, I can engage hindutvis in conversation, but that will not stop me from calling their methods terrorist, intimidatory & divisive. After all who wants to blindly attack all things western like Valentien's Day, ladies wearing jeans etc. etc.?
Therefore, allow me to rephrase: It's not hindutva-phobia, it's hindutva-derision! :-)
Icon,
ReplyDelete> I haven't seen the moderate Hindu gravitate towards the right.
Perhaps you also haven't seen the BJP's rise to power in India over the past two decades? :-)
Your above statement is also contradictory to your own following earlier comment:
"I have also been bothered by some of the statements that some of my Hindu relatives make. Something about Hindus being tolerant & being taken for granted."
Hindutva doesn't mean that the Hindus should start slaying Muslim Indians en-mass or treat them as somehow not belonging to India. It means that Hindus have to unite, politically and culturally, under the banner of Hinduism.
Just because Hindus are renouncing Nehruvian liberalism in hordes doesn't make them evil or anti-Indian, just as a person's being a conservative Muslim and his defending Muslim causes doesn't make him evil or anti-Indian.
> As for pacifist approaches, would you like to engage the LeT, jaish, simi etc in talks to figure out what they really want from us? I truly would.
Glad to see that you're open to consider others' viewpoints!
Arun...
ReplyDeleteThe ones who gravitate already have a right wing tilt. The moderate squarely remained where he was, in the "Centre" :-)
And what are you attributing the bjp's rise to power to? India's not been in the grip of Islamic fundamentalist groups for the past two decades. This is a relatively new phenomenon, isn't it? So what has the bjp been doing in the meantime? Implementing a grassroots indoctrination plan, drumming up fear & fanaticism through propaganda?
My Hindu relatives who issued those statements are avowed "jansanghis". They've been voting the jansangh & now the bjp from before I was born. It's just that my Mom didn't know the political leanings of some of the people in the family she married into.
You see, this divide has existed from the pre-Independence days & the right wing has relentlessly pursued it's agenda. Recent events or my speaking out against them is not the motivator for their activities or the impetus for people buying into what they say. They've been at the indoctrination game for longer than we've been around buddy. What would explain their attemtps to tamper with history through novels in their schools that describe a character based on Gandhiji as being the villian of the novel?
THAT to me is what hindutva stands for! Propaganda to further the interests of a few select Hindus.
If they can restrict themselves to what you're saying it stands for, it's most welcome. I'll go to the cultural shows they organize. If however their followers bring down places of worship, target western attire & festivals, kill missionaries & pregnant women, then I'll just have to wonder why on Earth a seemingly sane man like you is defending them! :-)
Engaging the terrorists in conversation is something I've always advocated. As have the moderates. They're referred to as "Talks" in the newspapers. hindutvis of course would oppose any such approaches as is their wont. Why? Because they're against pacifist approaches? Because they're against peace? We all know they were opposed to Gandhi & were implicated in his assassination. :-)
Icon,
ReplyDelete> And what are you attributing the bjp's rise to power to?
The Islamist attacks on India from the late 1980s on combined with the pseudo-secularism of the major national parties - that is what caused the rise of BJP to power.
Honestly, ignoring that the ideas of BJP have *mass* support is being quite naive. The BJP's ideals have a Hindu color, but this automatically doesn't make them evil. They are very much Indians - your countrymen - and believe in a strong India and the equality of all Indians.
Or do you think that BJP's deriving their ideological inspiration from Hinduism and its relation to the civilization of its origin - India - makes them evil?
> What would explain their attemtps to tamper with history through novels in their schools that describe a character based on Gandhiji as being the villian of the novel?
To a lot of people, including the likes of Bose, Gandhi who urged us to not take up arms in our defense, *is* a villain. Just as to a lot of people, Jinnah and Iqbal are villains.
I think everyone has a right to their opinions.
> If however their followers bring down places of worship, target western attire & festivals, kill missionaries & pregnant women, then I'll just have to wonder why on Earth a seemingly sane man like you is defending them!
I don't support the criminal, anti-Indian activities of certain Hindutvavadis. There are bad apples everywhere - these must be rounded up and be punished.
The far greater number of right of the center Hindus are more like your relatives. Or are you saying that your relatives are criminals and kill pregnant women? If that's so, please turn them in! :-)
> Because they're against pacifist approaches? Because they're against peace?
Yes - if the said peace mandates subjugation of Hindus in their own country.
Yeah Arun?
ReplyDeleteWhat I remember from the '80's is the Punjab problem: Khalistan & the Kashmir issue. I don't remember simi's terrorist attacks from the '80's.
The bjp's so called rise to power isn't based on (what you call) "Islamist" attacks on India or (the second giveaway) "pseudo"-secularist attitude of "major national parties". There were no "Islamist" attacks back then. The bjp's rise to power therefore, can only be attributed to their CREATING a false impression in people's minds that there is an Islamic threat; (that is the role of the sangh parivar, that is what their grassroots programme seeks to achieve!) by CONCOCTING terms like "pseudo"-secular because they didn't know how else to counter the strength of Secularism. This whole minority appeasement theory is bullshit. I'll give you an example of Majority Appeasement: No cow-slaughter in India. Why not? Is the cow on an endangered species list? So why can't we eat cow meat in India? That's an example of majority appeasement if there ever was one. And the first step in dismantling the entire pseudo-secular claim.
Your third giveaway: Major National Parties. Wasn't there only one major national party at that time? Aren't you alluding to the Congress? Essentially, the aim of the bjp is to bring down the Congress, which had thwarted them from pre-Independence days. They're ideological rivals & the side you seem to be on tends to stoop lower in the battle for power. Can you explain the hate-CD's that they keep coming up with pre-elections?
I'm not ignoring the *mass* support the bjp "seems" enjoy. I'm ruing it in fact. More importantly, I'm "celebrating" the fact that despite this *mass* support you speak of, they still can't manage to come to power. I will drink to that tonight! :-) May it remain so forever!
The bjp's so-called Hindu ideals doesn't make them evil. It's their association with the sangh parivar, their hate-CD's, masjid demolition, advani, modi, sushma, uma's inflammatory rhetoric DOES!
I think most things in India have a Hindu feel to them. The Congress leadership has always been Hindu. Gandhiji's "Vaishnav Jann", "Pandit" Nehru, Rajiv Gandhi's nationally broadcast last Hindu rites... We recognize them as Hindus. Yet we don't see them as mad fanatics. Something that we do see the bjp as. Reason? Because of their words & actions.
If they believed in a strong India, wouldn't they try & integrate Muslims, Christians, Dalits etc? Why would every move of theirs seek to alienate them further? Because they DON'T care for a strong India. They care for their version of India. Why do they say "Mandir wahin banega"? Why does advani continue to bring up "Ram Sethu" as a Hindu issue instead of an environmental issue? Why didn't they condemn the babri demolition or the Staines family massacre? Why did the bjp ban religious conversions in Rajasthan? Why did they make a big issue out of Vande Mataram?
To create more mistrust & discord. To push their own agenda. NOT to create "a strong India" and not to further the cause of "the equality of all Indians" as you claim.
SURE everyone has a right to their opinions. That doesn't make all opinions admissable. Hitler had an opinion on Jews; the Jews on the early Christians! Edi Emin had an opinion! Similarly a deranged godse had an opinion. And so does the bjp! Doesn't make any of them right! :-)
Gandhiji got us our freedom without arms. He succeeded where Bose could've failed. Bose was aligning himself with the Nazis. With the Nazis losing, can you imagine how badly that would've backfired on India???
And how come jinnah & a poet are villians but sarvarkar who supported the 2 nation theory is not??? Has the mask finally slipped Arun? I think so. :-)
If you don't support their criminal, anti-Indian activities, then will you please urge your leadership to SPEAK UP against them? And to round them & punish them? Why hasn't the Indian populace seen that happen yet???
Like I said before if you had the numbers the bjp has been trying to create with it's grassroots indoctrination programme, they'd be in power. The truth is that you still don't have those numbers. :-)
As for my relatives, they are misled but not that far-gone. Fortunately a western education (which the sangh opposed for so long until they realised that that's what will bring the bread & the donations in) saved them. :-)
I really didn't need your answer to my last set of questions. They were rhetorical questions. :-)
What I don't see is how Hindus are subjugated through peace... Care to shed some light on that particular gem?
Icon,
ReplyDelete> Why do they say "Mandir wahin banega"? Why does advani continue to bring up "Ram Sethu" as a Hindu issue instead of an environmental issue? Why didn't they condemn the babri demolition or the Staines family massacre? Why did the bjp ban religious conversions in Rajasthan? Why did they make a big issue out of Vande Mataram?
The BJP, at its core, represents a major constituency of Indians - Hindu Indians who culturally and politically identify as Hindu Indians.
I, like a number of Hindus I've met, belong to this group. Sure, I don't support BJP's entire agenda, but I'm not obliged to either.
It *may* seem effective to continue casting aspersions on the BJP. However, keep in mind that the likes of your statements (such as there being no Islamist threat against the Hindus, Savarkar being a rabid fascist, cows, etc!) have been made before, and will be promptly discarded as yet another simplistic anti-Hindu rambling.
Also, lets not take secularism for granted in a Hindu majority country. There are plenty of Indians who think that religions natively born in India should be recognized as India's state religions. I don't subscribe to that view because of the obscurantist tendencies such a polity will have, though there is nothing *morally* wrong with India's according state religion status to Indic faiths.
My point is, the rational thing to do here is to engage the right of center group in a constructive conversation, acknowledging their concerns. Childish name calling (non-secular! communal!) and hyperboles are a waste of time, really.
Arun...
ReplyDeleteCorrection: The bjp, at its core, ATTEMPTS TO represent a major constituency of Indians - Hindu Indians... and FAILS MISERABLY. They don't have 80% of the vote. Hell they don't even have 50% of the vote. The GREAT news is that the "major constituency of Indians - Hindu Indians" REJECT what the bjp stands for. May God bless them & may their tribe increase!
"Discarded" by who Arun? By anyone that matters? I don't think so. Guys like Alyque Padamsee, Amit Varma, Dilip d'Souza, historians like Ramchandra Guha, voices like Teesta & Javed, Shabana & Javed all conform to these views. The GREAT thing is that they can't be branded as anti-Hindu. Anti-hindutva maybe, but by no stretch of imagination as anti-Hindu (except to those who want to believe that and those who've been unfortunately indoctrinated, both with sub-zero IQ's & EQ's). :-)
These plenty of Indians do not have even 50% of the vote as I pointed out. They can wish all they like. bjp's grassroots indoctrination programme can be countered by one of our own. :-)
And *morally* wrong it is. Any nation state that attempts to have a "state religion" is morally off their rocker.
Apart from that, let's assume for a moment that we (the secular world) OK's this, are we going to have 4 religions as India's state religions? There are 4 Indic faiths: Snatan Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism. Are all 4 going to be granted state-religion status, like languages in Switzerland? Or are the other 3 going to be suppressed with the claim that since they're mere offshoots of hinduism, they don't qualify as separate religions? Have you heard the right making that claim before? Of I can stir up an hindutva defeating revolution right here & now! I can smell it!
Childish name calling huh? Like "pseudo-secular" you mean??? :-)
Waste of time you say? Really?
Well since the rss' indoctrination programme has met with some success, I think I fancy my chances a little bit.
Icon,
ReplyDelete1. BJP is recognised as a national party by the EC.
2. BJP our country's opposition party.
3. BJP is in power in several Indian states.
4. It has been in power at the center before.
But I agree, these notwithstanding, you must be right - BJP's mass support evidenced by its *democratic* success is an illusion.
Lets agree to disagree here :-)
> OK's this, are we going to have 4 religions as India's state religions? There are 4 Indic faiths: Snatan Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism.
Yes!
Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are Indic religions and have the same relation to India as Hinduism. This is not a mere emotional claim - these are all religions that were born and flourished primarily in India. They may all have the same civlisational roots, but the modern day versions of these religions are definitely sister-faiths. One doesn't subsume the other.
I've said that I'm not in favor of the idea (for if I were, I would have absolutely no qualms in supporting it). It just seems to me that India's having official state religions is no more “immoral” than its having a national language, a national sport, or a national bird. Several countries have national religions, including most Muslim majority states. There's precedence for this in our very own neighborhood.
What do you see that's so *immoral* in the idea, especially if all Indic religions are given national status and the rights of people of non-Indic faiths are protected?
Arun...
ReplyDeleteYour 4 points do not bring out the fact that they have majority support, do they? Didn't think they did.
3. Their being in power in HP for example is the direct result of the failure of previous Govts. vis a vis development. There are a lot of factors that contribute to a party's win, poor performance of the previous incumbent being one of them. Religion in this scenario has little to do with it.
4. Their being voted outof power from the centre is more interesting. How did that happen despite the so-called mass support base?
Sikhism was influenced by Islam & was a breakaway religion from Hinduism. So being born on the Indian landmass is the only qualification is it? That isn't reason enough for me to preclude other religions that have made India their home for centuries. Islam, Christianity, Judaism & Zoroasterianism have made India their home. What possible logic do we use to deny them state-religion-hood? The you're a foreign import argument? We're xenophobic aren't we?
If you want to protect the rights of the non-Indic faiths, you'll have to put them on the same platform as the other faiths. Same platform Arun, Equal rights. And that means also being called state-religions. Anything else is not putting them on the same platform, something the right wing has been angling for forever. Won't happen sweetheart.
Something for you to read:
http://citizensforpeace.in/blog/2008/03/05/a-single-mistake-does-not-a-failure-make/
Please read till the very end.
PS: What happened in our "neighbourhood" was a gross mistake. Doesn't mean we should ape them. If anything they would benefit from apeing us.
ReplyDeleteIcon,
ReplyDelete> Your 4 points do not bring out the fact that they have majority support, do they?
Of course not.
I was only claiming that they have massive support, which they do.
> Sikhism was influenced by Islam & was a breakaway religion from Hinduism. So being born on the Indian landmass is the only qualification is it?
Just to play the devil's advocate: What's wrong in it being the only qualification?
One reason is their nativity to India. The Guru Granth Sahib is an Indian text compiled by an Indian in an Indian language. It's no less Indian than the Gita.
Another is that the other religions (except Zoroastrianism, liberal Christianity, etc.) absolutely reject the validity of other faiths and consign their followers to hell. Indic religions are more about seeking the truth for yourself than condemning and converting others.
It's a right validated by convention that you are allowed to question the scriptures if your mind says they're wrong. That Guru Nanak, Buddha, and Mahavira "renounced" Hinduism only illustrates the point.
What is the punishment for apostasy prescribed by Islam?
> Please read till the very end.
Yes, I did! Thanks - great article.
> What happened in our "neighbourhood" was a gross mistake
Just to play the devil's advocate again - I'm not so sure, you know.
There are elements of their society we should definitely renounce. But surely, there are also aspects of their national philosophy we can learn from? Just as the Sikhs did not too long ago?
Arun...
ReplyDeleteSupport, not minute & not massive either. Massive would automatically ensure an absolute majority for them in every election wouldn't it? Why did they lose power at the center then? Why does a Left exist if the right enjoyed such a powerful base? The existence of the Left & I'd be happy to see it increase if it means quelling the rise of the right.
Being born on the Indian landmass as a qualification is wrong because it precludes others not born here from the same rights. If we buy that logic we will never have the likes of Schwarzneggar as Governers of California.
If being of foreign origin is a disqualification, we will never have a Bobby Jindal as Governer of California or Obama as a Presidential candidate.
These are all nice things that should happen in any country. If we go by your arguments we'll never have an equal opportunity America or an equal opportunity India.
THAT my dear friend is the flaw in your argument.
Secondly, describe Indian. India as we know it today houses the state of Punjab. Punjab was a different kingdom before the union of India was created. So again, what is Indian? Post Independence India or pre-Independence princely sovereign states this side of the Indus?
If you answer is a) then Sikhism originated before the concept of India came into existence.
If your answer is b) then Punjab wasn't a part of India, but only on the landmass/subcontinent known as India. By that logic you must include the Sufi brand of Islam & others that origninated here on this landmass. :-)
Know now why your argument is weak?
Maybe you'll limit the argument to only Sanskrit texts now?
Other religions are rooted in being breakaways, and evangelism is a large part of their origins & history, Indic religions included. Do you think they spread on their own? No they didn't. Ashoka was a convert into Buddhism. His own children, Mahendra & Sanghamitra were evengelists (or missionaries) that spread the religion in Sri Lanka. Sikhism attracted converts from all over.
WHO says that Indic religions do not evangelize? Similarly other faiths evangelize.
They don't condemn followers of other religions to hell. Religious freedom is a part of Islam for example & I'm sure is inherent in Christianity too. If you see The Message or read the Quran, you would've come across the line, "There is no forcing in religion".
At the time that Christianity & Islam originated, the non-believers were villians who were prosecuting the followers of the new faiths. To say that that time that the non-believers will go to hell wasn't incorrect.
To people who do not know the religions or their history, this seems like an absolute statement that applies to all "other" faiths. Not true. If I want a proper understanding of the Snatan Dharma, I will speak to a progressive scholar. If you want proper understanding of these faiths, you must speak to a progressive scholar too! The masses are easily misled anywhere. They lack the learning or the intellect for correct interpretation.
As far as the oft quoted apostasy issue is concerned, I'd like to bring to your notice the Kerlaite poetess who converted to Islam before going back to Hinduism. Her name isn't immediately springing to mind. Kamala Das I think. What punishment was handed out to her?
If you want to know more about how disputed this topic is, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
As for our "neighbourhood", I was referring to the fact that they chose to be a religious state. THAT was a mistake.
As for learning from their society or the religion they want to follow (Which on is it though? Is it Shia-ite Islam? No, I don't think so.), by all means learn.
Don't however, confuse good things in their religion with a political school of thought. Please.
PS: Thanks for reading through the first link. Did you also read about the role of the rss in dividing that society & pre-planning the riots?
ReplyDelete[Why does a Left exist if the right enjoyed such a powerful base?]
ReplyDeleteWhat & which left? Are you talking about that motley groups which gets less than 5% votes?
[If we buy that logic we will never have the likes of Schwarzneggar as Governers of California.]
Still you have to be an "Natural Born citizen" to become president of USA! And less we talk abouy Bobby Jindal better it is. he is the guy who changed religion to become "more acceptable" in his state.
panchjanya...
ReplyDeleteThe Left is an undeniable part of India's political influences. There was a time when the Right used to attract less than 5% of the vote. They were more sinister in their approach and more ambitious & made it to 20%.
Who knows what the Left's future holds if they decide to go all out with a propaganda machine & greater ambition.
People like Harkishan Singh Surjeet are celebrated on a natinoal level when they die. I'm certain addu will not get half the respect when he passes into hell.
We're not talking Prez yet, we're talking Guv.
And Bobby Jindal has a right to choose his religion just as anyone in Rajasthan does despite the oppressive laws passed that remind us of the oft-criticised high-handedness of the emergency.
Please don't belittle Bobby Jindal's achievements by attributing them to a religion change.
See? This is why I don't like right-wingers. They pull down achievers who have given the brown/Asian world hope of an equal tomorrow, when it suits their purposes. They link everything to an abandoning of the Hindu religion.
Can you please rise above Hindu issues and take pride in Indian-origin achievements on World stage?
Where is your uber-nationalism now?
Of, I forgot, there wasn't any. There was only hindutva, wasn't there?
You can't blame anyone for coming to the conclusions we come to about the right-wing!
panchjanya,
ReplyDeleteTo your Bobby Jindal allegations, it appears that he was a mere teenager when he converted. Here's a source besides Wiki that says the same thing. You blame a teenager for being attracted to a monotheistic religion with half the rituals that he'd otherwise have to endure?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102000528.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews
There's something for you on my blog :)
ReplyDelete