Hindu Fundamentals Are Under Attack in a Different Way
Tuesday, 4. August 2009 - 8:25 PM
We have several specimens of people who call themselves Hindus:
- Tearing-my-chest-Hindus: Firebrand Hindus whose commitment to, and faith in Hinduism is unquestionable but usually lack the intellectual rigour to defend attacks on Sanatana Dharma.
- Intellectual Hindus: Scholarly types who are up for a good debate anytime, and are willing to defend Sanatana Dharma on the strength of their erudition.
- Practising Hindus: May also be the scholarly types. These Hindus live Hinduism complete with all its rituals and injunctions. They may or not understand the meaning, rationale, or significance of the rituals they perform. Their commitment, too, is unquestionable.
- Atheist Hindus: A bastardized breed that wears atheism as a proud band on its forehead. This breed very vocally proclaims that it is “nastika” because Hinduism accommodates even nastikas in its fold. This breed’s reasoning typically stems from an extensive reading of Ayn Rand and the Western conception of God and seeks to apply it to Hinduism.
- Safe Hindus: A confused creature that shuns uncomfortable questions and justifies its stance under the guise of Sarva Dharma Samabhava (all religions/faiths are equal). This creature also describes itself variously as a “believing Hindu.”
As regards the defense and propagation of Sanatana Dharma I hold #1 as of little use, and #4 and #5 as non-Hindus. But the reason that motivated me to make this list was #5.
Enter Shashi Tharoor.
I’ve been reading Shashi Tharoor’s writings for a few years and liked an old piece he wrote about Ganesha (I’m unable to find it now). He is what I call a Safe Hindu. His writings reflect a genuine sympathy for Hinduism but he’s either too Westernized to appreciate native Hindu traditions or he simply wants to avoid controversy by taking a visibly pro-Hindu stand. He is a Safe Hindu because he hasn’t (in my readings so far) criticized Islam or Christianity’s fundamentalist tenets, and he generally treads the secularist path. Which is why this article titled Hindu fundamentals are under attack piqued my interest. When I read it in full, it didn’t let me down: it reaffirmed my faith in Shashi Tharoor as the Safe Hindu.
Shashi laments the attacks on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka and the Indian Mujahideen attacks on Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Jaipur and concludes that we must “not let either set of terrorists prevail.” In other words, he equates a purely internal conflict with a vocal terrorist group that has roots in, and is affiliated to the LeT with an ideology that has roots in Islam. Fact Check: nobody asked Christian missionaries to come to Orissa and Karnataka and abuse Hinduism as a means to convert. This is a variation of what the Indian Mujahideen did in such style. You reap as you sow. You abuse Hinduism without no provocation, and you better be prepared to face the inevitable backlash. Excuses like
The murderous mobs of Orissa sought to kill Christians and destroy their homes and places of worship, both to terrorise the people and to send the message ‘you do not belong here’.
do not hold water. There was no message of any sort that Tharoor mentions here. Actually, the last straw in the Orissa flare up was the murder of the 84-year old Swami Lakshmananda Saraswathi, a vital fact that Tharoor conveniently ignores. It is hard to believe that Shashi Tharoor is unaware of the Swami’s brutal murder. We have no choice but to call his one-sided opinion as dishonest: Safe Hindu.
Tharoor’s next lament is weepy, amusing, and ignorant all at once.
What have we come to that a land that has been a haven of tolerance for religious minorities throughout its history should have sunk so low? India’s is a civilisation that, over millennia, has offered refuge and, more important, religious and cultural freedom, to Jews, Parsis, Muslims and several varieties of Christians. Christianity arrived on Indian soil with St Thomas the Apostle (‘Doubting Thomas’), who came to the Kerala coast some time before 52 AD and was welcomed on shore by a flute-playing Jewish girl. He made many converts, so there are Indians today whose ancestors were Christian well before any European discovered Christianity (and before the forebears of many of today’s Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus).
But what these minorities –barring Parsis and Jews–have done to Hindus in return is available for all of us to read. This is also a nice instance of how Shashi Tharoor passes off myth as authentic history. All it takes is some absolutely airheaded gumption or blissful ignorance to claim that Christianity arrived on Indian soil with St Thomas the Apostle (‘Doubting Thomas’), who came to the Kerala coast some time before 52 AD …. well before any European discovered Christianity with a straight face. The myth of St. Thomas has been demolished long ago. Here’s the complete book for Tharoor’s reference. And surprise! more than a year ago, Koenraad Elst writing about the St. Thomas holy fantasy, mentions exactly the same line that Tharoor parrots here:
A predictable component of platitudinous speeches by secularist politicians is that “Christianity was brought to India by the apostle Thomas in the 1st century AD, even before it was brought to Europe“
We’re obliged to ask Shashi Tharoor if he is playing the flute to his unsuspecting readers. Unfortunately, we’re not charmed by his music. Also, notice the casual allusion that “...and before the forebears of many of today’s Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus.” Very heart-warming specimen of what: Hindu-Christian brotherhood? Communal harmony? Or that in a very distant past, Hindus weren’t conscious that they were Hindus? What exactly does this mean?
And then he launches into a Little Women kind of tear-jerky depiction of Communal harmony in India.
The India where the wail of the muezzin routinely blends with the chant of mantras at the temple, and where the tinkling of church bells accompanies the gurudwara’s reading of verses from the Guru Granth Sahib, is an India of which we can all be proud.
Just enough to elicit puke because of what follows.
But there is also the India that pulled down the Babri Masjid, that conducted the pogrom in Gujarat and that now unleashes its hatred on the 2% of our population who are Christians.
Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat. The number of times I’ve said “Gujarat” here is a fraction compared to the number of secular opinion pieces that have appeared since Feb 2002 on the issue.
And then we arrive at the meaty part where Shashi Tharoor declares himself a “believing Hindu” and ties himself in knots while trying jugglery in comparitive religion.
As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed of what is being done by people claiming to be acting in the name of my faith. I have always prided myself on belonging to a religion of astonishing breadth and range of belief; a religion that acknowledges all ways of worshipping God as equally valid – indeed, the only major religion in the world that does not claim to be the only true religion. Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy. How dare a bunch of goondas shrink the soaring majesty of the Vedas and the Upanishads to the petty bigotry of their brand of identity politics? Why should any Hindu allow them to diminish Hinduism to the raucous self-glorification of the football hooligan, to take a religion of awe-inspiring tolerance and reduce it to a chauvinist rampage? Right. People who loot, burn, rape, pillage, and kill innocents in the name of Hinduism should be severely punished etc. But Shashi Tharoor does two things here. One, he simply classifies some groups as “Hindu chauvinists” and “Hindutva” without defining either term. I’ll make the job easier for him. Those labelled Hindu chauvinists are actually the Tearing-my-chest-Hindus, which I’ve already defined. Why does Tharoor overlook the fact that ugly/dishonest/crooked elements exist in every religion? More importantly, if you trace the history of communal violence, the Hindu side of the violence has always been a backlash to a violent provocation. Besides, those Hindus that indulge in this backlash have revenge as their motive. Linking this to only political motives is more than farfetched. As we see, this kind of lopsided discourse stems from Tharoor’s understanding of Hinduism.
The lack of clarity in definition is again evident when Tharoor says Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms and Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals. Here’s the thing: the instant you talk about “Hindu fundamentalism,” you implicitly assume symmetry between Hinduism and Prophetic creeds, which are inherently fundamentalist in nature. Hinduism does have fundamentals but not quite like how Tharoor understands.
With due respect to Tharoor, his assertions echo what I call Zoo Hinduism.
At one time, there was a breed of self-proclaimed Hinduism “experts” who wrote reams on the fabled Hindu tolerance typically on the onset of–or in the aftermath of–a Hindu backlash. That breed is almost extinct now dissolved in the heady cocktail of secular fundamentalism. Invoking the mantra of “Hindu tolerance” is still a ruse, a clever ploy to prevent Hindus from speaking out. Here’s how it will logically pan out: keep invoking this tolerance mantra every single time and you’ll have enough Hindus boiling with rage eventually. When they finally speak out, they are branded as chauvinists, fanatics, fundamentalists, goons, hate-mongers, and similar labels. A variation of this phenomenon is apparent in the whole Indology battle that rages in the US academia. When Hindus began voicing their concerns, and challenging the way their culture was “interpreted” and portrayed, hell broke loose because those controlling the discourse were threatened. In a line: Hinduism is nice and tolerant and Hindus are obedient animals in the Zoo, scared out of their wits to fight back. But once in a while when the animal bares its fangs and actually threatens to fight back, the threatened Zoo keepers use a variety of tricks to (re)tame the animal: Zoo Hinduism. I suspect Shashi Tharoor treads this familiar track with his misty-eyed portrayal of Hindu tolerance. Continuing, he says
Hinduism, with its openness, its respect for variety, its acceptance of all other faiths, is one religion which has always been able to assert itself without threatening others.
Agreed but why doesn’t he mention the record of those religions that regard tolerance as a weakness, as a licence to convert, kill, and enslave? And then he relies on another time-tested trick: quoting Swami Vivekananda.
…the Hinduism of Swami Vivekananda, who, at Chicago’s World Parliament of Religions in 1893, articulated best the liberal humanism that lies at the heart of his (and my) creed. Vivekananda asserted that Hinduism stood for “both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true.”
Assuming Swami Vivekananda included Prophetic religions in the “all religions are true” bracket, nothing really prevents us from saying that his understanding in this regard was incorrect. But we’re spared of examining the Swami because Shashi Tharoor selectively quotes him. It’s hard to believe that Tharoor doesn’t know what the Swami said about Islam, Mohammad, Christianity, and the Missionary activity. Here are some helpful resources.
You might argue why I’m bringing in Islam & Christianity when Tharoor’s focus is Hinduism. Not quite. Tharoor presents the “safe” understanding of Hinduism: the ill-understood concept of Sarva Dharma Samabhava, which Swami Vivekananda mentioned and Gandhi popularized.
Vivekananda’s vision – summarised in the credo Sarva Dharma Sambhava – is, in fact, the kind of Hinduism practised by the vast majority of Hindus, whose instinctive acceptance of other faiths and forms of worship has long been the vital hallmark of Indianness.
Sarva Dharma Samabhava doesn’t mean cowardly acceptance of insult or wanton violence. Tolerance has meaning only when it is practised from a position of strength and mutual understanding and respect for boundaries. A deer’s tolerance towards a tiger makes fine material for a comedy show. The “tolerance” of today’s Hindu is a mix of spinelessness, inertia, confusion, ignorance, and apathy. What kind of Samabhava can you have with creeds whose fundamentals dictate the conversion or destruction of people who don’t believe in them?
Shashi Tharoor gives the game away when he approvingly quotes the born-again “developmental” Marxist, Amartya Sen as saying
The Hindu militant,” Amartya Sen has observed, presents India as “a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers.”
There you have, another variant: Hindu militant! But what really catches our attention is Sen’s use of the word idolaters. This was the exact term used by Islamic barbarians and Christian “holy” fathers and missionaries to define Hindus. They were invaders, colonizers, and religious predators. What excuse does Amartya Sen have?
And then Tharoor leaves us with a plea.
Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defence of these fundamentals of Hinduism?
In an earlier post, I mentioned that most Hindu religious leaders today are an impotent lot. To an extent, this impotence is also intellectual. Because, if Hindu religious leaders really cared about Sanatana Dharma’s fundamentals, the first thing they’d have done was to call for a blanket ban on conversions. Until then, we’ll have to suffer people like Shashi Tharoor.
Sigh.
4. August 2009 - 9:36 PM
Sandeep,
I am unable to see in which class of classification does this person called Dr. Ram Puniyani fits. I read this interview on rediff after reading your blog. http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/04/inter-malegaon-ruling-demoralised-muslims.htm
Some of the salient points
“You wrote recently that the arrest of a youth allegedly from the SIMI [ Images ] was wrong. How sure are you when you say that these youth are innocent.
I am sure when I say that. If you notice that the arrests have been made in the Vidharbha area in Maharashtra where there has been an increase in communalisation. There are three BJP MPs from this area who are preparing the ground for the next elections. It is part of a process and in the bargain it is the Muslims who are targetted.
”
Few sentences afterwards
“How did Muslims react to the Malegaon ruling?
They are obviously demoralised and feel the future is bleak. When this case broke out and the arrests were made, they were happy that the police was being fair. In my opinion, Malegaon was always an open- and-shut case and all it requires is sincerity to ensure a conviction.
“
4. August 2009 - 9:51 PM
Ahem!! One of your favorite bloggers could risk falling into category 4– atheist hindus.
4. August 2009 - 9:57 PM
This is why the saying goes “with friends like these, we don’t need enemies”.
You know Sandeep, this “safe” Hindu as per your label is actually what annoys me the most in the media. Especially when they become preachy and patronizing. But actually re-phrasing that, I feel it’s not being a “safe” Hindu but rather being a cynical, “moderate” secularist. A lot of people fall into this so trap easily… it’s hardly amazing that these types thrive in the media so comfortably. I regard these kind of people are misguided and sadly delusional and hardly worthy of being called “Hindu”.
You know, regarding classifying people as “safe” Hindus, I would say as a whole, most of us ARE of this type – the only thing is that you have labelled wrongly.
The difference is that most of us Hindus outside of the secularist-brainwashed fold:
1. don’t pretend to be intellectual or don’t consider ourselves even worthy of judging timeless traditions and culture handed down from the days of the great rishis.
2. don’t judge or patronize our own religion with our pathetic limited knowledge obtained from badly translated texts.
3. don’t fall for the “religious equality” line of the secularists blindly but still don’t ruffle feathers in public unnecessarily.
4. avoid confrontations, but are generally strong in our faith.
The thing is that, the realization that no matter how much you stand up for what one believes, there will always be opposition is a very sobering and dampening factor in our enthusiasm. It’s so easy to become cynical like Mr. Tharoor.
But the greatness of this country or our culture lies in the fact that we have not become cynical in spite of so much mud slung against Hinduism and so many so-called advisers like Mr. Tharoor in the media…
4. August 2009 - 10:25 PM
Hello Sandeep,
I have been following your posts since last few months.
This is my first comment on your blog, I think.
Like all of your posts, this is also really amazing.
I will be also sending one email to you.
Kindly reply it if you have time.
Keep writing.
Regards,
Nilesh
4. August 2009 - 11:15 PM
>>because Hinduism accommodates even nastikas in its fold
You know that this IS true, right?
–Long live the FSM–
4. August 2009 - 11:43 PM
When I read this in TOI time back, I thought he is getting ready to be baptized into congress. Soon it followed. He needs a good career for himself, we can’t blame him. His motives are so hideous in writing that column. BTW, to me Tharoor’s love for India is just about sarees, elephants, vedanta(not veda) etc.. nothing much deeper.
Veda should not be dragged down to the level of a modern religion. In my not-so-politically-correct opinion modern religions are born(man made) to save people in Europe and Arabia during medeivial times. Once their purpose is fulfilled they will be gone. For ex, christianity is already leaving europe.
5. August 2009 - 1:05 AM
You missed a category. Safe Hindus might be afraid to speak out against other religions, not because they respect them, but are largely ignorant of what other, especially Abrahamic, religions believe in.
Shashi Taroor belongs to the category of Shamelessly Hypocritical. He thinks that by repeatedly pointing out what he considers are flaws of the Hindu while at the same time proclaiming his faith, he can be thought of as the true secular. Yet here he is defending the Muslims right the protest the Danish cartoons. Apparently, free speech is only for those insulting Hindus but with reference to other groups, we need to be sensitive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is71zKEiMdk
The problem with Taroor is that he doesn’t even understand the rudiments of the Gita where one of the central messages is that one should never tolerate those intolerant of us.
5. August 2009 - 1:37 AM
I made up my mind about this guy when I read this eulogy of his Party’s chairman–obviously if this is not flattery I don’t know what is–he perhaps had a party position in mind when he wrote:
I fail to see anything romantic or beautiful about what he describes here:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733757_1735551,00.html
A far more accurate and fair picture without flattery by Suketu Metha (you need to scroll down):
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1615513_1614685,00.html
5. August 2009 - 1:41 AM
Shashi Tharoor’s Hinduism can also be called Textbook Hinduism – how Hinduism is supposed to be. So, just about anything is on, as Hindus are supposed to be very tolerant people and wont raise a finger in protest to any provocation. If any Hindu does raise a protest, he must surely belong to the Sangh Parivar. It is this binary supposed-to-be view of Hinduism that guides the party which Tharoor belongs to in making decisions related to religion.
But I have to protest against your five fold classification as it leaves out several Hindus. You have an Atheist Hindu category but why not an Agnostic (or more precisely, Noncommittal) Hindu category – all those Hindus who are actually beginning to learn about their religion, and hold ambiguous opinions about it, as of now?
I want to share a joke here (if you can call it a joke.) Once in a while, our family does pilgrimage trips. Our usual favourite is Srisailam. On the way, we discuss several things about Hinduism and Hindu mythology and whenever we have a doubt about a mythical character or some aspect of Hinduism, my dad jokes: “We should ask a Muslim. He would know!” (some local Muslims have decent knowledge of Hindu gods and goddesses)
That might be a joke but quite pithily captures the situation. Many Hindus are simply not aware of their religion, because of a variety of reasons, not least the fact that the “modern” education curriculum bothers itself more with Greek or Roman mythology than with things more local.
As a result, many young Hindus begin to discover their religion only when they become adults – when they have fully developed the capacity to critically analyze the several prejudicial opinions about Hinduism that they’ve internalized as basic “facts of Hinduism” during school. These Hindus begin to realize that Hinduism is not just about nonviolence, caste discrimination, idol worship, ritualism etc. They begin to realize all these are rather minor features of Hinduism (of more interest to sociologists and anthropolgists), that there is a vast, illuminating body of philosophy (of everything) that is relevant across all places and all time. In other words, they just begin to realize the essential feature of their socalled “Hinduism” – Sanatana Dharma.
So, you could probably add Category 6 for all those Hindus who are in the process of “rediscovering” their “religion”, “Hindus in Becoming” maybe.
5. August 2009 - 4:25 AM
The very reason #4Hindus exist is because #2Hindus only exist in theory, or in Himalayas. #4 Hindus are always open for a honest debate with a genuine intention to understand, with an open mind. The problem is that #2Hindus almost always, never seem to have a good enough answer for the questions of #2. The way #2Hindus argue is by quoting from scriptures with or without understanding. That is like saying Christianity is true because Bible says so.
5. August 2009 - 6:14 AM
Shashi Tharoor can be best categorised as a ‘balls-less Hindu’ (safe is too charitable for him). I was seeing an interview on some channel in February earlier this year in the run up to the elections wherein he still wasn’t given a ticket from Congress. In that interview, talking about various acts of religious intolerance in India, he referred to the attack on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad by the MIM “activists” as “intolerance shown by the state”(!!!!!).
I think the interview was on a business channel with Karan Thapar. And Thapar gladly let that comment pass. That’s because he is another ‘balls-less Hindu’.
5. August 2009 - 9:00 AM
Great Post as usual. Tharoor should be dismissed.. he is Desperate after the UN Sec. Genral Seat loss. He wants attention and is seeking to reinvent his career with Congress of course. What do we expect? He has been spewing his white-man-will-like views on Hinduism and India for a long time now.
Everybody else has a right to defend his/her faith except the Hindus. The word tolerance has been taken for a toss. But the blame also lies with us. For any kind of attack on Hinduism, our response is reactionary. The justified reason for retaliation is overshadowed by the reaction…usually a violent and bloody mayhem. This in turn leads to an increase in number of the Agnostic Hindu. The westernized and modern young who profess to be humanitarians at heart are turned off by such acts. The lack of knowledge about sanatan Dharm and a reliance on bad translations and interpretations only worsens matters. Hence there is no united voice against unjustified attacks on Sanatan Dharm.
Lack of great religious leaders, Gurus/Teachers, Practioners of the Faith further weakens us. The convoluted concept of Secularism disallows a study of Dharm and hence as Atlantean points out we get a new and if we are lucky a true perpective on the Dharm only as adults. What is also missing is our modern and popular version of Madarsas and Sunday Schools.
The only way to protect ourselves from the enemy outside and within is Reform and Re-education …Kriti Bhakti should be compulsory for every practicing,intellectual, and Just Discovering Hindu.
5. August 2009 - 9:33 AM
While interpreting Vivekananda, one should exercise caution.I have read most of his complete works,you can find lot of contridictions unless understood in right context. He was a Vedantin by heart and soul and did not bother to dissect theologies of semitic religions.
When he said all religions are true he could have meant it for religions pagans. And moreover for him religion was just a stepping stone to spirituality, so Vivekananda’s statement should never be interpreted from the glasses of secularism.
At one point in time he said my Ideal for India is beef eating Brahmin,but in other leacutres he has spoken about mertis of vegetarianism as practiced by Ramanuja and Shankara.I guess he was fed up with cowards and should have thought of beef eating Brahmin(inteletual Kshatriya) as his Ideal.
And it is quite possible that he could have not done extensive study of crude culture, clever people often smell the rot very early, if his objective was to criticize their the crude theology he could have been very critical.
But from his works one can find that he did not had any sympathy for Islam and Christianity.
5. August 2009 - 10:56 AM
Sandeep
First time commenting on your blog ..
have read many of previous blogs .. I just feel sad that we have to discuss such people.. just wish he sud have got that UN seat ..
Keep writing and keep spearding the truth .. some day surely we will have enough people who understand this ‘gorakhdhandha’
5. August 2009 - 11:21 AM
Sandeep,
A Kannada writer Shivaram Kanarth was in fact a Atheist by definition, but it looks like he believed in a life of higer consciousness.
There are set of people like him who don’t belive in personal GOD, but lives a life of superior consciousness.
I think this category should be exempted from being branded as Atheist.
Except for this category the word “bastardized breed” suits Atheists very well
.
5. August 2009 - 11:35 AM
Is ‘atheism’ the same as ‘nastika’ though? Looks like many people get easily confused, and conflate the two, when the two terms are not synonyms.
5. August 2009 - 1:42 PM
Nastika is one who don’t believe in existence of life/world beyond sense perception.
And Asthika is quite opposite.
5. August 2009 - 2:48 PM
The vedas and the upanishads clearly say that a guy who runs for UN Sec General, bites dust, cozies up to Sonia Gandhi, and settles for an MP post in hope of better stature in the future is a …… joke, not a good Hindu.
5. August 2009 - 5:41 PM
well, I guess many people know this but here goes:
Darshana shaastra of Hinduism is divided into 2 branches: aastika and aaastika.
The aastika vaada, in brief says, “asti”–”is there”, that is, it says that Vedas are indeed eternal and revealved. It comprises of well known six branches–nyaya, vaisheshika, yoga, sankhya, purva-mimaamsa, uttara-mimaamsa (better known as Vedanta).
Naastika is one who says “Naasti”, that is, “not(there)”. Here, the reference is to the Vedas being “not eternal” and “not revealed”.
If we come to define Hinduism as a core belief in the vedas, then yes, naastika vaada is outside hinduism, but that doesnt mean that the early naastikas were non-Hindus. They just didnt accept the authority of the Vedas!
Gautama Buddha was a naastika. Vardhamana Mahavira was another. They didnt accept the Vedas, but they did believe in some supernatural entity (shunya, samadhi, whatever it may have meant to them! They were definitely NOT atheists as the English word means.
5. August 2009 - 5:42 PM
typo in the first line:
aastika and naastika
5. August 2009 - 9:13 PM
keep whining
5. August 2009 - 11:37 PM
Baddimaga,
your handle matches the behavior you exhibit here…do you greet your father like this at home?
6. August 2009 - 3:25 AM
Well there are two more categories, the sell outs and self haters. BTW #1 are not useless, they can keep #4 and #5 in check. Thats how it is in the ‘Religion of Peace’.
6. August 2009 - 4:11 AM
“These Hindus begin to realize that Hinduism is not just about nonviolence, caste discrimination, idol worship, ritualism etc. They begin to realize all these are rather minor features of Hinduism (of more interest to sociologists and anthropolgists), that there is a vast, illuminating body of philosophy (of everything) that is relevant across all places and all time. In other words, they just begin to realize the essential feature of their socalled “Hinduism” – Sanatana Dharma.
So, you could probably add Category 6 for all those Hindus who are in the process of “rediscovering” their “religion”, “Hindus in Becoming” maybe.”
This is a nice way to put it–perhaps the challenge for all Hindus is to work collectively so that as many people can rediscover their Hindu religion–I mean those that have been alienated from it.
I remember an intellegent Persian friend telling me once upon seeing Christian Indians–”… their culture is not Christian and when you talk to them you can see it is imposed on them, and does not really suit them as converts–especially when as far as dress, food and habits are concerned they are like Hindus…”–She thought there was something incongruous about their being Christians–Interesting that even some very perceptive foreigners notice this…
6. August 2009 - 7:58 AM
sandeep,
yup bring in the family( refer to 3 comments above) when you have no proper defense,
that is some way of arguing when you hint at yourself being a
Intellectual Hindu.
If intellectual hindus are like this i dont know how the rest(which composes most) are!!!!
6. August 2009 - 8:48 AM
sandeep – once again thanks for a good post. These 4 & 5 are the dangerous types and that has the capability to take 1 & 3 down with them. 4 & 5 are generally well-to-do having successful careers, with likes to things western. With no office, generally 1 & 3 are do-good beings that are quite centered and content in their way of life (in one way drawing strength from their belief). Since most of us look up to successful people and try to ape them (believing that woudl provide us success), 1 & 3 could be easily brain-washed / convinced by 4 & 5.
These 4 & 5 are typlicall the types, that will tonsure their head in tirupathi to fulfill a vow and at other times, indulge in debate about God exists or not to prove their debating and intellectual capability. they are closet types that dont profess their faith openly (for the fear of not being branded ‘fundamelist’ and to be accepted by the ’secular’ crowd), but would go to temples on annual vacations on the sly. S Taroor would even go to guruvayur and pray to Krishna to get a good ministership next time around. But, by criticising Hinduism in another forum, he has his foot on both sides, which he can conveniently manevour depending on the crowd he interacts with. That way, you propitiate the God that you are familir with for selfish reasons and on whom you secretly believe, but ashamed to admit your beliefs in public. That is the reason, people started saying ‘raised as a Hindu’. I have never once come across xtian or muslim saying that… The best you could hear them say is ‘i dont go to church’ or ‘i drink alcohol’. Never once you woudl they are not practicing their faith. Somehow Hindus seem to be ashamed of where they belong.
6. August 2009 - 8:53 AM
baddimanage,
Nara idre logical agi argue madu sumane baige bandanthe commnents pass madabeda.
Thevaluthirisikoloke bere sakastu bolgs ide, alli Bhadko.
6. August 2009 - 8:55 AM
To continue on the above, some sophisticated Hindus seem to look down upon Tamil Hindus donning vel’s in their bodies during Thai Poosam etc., These intelligent Hindus, associate themselves with westerner’s view point… I have heard some Hindus asking, why we cant also go to temple with coat and shoe, sit on a chair and say our prayers. They just dont seem to udnerstand Hinduism embraces gamut of practices, everyone has a place and everyone could express their devotion in any form they like (kavadi’s for mugan, or bhajan, or chanting or just sitting quitely in a temple). You dont necessarily have to dress up to go a temple, like most people do on sundays to go to church. Whilst western world embraces, rap music, tatooing, piercing of their people in daily life, somehow educated hindus, with western mindset, are not able to accept piercing done during Thai Poosam etc. There is lies a hesitancy to associate themselves to their faith completely.
6. August 2009 - 1:37 PM
There may be yet another category i.e ‘Andhe Hindu’ meaning blind Hindus who close their eyes on seeing crimes against woman and other vulnerable people. The number of such people is very large and a majority of rich and so called traditionally advanced consider it their right to commit sexual and financial crimes against poors.
6. August 2009 - 4:58 PM
raghavendra swami (2 comments above)
by what you have said, it looks like you are the one who is blurting out whatever comes in the mouth.
6. August 2009 - 5:04 PM
My point is this post is just a whining, because the distinctions are arbitrary with no sound basis, just some anecdotal observations. The author wanted to crib about something, so he just came up with this distinction.
(For example 4 do not consider themselves as hindus, 2 is a subset of 3 if you consider author mentiones may or may be scholarly types). 5 is totally arbitrary made up to have attributes so as to sound in context when whining about shashi tharoor. A whine is a whine however it is masked.
Just pointing this out gets Mr raghavendra to tear his chest. Now we all know which category he belongs to according to the author(not me).
(btw 1 and 2 or 3 can still have a intersection which is not null)
6. August 2009 - 7:28 PM
badimaga bhai, whining ho ya shining, blog uska hai, eb wo yahaan chahe disco kare ya dandiya, tere pacche kyun khujlee laag ri se, tu woh bataa? bhai tu bhi kalesh (whinging) hi kar raha hai. Khul ke likh taaki baaki ko logo ko pata lage ki kehne ki koshish kya kar raha tu.
6. August 2009 - 11:16 PM
Most of them are neither naastic nor aastic, tired of running one stone to the other,nobody knows from where to start and where to end, …. finally settle at dhoop batti before lighting first nicoteen baati,
7. August 2009 - 3:37 AM
I personally like to use simpler categories of Liberals and Traditionalists/Conservatives.
Traditionalists/Conservatives are folks who believe in a future for Hindus as Hindus. Are ready to fight for it.
Liberals are those that are compromised. They are those that obfuscate issues.
One finds Liberals even in Hindu organizations. Some become leaders too. This talk of a UCC, “pseudo” secularism, etc should not find place in a Hindu movement. There is no need to fall back on secular concepts.
Let me say this. I don’t any more like calling myself an Indian. I prefer to call myself a Hindu. That defines my national identity. There is no confusion.
Sandeep, you are familiar with Radha Rajan’s works? I think her formulations of nation, nationality, citizenship rights, minorities are very clear and are from a Hindu perspective.
I’d like to hear you more on Hindu statecraft and political theory. Especially in light of today’s reality.
And please don’t succumb to decency when speaking about Hindu reaction. There would be no Hindu violence if we were left alone. But if we are not, then there will be hell to pay.
Just random thoughts before packing up.
Thanks
7. August 2009 - 4:15 AM
Sorry but more random thoughts.
When Parsis landed on our shores, we did not blindly wave them in. We enquired about them and their ways, set some conditions and then when we felt assured of their commitment to our land and its people, let them live in our domain.
This says something about our past sense of realism that our current liberal polity has neatly hollowed out.
You know something? When I sense doubt, I start reading Ambedkar’s Pakistan or Partition of India. This much clarity of thought I have not found in most popular Hindu theorists. Savarkar falls by the wayside. The sangh ideologues are an insult to their trade. And I ask myself a simple question. Why the hell did most chutia Hindu leaders oppose partition??? Why? And what are we doing to blow such and more cobwebs away from our own minds? What is our formulation for state and society?
7. August 2009 - 4:41 AM
And I ask myself a simple question. Why the hell did most chutia Hindu leaders oppose partition???
Well, partition would’ve made sense only if all the Muslims had migrated to Pakistan, with no exceptions. Failing that, I can understand why some leaders were opposed to partition.
7. August 2009 - 4:51 AM
Kaffir, precisely my point. Ambedkar made a case for exchange of populations that would have warranted a prior acceptance of the need for partition. Hindu opposition of partition shut out that plan altogether.
In other words, Hindu leaders were unable or unwilling to say, take your Pakistan and take your Muslims too. We fought against partition while we bled and were left with no argument for an exchange of population. Partition happened anyways.
But this is just an example that exposes our weakness that persists to this day.
What is our notion of state and society?
7. August 2009 - 6:27 AM
I agree with Palahalli’s points. I have always asked this myself… But, it must have been the do-gooders Gandhi and Nehru, they did what they did to feel good about themselves… The people that left and that stayed, wanted the cake and eat it too. And it was our cake. I stay in Malaysia. Government here protects the 60% majority quite nicely. It is mandatory for real estate developers to provide 5-10% discount in prices to majority. Even bank interest rates are lower to majority. all because they are sons of the soil and minorities are not (though last 2-3 generations of minorities were born in malaysia). at times it feels it is the right thing… I want our ELM to see how governments in our neighbourhood treats their majority and compare it to how Indian government treats its majority.
7. August 2009 - 8:23 AM
Wait and watch for another ‘The Saffron Wave’ , this time by an Indian.
http://www.kriso.ee/Hindu-Nationalism-India-Politics-Fear/db/9780230603851.html
7. August 2009 - 8:39 AM
baddimaga,
Oh my Master I’m grateful to you for showing me my place, you have helped me to realize my true self, in the process of my self discovery I have also discovered you my Master, and I have realized that exceptional persons like you don’t fit in any of the categories Sandeep have mentioned.
With your grace my Master I seek you permission to add to the existing list.
Tearing-my-chest-Hindus
Intellectual Hindus
Practising Hindus
Atheist Hindus
Safe Hindus
Baddimakalu
MR.. Keep on thing in mind, this is a forum where people express their opinions. Sometimes they differer with author’s opinion, but they know how to express it.Author has right to pen his thoughts,and you have right express your opinion,there was no need to scream.
HolenirigHe dHonenayakana appane beka.
7. August 2009 - 12:51 PM
2bornot2be – Very good point. Malaysia is the right example. India and a host of so called “free and democratic” countries are not. In these latter it’s fashionable to have “minority rights” and their safeguard as barometer of goodness. No wonder the majorities are dying out.
It should always be the other way round.
Notice how our media and liberals never even note the facts you mentioned about Malaysia.
For this to happen, we Hindus must disabuse ourselves of all liberal notions of political correctness. At least a critical mass of articulate thinkers.
That’s my rant. There are just too many such notions being passed off as “Hindu ideals”.
The other thing is we must seriously reclaim a political jargon for ourselves. I find Sandeep’s categories unhelpful.in that they don’t help me cull out the political-social “strains” that put our people in harm’s way. I don’t know if Sandeep or folks here have given this thought but here’s a debate waiting to happen. Sandeep’s categories are a good start.
Here’s what I say. The “chest beating” Hindu is better than the “intellectual Hindu” because the former has a real sense of the danger he faces. The latter can still rationalize such dangers and cocoon them in some so-called “ideal Hinduness”.
Let me try and stir a hornet’s nest to make my point and then I’ll promise to trap the hornet back in.
Take the recent judgement on section 377. I did a lot of breast beating on this very forum. I think it was the “Secular..” something post. The point was that one can approach danger unknowingly and in good faith. The point was to identify certain basic premises that put us on a highway we don’t want to be on.
Am I making sense?
7. August 2009 - 1:04 PM
palahalli, you make zero sense. Out of the many ridiculous ridiculous ridiculous things you’ve just posted, the most would be about the real sense of danger that the chest beating hindu is aware of. Remind me again, what danger? I feel super safe and secure.
7. August 2009 - 1:12 PM
Palahalli: thanks for your thoughts. It is indeed true our ELM does not highlight the atrocities that happens in our neighbourhood.
One more larger issue we are missing here is not everyone fighting for Hindu rights are religious or spiritual. People fighting for rights of Hindus are always beaten up the certain dogmas that Hinduism has (like other religions) and the fight is highjacked. I think we have to start seeing things as follows:
1. People that believe in Sanatana Darma, practice Hinduism and believe these practices will lead them to peace, liberation or becoming a better person. These people can take on psedo-intellectuals that have a larger agenda of demeaning Hinduism. They engage in intellectual debates.
2. People that are Hindus, but are more concerned with their social rights as Hindus than defending Hinduism from attack from Psuedos. I am talking about SOCIAL issues here Hindus as a group in this society. Vicits of this group dont want intellectual debate. They are not interested. All they want is equal rights. For example, adequate set-off compensation for Hindus akin to Haj subsidy, Rights to buy property and live in Kashmir, Demand to make reservations under economic crieteria, Funds of temple to be handled by temple authorites and not the government, missionaires not trying to mess with their way of life (not because we think this is the greatest way of life, but because this is what we are… just leave us alone).
When social causes are discussed, the psedos always attack the Hindu religion. Category 2 is not bothered about that. All category want is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EQUAL LIVING…
I believe we have to demarcate so that psedos dont attack number 1 when number 2 is crying for help. To be just to people in category 2, we dont have to proclaim the greatness of Hinduism (which the psedos will never understand anyway). The focus should only be on EQUALITY and JUSTICE.
7. August 2009 - 2:02 PM
Sm- There’s something to be said about your adamant insistence about you feeling safe. Why do you feel the need to tell me that?
2beornot2be – I’m with you. I may be jumping the gun here a lil bit but think about placing cat2 concerns in the framework of polity.
Nation, nationality, citizenship, minority.
I think you will find you look at “equal” rights in a different light.
7. August 2009 - 2:20 PM
Palahalli,
>>I find Sandeep’s categories unhelpful.in that they don’t help me cull out the political-social “strains” that put our people in harm’s way. I don’t know if Sandeep or folks here have given this thought but here’s a debate waiting to happen. Sandeep’s categories are a good start.
Now, now, now! I made those categories without much thought and didn’t have the faintest idea it’d spawn off these many thoughts. Don’t read too much into it right now.
Someday I hope to elaborate more seriously.
Kedar,
One of my fav bloggers? who?
7. August 2009 - 2:27 PM
Sandeep, I think Kedar means Atanu Dey
7. August 2009 - 2:45 PM
SM – to elaborate on what Pahalali said, chest-beating Hindus see the danger in the following manner:
1. In a Hindu dominated locality for the past 50 years, suddenly a mosque sprints up… 2 mosques for 10% for the population and 4 temples for the 80% population… Chest-bearing sees this and sees red… When a church is built in tirupathi, a vacuum forms in the stomach of a chest beating Hindu…
2. When all you have to go to Haj is pack your bags and step out of our home -government bus picks you up, government buys you airline ticket, immgration gives you special importance… but when i want to go to kedarnath, the government does not allow me to construct temporary structures.
3. When government tells people when to celebrate new years day.. when government ridicules the God that you pray to eveyday (asking for a engineering degree), when government meddles into places of worship…
4. when you see hindu families having 1 child keeping in mind quality of education they could provide to 1 compared to 1, and muslim brothers have 4 or 5.. you can see how demography would be after 50 years.. Let someone take a survey of Indians under 25. I bet more than 25% woudl be muslims.
Now, item number 3 will be laughed off by a intellectual. But chest beating Hindu feels somethign is wrong…beliefs dear to his heart is questioned…
All you have to do is connect the dots… Intellectuals can connect the dots… but they dont. Chest beating Hindu is emotional… he can feel it… so he sees the danger.
7. August 2009 - 3:25 PM
Kedar and others,
Please read Atanu Dey’s posts on Indian Festivals (Ganesh Chaturthi and so on) to decide whether he is Atheistic or not. Also, you could read some of his old Berkeley blog-posts on topics like tat-tvam-asi. Lastly, please read his posts on deeshaa about Gautama Buddha and meditation.
BTW, I think that his posts on SSRS are completely justified, if you read them carefully. I think Hinduism and India need lot more “atheists” like Atanu.
Hope this helps.
7. August 2009 - 4:30 PM
This part, perhaps what you wrote, has entered into a quote from Shashi Tharoor..
“Right. People who loot, burn, rape, pillage, and kill innocents in the name of Hinduism should be severely punished etc. ….. understanding of Hinduism.”
7. August 2009 - 4:42 PM
To establish the new Hindu intellectual wave, we must have a certain glam wave to it to combat these brain dead parakeets.
I know reality is often bitter and there can be no scope for cotton candy, but still there is a quote that goes as:
“Satya vadam, priya vadam.”
7. August 2009 - 5:36 PM
@ Raghavendra
In my authority as your master, i appoint you the supreme leader of my category
7. August 2009 - 7:12 PM
Now, it was meant to be a harmless joke, more at Sandeep’s categorisation of Hindus in that way, than at Atanu.
All I wanted to say was that there are some who would call themselves atheists/agnostics, but who openly support and do service to Hinduism simply because Hindu principles and ethics make sense to them (my brother is one such example).
Regarding SSRS, I agree completely with Atanu and I had extreme fun reading those articles. On many other aspects as well, he remains a personal favorite.
7. August 2009 - 7:45 PM
“2bornot2be – Very good point. Malaysia is the right example.”
Well the only reason that Malayasia is ahead in any way is because of the culture of hard working ethnic Chinese there who are good business people.
I think that partition was a good thing, only that it was not a complete one so HIndus got the short end of the stick. After all when you look at what happens to Hindus in places like Kashmir (they are stampeded out), you realize that HIndus being the way they are, Muslims would have been greater in numbers and would demand things to be their way if there had been no partition(consider no Hindus left in places like Pakistand and Bangladesh)–you just cannot ignore the fact that demography is destiny for all places–this does not mean that having minorities is bad, but gradually a smart nation makes it obligatory for minorities to respect the majority culture or at least blend into the majority culture after a few generations–
“People that are Hindus, but are more concerned with their social rights as Hindus than defending Hinduism from attack from Psuedos. I am talking about SOCIAL issues here Hindus as a group in this society. Vicits of this group dont want intellectual debate. They are not interested. All they want is equal rights. For example, adequate set-off compensation for Hindus akin to Haj subsidy, Rights to buy property and live in Kashmir, Demand to make reservations under economic crieteria, Funds of temple to be handled by temple authorites and not the government, missionaires not trying to mess with their way of life (not because we think this is the greatest way of life, but because this is what we are… just leave us alone).”
I agree with this–the conservative party should not lose sight of these things–and should be known to fight for such things–no can can say anything bad about you when you place the debate in terms of rights and in terms of clear logical thinking–and this is what the conservative party needs to focus on so that it does not lose the intelligent people many of whom are put off by emotional appeals to realigion…
“When social causes are discussed, the psedos always attack the Hindu religion. Category 2 is not bothered about that. All category want is EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EQUAL LIVING…I believe we have to demarcate so that psedos dont attack number 1 when number 2 is crying for help. To be just to people in category 2, we dont have to proclaim the greatness of Hinduism (which the psedos will never understand anyway). The focus should only be on EQUALITY and JUSTICE.”
I agree with this and think this is what the conservative party should focus on…The debate should be carried out on these terms and the other party would have a hard time justifying many of its policies which are not based on any kind of clear thinking….
7. August 2009 - 8:00 PM
With regard to the large minority of Muslims, I think that Islam as a religion will not be very appealing for many Muslims when the gulf countries run out of oil money….there is a possibility that Muslims might become agnostics like many people in Western Europe with regard to religion when the seat of the religion in the deserts of Arabia becomes poor…They might seek other alternatives as far as religions is concerned. But as long as the Mid-East has power and influence through petro $$, this is not going to happen. So hopefully the rest of the smart world will get out of the need for oil soon…Then those Gulf countries will have to look within and modernize to keep up witht thre rest of the world, as the bubble built on petro $$ will be no more…But I wonder if this is going to happen in our lifetimes. Seems like oil is here to stay around very long…
A Muslim friend of my husband recently told him that many young educated Muslims in Kashmir are not interested in septratism in Kashmir (I guess seeing the fate of Pakistan) but that because other Muslims from elsewhere pour money to help them, it goes on because it is financially profitable for them. And this was said by a Muslim!
7. August 2009 - 9:13 PM
amar’s words:
“BTW, I think that his posts on SSRS are completely justified, if you read them carefully. I think Hinduism and India need lot more “atheists” like Atanu.”
-
India needs both Atanu and SSRS – depending on people and their mind-set, one would appeal more than the other. Besides, it’s not as if Atanu doesn’t have his blind followers who rush to defend him (just like SSRS followers do), as some regular commenters on his blog posts illustrate. There’s space for people like SSRS and Atanu – both are doing some good in their own way.
7. August 2009 - 10:09 PM
Also I think that there is problem with the word “atheism” in Western languages. Usually it is used in the context of those who do not believe in the authority of the Bible, i.e. in the context of a revealed religion.
Does there need to be supernatural sanction for morals? Plato spent his life on the question of “what constitutes the good life”. He found the pre-Socratics deficient in that questions of “correct living ” were not of interest to them–somewhat like theoretical physicists for whom questions of right and wrong do not figure into how competent they are as scientists.
When you read the dialogues of Plato, you see the contemplative aspect of Western civilization at its best–(a great deal of this Greek comtemplativeness was lost when Europe became Christian in my estimation and you have a divorce between ethics and science which Plato tried to bridge)– his dialogues aim for a grounding of morality, not on supernatural or tradition but on “reason”–yet Plato is not atheist in the sense that he believes in something “higher” arrived at by virtue of reason, the life of comtemplation and reason is placed at the highest, and his whole writings is a defense of the philosophic life …I see this as no different from our tradition–the same conclusion but arrived at under different skies and a different tradition….Which is why I think it is quite difficult for a Hindu to be an atheist in the sesnse that a Westerner is an atheist in rejecting the authority of the Bible or a Muslim is atheist in rejecting the Koran…questions of correct living according to Hinduism are not divorced from intellectual striving, in fact are inseparable from it…
But many Hindus are confused due to the fact that they do not know much about their religion due to a deficient educational system which stresses technical ecuation with neglect of all else…Moreover their culture was interrupted by a series of barbarian invasions…Hinduism is not a static religion…it is a picture of a whole culture with something for all levels of understanding…I find the contemplative aspect of Hindusim akin to the contemplativeness of Plato…
7. August 2009 - 10:12 PM
Kaffir:
I dont agree with you, but I want to use this opportunity for something far funnier, and mindbogglingly sillier–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lRjGsTUUlQ
8. August 2009 - 4:19 PM
I would like to attract the attention of all to another good article here-
http://samirbharadwaj.com/blog/the-religion-and-philosophy-of-hinduism/
This is from a blog which I enjoy thoroughly.
Sandeep, I will like you to make your observations. It will turn out to be an exciting interaction.
8. August 2009 - 11:38 PM
Praveen,
Thanks. I read that blog. He says nothing new and in several places, I find clarity of thought missing.
His explanation of Yoga and Hatha Yoga is way off the mark. There’s nothing really there to make observations.
But thanks anyway.
9. August 2009 - 2:21 AM
hi ,
i really can’t understand what u wanted to say in ur Hindu definition blog , it really surprise me people still give religion so much importance and try to be be big shot and tell the world what they feel about people of certain society(Hindus , because they r Hindu). i think u need to clear ur mind brother , u have no understanding of religion , god or people . because u r not saying about Hindus, u were telling about some people , and these types of people u can find anywhere in the world , reason may be different , it could be race , Muslims , Christianity . anything .
9. August 2009 - 2:25 AM
i think u should understand things , don’t try so hard to be a intellectual . and u can be secular without abuse Hindu society .
9. August 2009 - 11:35 AM
Rahul Srivastava in my book is a liberal. Liberalism, perhaps the final stage in the decay of national identity makes liberals one with liberals everywhere in the world. Makes sense. People with no sense of identity have an *identity* of their own.
9. August 2009 - 5:09 PM
hi Palahalli plz explain your above comment about me u wrote , i have hard time to understand ur comment . and if not here my email is timeforchange.01@gmail.com.i m eagerly waiting .
9. August 2009 - 5:29 PM
i really sympathetic with the view sandeep, but u need to understand if some one who is doing wrong dosen’t mean u do also wrong . and other thing it is politics which creates so much of problem in the name of religion. not Hindus , Muslims and Christians . they r merely people who have no time to create riots and become terrorist . and what these secular parties r doing is nothing secular , and sahshi tharoor is no secular and and i would say 90% of people have no idea what is religion and god . so if they call themselves Hindus , Muslims , Christians it doesn’t matter . because they know nothing . so plz move forward towards a right path .
9. August 2009 - 6:26 PM
Rahul, its better you cite an instance or example and relate your theory or thought to it.
That way this discussion will be more fruitful.
Right now, your thoughts are a thick fog. I feel your sincere but you must also be clear.
9. August 2009 - 7:34 PM
hi Palahalli,
here is my view about sandeep’s blog is that his anger towards some people who thinks themselves as intellectual is justified (sahshi throor , or amrtya sen ). they are insanely wrong .
9. August 2009 - 7:44 PM
but u know religion is not the thing to fight , it is the way people lead there life towards a certain goal. but from the ages what we do or what our ancestors have done is to fight in the name of religion ,it was not the fight for god, it was for themselves . everybody is fighting for superiority . as there way is better .
9. August 2009 - 7:53 PM
British had seen these things in the past in Indians , so they decided to use it to rule, and they end up partition of India . and now these things are used by political parties , like congress , b.j.p , communist and every other regional party . i mean in India now days if want to secular u just have to support Muslims and Christians . i m really surprised to see this “what in hell is our democracy has reached “.
9. August 2009 - 8:00 PM
but it is just a lack of knowledge of people which is used by some leaders of our country . these things only can be removed by spreading a right kind of education in people and eradication of poverty .
9. August 2009 - 8:07 PM
and we have to start a movement against all the parties in India so they have to stop policy of divide and rule . and lot of damage is done by so called secular parties (congress , communist parties )is they have done enough for Muslims and dalits , then they don’t have to start propaganda of so called union of secular parties , look at situation of mulims and dalits in India . espeacially in congress ruled and communist rules , put aside communal parties rules states , they mend to do harm to Muslims and Christians .
9. August 2009 - 8:22 PM
Palahalli , and all these religions are lie ,y u focus on these absurd things if u want India to prosper so help poor ppl educate and remove poverty . these absurd religion fight eventually end someday . u know as it famously said “have a common sense is not so common” . “god is one ” this the ultimate truth .
9. August 2009 - 8:30 PM
Rahul S – Let me understand you better. You are saying Secular Parties are doing a lot of damage. Ok.
I’d like to know what your understanding of the following terms are;
1. Secularism
2. Multi-Culturalism – Since you are talking about all religions and cultures within Hindusthan
3. Democracy
4. Universal Adult Franchise
5. Communalism
Please bear with my pace. I might be slow.
Thank you
9. August 2009 - 8:33 PM
Rahul S – Please add another category.
6. Religion
9. August 2009 - 8:38 PM
sir well if u r there leave me ur gamil id we can talk to u there, about what u wanted me to reply . otherwise i can explain here too .
9. August 2009 - 8:41 PM
Rahul S – We can discuss on this forum itself. We won’t be disturbed.
Thank you
Btw, my email is palahalli.s@gmail.com
But I would prefer we dicuss here.
9. August 2009 - 8:55 PM
ok i will respond to u here only .
secularism :- in my sense secularism is term we use for communal harmony , in secular state every person of the state is free to obey it’s faith and state will not involve in any matter of a certain religion and give importance to .
9. August 2009 - 9:00 PM
multiculturalism : it is a color of India which i like the most , here we have almost all the religion of this world prosper together . and if there is lot of religion in one country there are lot of complexities too because of individuals thought towards one another religion .
9. August 2009 - 9:12 PM
democracy : -it is term used for elected government which is elected by common people , i find India too much democratic , here we have too much relaxation towards lot of things . but it is better than all other option for government formation.
9. August 2009 - 9:17 PM
Communalism:- it is bad scar for any country , because it spreads hatred among common people . but it is not generated by people it is generally generated by political parties and government all over the world .
9. August 2009 - 9:26 PM
religion : i still think religion is a big lie , but if i have to tell anybody definition of religion i will tell him it is way of life , and there are lot ways to live whichever is best suited for u ‘take it’ . for me it’s merely a name . they were nice ppl (jesus and prophet mohmaad )but there followers were stupid , they just blindly follow one book and there is no change . and for Hindus after karmakand started by Hindus , it was all good but after that things got worse .
9. August 2009 - 9:28 PM
i have no knowledge about universal adult franchise , but i’ll read about it and then tell my view about it .
9. August 2009 - 9:29 PM
i have answered in short , there is lot to say about above things .
9. August 2009 - 9:50 PM
rahul, doesn’t your #1 contradict #2?
#1 multiculturalism : it is a color of India which i like the most , here we have almost all the religion of this world prosper together…
#2 religion : i still think religion is a big lie…
If you think that religion is a big lie, why do you like “multiculturalism” which allows all these lies to prosper? Surely, you’ll agree that prospering of lies is not good for the society.
9. August 2009 - 10:24 PM
ya i know this that somebody will ask me this question for sure , i think if the word “religion” is not there that will be good for all of us , because this word create controversies , this word is a cause for lot of politics and fight among each other but in fact of this multiculture produce lot of good things too ,and it is because of our country multireligion prosper together not because of religions . so i said i like India because of this ‘not religions’ .
9. August 2009 - 10:27 PM
Rahul S – If I have understood your position correctly it would look something like this -
Hindusthan consists of very religious people of all sort who are free to practice their religion without the State’s interference. However, these religions are also false (even though they are a way of life for our people) and people get easily misled and fight with each other despite the fact that Jesus and Mohammed were good Prophets and Hindus seem to have had it good till after the “Karmakand?”
Hindusthan is also a democracy that is perhaps too lenient. This prompts politicians of all hues to foment tension and violence for votes and political power. This is perhaps the way since all adults above the age of 18 can vote (Univeral Adult Franchise) irrespective of religious affiliation.
Rahul S – Is the above a good representation of what you have in mind?
9. August 2009 - 10:56 PM
hi Palahalli
i would like to hear ur point of view of above things , then i’ll respond to your comment .and if u want a war of words then i m ready .u r playing with my thought that’s ok . now it is ur turn .
9. August 2009 - 11:19 PM
and it is not Muslims and Christians (religion)i do not like , i also hate karmakadni Hindu religion , and caste sytems is the most foolish thing ever happen in this universe . but one thing what i like which is in all religions teachings “god is one “.and love is the only way to find god . and other things are lies and there is no need for those other teachings.
9. August 2009 - 11:43 PM
Rahul S – Please don’t misunderstand my summary of what I thought you said. That is why I asked you instead of making assumptions.
The way you have clarified your thinking on religion and if I were to summarize it, it would be that -
- The only thing good about all religions without exception, is the fact that they say “God is One” and “Love is the only way to find God”. All else in their various texts are false and lies and people have no need for those.
Would this be correct?
Please feel free to point out any inaccuracy in my understanding of your thinking. This is important if we are to move further.
Thank you
9. August 2009 - 11:54 PM
ya i really feel that way , if there is love and respect for each other then there is no need for other things , that is my thinking of ppl’s religion should be .
10. August 2009 - 10:13 AM
Rahul S – You have stated your expectations clearly. I appreciate that.
If I may ask you –
1. What is the distance between your expectation and reality as it exists on a scale of 1-10.
2. How open are you to accepting any possible remedy to bridge this gap?
Thank you
10. August 2009 - 11:06 AM
Rahul S – Please find my understanding of the same concepts -
1. Secularism – In Hindusthan, this concept takes the form of Sarva Dharma Samabhava and Dharma Nirapekshata. They mean “all religions are equal or will be treated equally” and “the State will be neutral wrt all religions” respectively.
So, in our country the State is not only saying “I will not interfere in religious affairs” but it is also saying, “all religions are equal and will be treated equally”.
So the bedrock of Nirapekshata is Samabhava.
This understanding, our State says, is more positive than Secularism in the West where the State is expected to merely stay away from religion without having any further opinion on it – good or bad.
For us on the ground, all this translates into Hinduism = Islam = Christianity = etc = etc. And the State is not supposed to interfere in any of these.
Without going into the merits of this proposition or understanding by the State, I shall give you two facts for your consideration.
a. Temples under Govt. control
b. Govt. subsidy for Haj Pilgrimage
Why do you think the Secular Govt of Hindusthan interferes in religion in such manner?
If you have more examples, please share.
2. Multi-Culturalism – This is a natural and more active corollary of Sarva Dharma Samabhava. Wherever any State thinks that all religions are equal and true, there the State must also feel obliged to help all religions flourish.
The problem here is that the State begins to move away from Nirapekshata because now it is actively interested in the growth of religions.
3. Democracy – Rule of the Political Majority through the instrument of vote. (Since no man is purely Political in that not just strictly Political considerations affect his choices, the other facors that affect choices are Culture and Religion.) In Hindusthan, Caste and Religion play a big role.
4. Universal Adult Franchise – Simply the right of all adults who have reached the age of 18 to cast their Vote during elections.
5. Communalism – A phenomenon that occurs when groups of people are organized on the basis of Religion, for a Political goal.
6. Religion – The method accepted or chosen by Man to relate to his God. Some religions are “clear – cut” whereas some are experimental.
Please let me know if you are clear wrt my explanations. If yes, please think about the linkages between each concept that occurs. Then compare them with your own understanding of the same concepts and we can take it from there.
Thank you.
******
As you respond, I would like you to also think of the following -
1. Nation
2. Nationality
3. Citizen/ship
4. Minority
Thank you
10. August 2009 - 12:59 PM
hi palahalli ,
i m very much clear about urs understanding of above terms , i have the same understanding of those issues . i may not be clear as my representation of thoughts above but i have same understanding as yours .
10. August 2009 - 1:10 PM
1 i think when there is a will there is a way , i have strong will towards converting my expectation into reality , i would give highest marks to my expectation .
2 i m most open towards any remedy to bridge this gap .
10. August 2009 - 1:13 PM
Thanks Rahul S.
If you may, please share your understanding of the concepts in polity that I have listed below.
1. Nation
2. Nationality
3. Citizen/ship
4. Minority
Thanks again for your patience.
10. August 2009 - 3:00 PM
hi rahul srivatsav how r u. u look true humanitarianist. all religion good. hindhuism, islamism chstrianism, socialism, communism, indopack ppl friendhsip forum all reglion equal and if v all luv each other world be harmony place and live happily ever after with pease.
gene mutation and h1n1. viruses and bacteria mutate fast create new life form. like pig flu virus bird flu virus.
11. August 2009 - 5:02 PM
hi palahalli ,
if asked in technical terms , i have the understanding of those above terms .
and my view about these terms is ,
nation : India is my nation .
Nationality: i m an Indian national , so it is my nationality citizen /ship:- i m citizen of republic of India and so i hold Indian citizenship .
minority : – in India other than Hindus are in minority .but my view about minorities is different from political parties of India .
15. August 2009 - 12:41 AM
hi palahalli ,
i think u don’t like my views of those above terms , or u r busy , but i m just a student and could learn a lot from people like u , i want to know ur thoughts of above given terms .
15. August 2009 - 1:35 AM
Rahul S, I’m sorry. I seem to have missed your post on the 11th Aug. I just saw it.
Please give me some time to respond.
Happy Independence Day to all commenters!
15. August 2009 - 2:24 AM
Good article about India by an Indian in the NYtimes!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/world/asia/14iht-letter.html?em
20. August 2009 - 11:27 PM
hi palahalli ,
i was waiting for ur response , i also write blogs so i would like u to read some of my blogs , but problem is that it is in Hindi .
link of my blog is given below.
http://mutinity.blogspot.com/
21. August 2009 - 5:12 AM
SWADHARMA ALONE CAN SAVE US ……….
I see nothing wrong with all this sekoolar politics , church planting and islamisation … those guys are doing wht they are supposed to do … the question is why are they succeeding?
the reason is that hindu groups dont provide gainful employment and meaningful engagement with members of their fold …. so dont blame the poor guy for doing whtever will put food in his and his family’s mouth …
and dont blame the sekoolars,xtians and islamists coz they are doing wht they believe in , IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO BELIEVE, HELP OR RESPECT HINDUS ….
show me which one of our sacred and major shankaracharyas or swamijis continuously lives and works in slums or with tribals ? these fellas can hardly stay away from their a/c s and special planes … the present crop of swamijis is a far cry from the kanchi paramacharya , ramana maharishi . ramakrishna and the like … there is no point in blaming them either … coz the society begets the acharya/govt it deserves … the infighting and ego among all these so-called swaaaaaamiii ’s is another monumental aspect perfectly capable of dwarfing a thousand mt.everest s..
how many of these so-called santana dharma “afflicted”
(SDA) bloggers do sandhya vandhanam thrice a day , chant vedas and the bhagavath gita and spend atleast one hour day in true spiritual inquiry and actively participate in volunteer work and engage those coming to their blogs in such thots and activities ?.. i dont see any output on those lines … they will be more effective if they can popularise models of wht should be done , by personal example …
that aspect being sorely lacked , all this simply makes the
the “sanatana dharma afflicted”(SDA) bloggers just another crop of hypocritical bigots that are merely using gullible , impressionable minds to further their own political and personal ends ..
FOR EG , EVEN THIS BLOG is so quick in being critical , unambiguous and stinging when it comes to taking on xtists,commie,islamists,upa and all … but ask the blog why there is no discussion here about arun shourie’s scathing 4part series on the bjp(more than a month old ) or his sidelining by the party or the unfair ouster of jaswant singh … all u get in reply is ….. AAA AA NOTHING !
.. there is no word on the useless leadership of the bjp (the only hindu party)wreaking havoc on the entire hindu society from its chintan baithak …
ALL THIS WITH REGARDS TO THE PARTY THEY WERE HOPING TO MAKE GOVT THIS TIME AROUND .. JUST ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO ….
but there is no dearth of throwing stones at xtists ,commie, islamists, upa ,sekoolars and wht not … classic case of people living in glass houses throwing stones … ya right … keep whining and cribbing about them , the santana dharma and bharat will “automaGically” become rejuvenated and restored to old glory ….!
how different are these SDA blogs from the christian and muslim dominated media in the country? those guys constantly denigrate the sanatana dharma ! u guys constantly keep thowing stones and ur cribbings at them ! they dont criticise xtists, islamists and the lot … neither do u take on the sclerosis that has set into the hindu society and the bip and its ilk ? how different are u guys from those media fellas?
WE NEED TO FIRST CLEAN UP OUR HOUSE , live by example and attend to the needs of the poor and needy among us … educate them , provide gainful employment … then educate them on the evils of such jingoistic monotheism and we will see the results that will benefit society at large …
THERE IS NO POINT IN DITCHING THE BJP , LOOKING THE OTHERWAY , TREATING WITH KID-GLOVES OR NOT PROMPTLY RESPONDING TO THE CRAP GOING ON THERE AND DEFINITELY NO USE HOPING FOR ANOTHER HINDU PARTY …WHT IS THE GUARANTEE THIS ONE WILL NOT GO THE SAME WAY ?
… WE NEED TO BRING IN MORE ACCOUNTABILITY AND BETTER RESULTS ON THE FIELD FROM BOTH POLITICAL AND NON-POLITICAL HINDU GROUPS IN LINE WITH NEEDS OF THE HINDU SOCIETY .. ALL THIS SHOUTING ABOUT THOSE OTHER GUYS CAN WAIT TILL THEN ,,,,!
21. August 2009 - 8:37 AM
@vivekam.vairagyam
What vivekam is this or what vairagyam is this ?
Why should protesting wait ?. Why should I do sandhya vandanam to prove I am a Hindu or for Hindu cause. Jehadis also claim that they doing Namaaz 5 times a day ? what does it really amount to ?
21. August 2009 - 7:55 PM
@ prachetas …
ur msg seems very telegraphic … i culdnt decode it .. can u pls explain ur view in a little more detail … thnk u.
24. August 2009 - 12:45 PM
the answer tomany of these problems is our big hearts we strongly believe in live and let live policy we should start thinking differently ans we should follow
BE HINDU AND BUY HINDU POLICY
every rupee we spend everything we do should onl;y benefit a hindu likewise we have startreaching our brothersfromthe lowest strata and makeour religion strong by letting thm wean away by these poachers …it also helps incurbing the largescale illegalmigration from neighbouting countries
think over guys.
6. September 2009 - 8:48 AM
well said clean up our house before you go and attack some one else.
Upanishads and Geeta may be great. Stop taliking about Karma and do some worthwhile to those in need.
6. September 2009 - 11:08 PM
Sandeep: In God’s eyes all it matters is what diference you and I have made in this world. Stop looking at what others do. Write what you have done so far to impact this world no matter how small it is.
21. September 2009 - 4:16 PM
hansel,
Man is a social animal. God did not create man to live like a piece of rock. When secular fools like Tharoor (I am ashamed to say I belonged the constituency that voted him in, there’s little difference between him and his marxist opponent) write such intellectual BS, what is required is to counter his arguments effectively and drive the sense home. That’s what Sandeep is trying to do. What problem do you have with it?
24. September 2009 - 2:59 PM
Intellectuals like Tharoor, Thapar and Sen are greatly respected globally whereas I cannot think of a single Hindutva writer or historian who is taken seriously in Western Intellectual circles. I recall reading the works of the 3 individuals listed above for various courses I took at York University in Toronto, but cannot recall reading a single paper by Propagandists like Sudheer Birodkar.
Hindutva writers homogenize the diverse tradition of Hinduism, and predictably brand those that do not subscribe to their narrow world view as “pseudo Hindus.” Intolerance truly begins at home. Similarly, I’ve come across various Pakistanis here in Canada who have branded me a ‘pseudo Muslim’ because I take pride in my ancient Vedic heritage.
This notion of a ‘Hindu India’ which was replaced by a Muslim horde was first postulated by James Stuart Mill, and this idea has caused serious communal damage in India (as it was meant to do so). Both Pakistanis and Hindutvadis subscribe to this idea but in slightly different ways. The former see it as the advancement of enlightenment whereas the latter see it as descending into chaos.
Neither side is bright enough to realize that cultures are not static, but evolve with time, due to the synthesis of foreign and domestic, which in time leads to the foreign being wholly absorbed by the domestic, while allowing the foreign to retain its distinct characteristics. An exanple would be the Taj Mahal, a symbol of cultural synthesis. When we look at the monument, we don’t think Persia, we think India, despite the Taj being the pinnacle of Persian architecture.
As such, both Pakistanis and Hindutvadis suffer from tunnel vision as they see history as a set of static events, and not as a series of dynamic events which account for the interaction of several variables.
In summary, both sides need to get a clue as they are merely mirror reflections of one another.
5. October 2009 - 8:03 AM
Lots of people call themselves hindu. A lot of others are classified as hindu by the govt.
What is the difference between these people and those who are called by some other name ?
The so-called hindu lives his life just like anybody else.
Eats more or less the same food. Does more or less the same job.
Travels by same means, shops from more or less same shops, watches TV and movies like anybody else.
Makes money like the others.
Idolises the same cricketers and film stars as the others. (We are talking about the majority of so-called hindus here. Majority, like say, 70 percent thereabouts)
They go to temples and prays while the ‘others’ go to mosque or church or synagouge or maybe nowhere.
But the prayers are invariably similar to that of the ‘others’.
In short, Bless Me, give me health, wealth, keep us safe, give me promotion, more business, so on.
A few people do perhaps pray for prosperity for the world in general.
But some such people may also be doing so in church or mosque or synagoge or in their own homes.
So what is so distinguishing if this fellow prays to Ganapati or Shiva or Krishna and that fellow to jesus or mary or allah or some unnamed power or some tribe’s God ?
They educate their children in the same schools as the ‘others’ (barring madrassas and sunday schools).
Their children get employment in same companies. Their grandchildren go to same play schools.
They take same medicines from same doctors as the ‘others’. Suffer same diseases in much the same way. And die in similar fashion.
So whither the difference ?
Whereas difference is there between these so-called hindus and the people who lived in this land some 5000 years ago.
They developed the Vedas and the Upanishads. They lived life with spiritual purpose.
The majority of the so-called hindu today has neither read the Vedas, nor understands it.
The so-called hindu is by and large unaware of the sruti, the shastras and the sutras.
And live a life which has spiritual purpose, if at all, as secondary to the primary purpose of materialistic well being.
So to call these people ‘hindu’ is apt. To distinguish them from the people of 5000 years ago who never used such terms.
5. October 2009 - 10:39 AM
Mel
I have a few points of disagreement with your post which I shall list below :
“Intellectuals like Tharoor, Thapar and Sen are greatly respected globally whereas I cannot think of a single Hindutva writer or historian who is taken seriously in Western Intellectual circles.”
I am unable to understand the relevance of this statement, other than it by implication asks us to suspend our critical faculties and take our queues from western intellectual fashions. What is published and circulated in the west is relevant to it’s own peculiar needs nad requirements, why should we suppose that what is published or respected in the west is a gold standard of impartiality and scholarly bearing. If you wish to prove your point please show how Sandeep’s refutation of some of Tharoors’ statements is wrong or misconcieved ? Scholarly reputaion cannot be served up as a cover for politically motivated polemic. A political statement (from however high a scholar) will recieve a political refutation.
“Hindutva writers homogenize the diverse tradition of Hinduism”
Don’t you think your blanket statement can be stretched to encompass anything percieved as Hindutva. Who are these writers who fall under Hindutva umbrella ? Last I heard, western scholars were dubbing anyone from BB Lal to Prof. Balagangadhara to Ashish Nandy as Hindutva. Please let us know the defining attributes of a Hindutva writer ? The diversity and depth of various writers on Hindu interests is simply astounding. They span from Indian-americans, to expatriate professors in Europe, to disgruntled marxists, to Gurus and Swamis, to political activists from Hindu organizations. Whose opinions do qualify as narrow – and on what basis ?
“Pakistanis here in Canada who have branded me a ‘pseudo Muslim’”
My personal regrets and apologies if anyone similarly called you a “psuedo Indian” for being a practicing muslim. But if not kindly do reconsider why you equate the nebulous hindutvavadis to pakistanis ?
“Hindu India’ .. replaced by a Muslim horde was first postulated by James Stuart Mill”
How would you classify the works of various islamic writers or medieval India ? The writers (like modern pakistanis) – in their celebration of genocide saw the advent of enlightenment. One can easily resort to the disingenuous tradition of dismissing all such works as forgery, exaggeration and the difficult to deny – british perfidy. The difficult alternative is to come to a mature and honest assessment of the matter. Brushing history under the carpet is no longer an option. Hindu grievances are not so much a product of ancient genocide as of historical incidents of more recent vintage – which includes their decimation and removal from vast swathes of their ancestral homeland, vivisection of their homeland for benefit of insidious ideologies, and the constant and unremitting disparagement and desecration of their most cherished symbols. Settlement with Hindus will invariably involve reconciling with a difficult history, but political settlement with them have to understand their concerns and be based on modern realities. Mangling history would not provide any permanent solution or closure, but political compromise and agreement can.
Disingenuous historians and politicians who claim otherwise totally fail to recognize this, and are instead fanning the fire of hatred on both sides.
“…the foreign being wholly absorbed by the domestic, while allowing the foreign to retain its distinct characteristics”
We wear trousers and shirts, depend on the many institutions built by them, converse speak study in thier language – but would we like to have them back as our rulers – despite the “cultural synthesis” ? Your answer is as good as mine. A large number of thinking people feel the same way about Muslim rule as well. The question is about self-agency, the mingling of others cannot itself be held as proof of inherent goodness of intruding systems. What did it cost the native americans, to provide us the pleasures of tobacco and potato ?
That said it is true that modern cultural and political realities are unique. It is up to us Indians to help construct a system on justice from what we have at present. In that Muslims will need to understand Hindus as much as Hindus are expected to understand Muslims – and on equitable terms.
10. October 2009 - 9:40 AM
Pitfall associated with defining people in a manner like hindu, etc., is that some people always falls short of meeting the definition in some other’s eyes. Then some qualifying words are used such as orthodox, liberal, non-practising, intellectual and such categories as mentioned in this article.
It is a never ending cycle. That is why there are so many abrahamic religions and their subsets and sub subsets.
Classifying people based on their parents’ way of life is grossly illogical.
Such definitions would classify N Ram and Nandita Das as hindus and Francois Gautier and Koenraad Elst as Christians.
Actually Elst, Gautier, Stephen Knapp, David Frawley are all better indians than Amartya Sen, dhimmi regent and Nandan Nilkeni.
APJ Abdul Kalam appreciates ancient indian culture and lives it better than Harsh Mander or Laloo/Mulayam Yadavs. Yet the definition would classify him as non-hindu while the others will be classified as hindu.
This inherent dichotomy with classifying people on the basis of their birth is actually the result of self-aggrandizing historicist outlook of the rome-inspired western world which they have managed to export on to the rest of the people through imperialism earlier and now globalisation.
Isn’t it time for indians to let go this inherently incongruent worldview for the spiritually, morally, ethically and environmentally congruent approach of their anscestors ?
It calls for abandoning the materialistically polarized lenses of western world view for the wholesome natural outlook of ancient indians.
To stop misidentifying with outsider coined words such as hindu would be one step in this direction. It will pave the way for understanding real self. And that is the path of the ancient indians.
Dhanyavaad
15. October 2009 - 3:10 AM
Great analysis, Thanks Sandeep.
We see many Hindus fall under Safe Hindu. Our education system is stoned by Meculay, a staunch Christians. We all know what Meculay wanted by intoducing the English education. “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”
Shashi Tharorr is another son of Meculay
20. October 2009 - 3:53 PM
“Intellectuals like Tharoor, Thapar and Sen are greatly respected globally whereas I cannot think of a single Hindutva writer or historian who is taken seriously in Western Intellectual circles. I recall reading the works of the 3 individuals listed above for various courses I took at York University in Toronto, but cannot recall reading a single paper by Propagandists like Sudheer Birodkar. ”
There are quite a few reasons for the same, at least in Indian academic circles. If you do not toe the Marxist line of history, you will not even get a research guide or a publisher of decent repute to handle your work. You will be simple throw out. The cartel of communist leaning historians is that bad in India! Even more exciting is the fact that if you publish a paper denigrating Hindu ethos of India, soon you will be awarded an honorary doctorate from the Calcutta University or JNU, and then another fancy decorated degree from France – your career is made!You are ‘reputed’ scholar.
I have found Amartya Sen commenting on Islamic history. He is an economist, his area of expertise does not cover anything and everything under the sun. Infact, his comments on different aspect of history are so immature, feeble – for lack of evidence – and a (deliberate?) whitewash, that one who taken pain to actually study the facts would die of a heart attack. In a on different aspects of history, Amartya Sen can be razed to the ground simple because facts point in a direction different from the one pointed by him but then he is too ‘high up’ for ordinary debates. Of course, finally its about political motivations, at least the study of history has become so. Truth is the eventual loser.
Secondly, this whole brouhaha about ‘famous’ scholars, decorated scholars is so much of nonsense. Thankfully, science does not rely on this kind of fakery, because if it did Tesla would not have been able to come up with his a/c current inventions considering that Tesla was not even a ‘qualified’ electrical engineer. Let us get beyond these non issues and focus on the fact, for a change. Refute point by point what the author of this blog has written, or else step aside.
-Regards
Rajarshi
5. March 2010 - 11:12 PM
There is a strange breed of “Gosumbe Hindus”. You never know their stand. It takes many years before you can realize they are like this or that. These ones are the most dangerous because they get maximum support from all sides and when the damage is done the other side discovers it after 10 years.