A few weeks ago, I made a hurried list that broadly categorized contemporary Hindus based on certain general parameters. Gurcharan Das of India Unbound fame adds to this list by slotting himself into a new category: Liberal Hindu. Much of what he says in that post is along familiar, “safe Hindu” lines but he does offer some positive difference from the mundane grist that we have come to expect from self-proclaimed liberals. For the familiar stuff, this assertion is a fairly reflective sample.
Hindu nationalists have appropriated my past and made it into a political statement of Hindutva.
This is a very clever cloak to hide behind: claim that you love your hoary Hindu “past” but blame the “Hindutva fanatics” for “appropriating it”– whatever that means. Even if you grant the possibility that “Hindutva fanatics” have politicized Hinduism, there’s not a single instance where Hindu nationalists have prevented any Hindu from practising his/her own understanding/version/variant/tradition of Sanatana Dharma. Gurcharan Das’ assertion stems from incorrectly assuming a symmetry between Hindu “fanaticism” with the Islamic and/or Christian counterpart.
If anything, Hindu nationalists, as I have said several times earlier, equate nationalism with something far nobler/holier than the crude nationalism of the 19th and early 20th century European states. Further, Das only presents a picture that is both incomplete and erroneous when he asserts that
Part of the reason that the sensible idea of secularism is having so much difficulty finding a home in India is that the most vocal and intellectual advocates of secularism were once Marxists.
The main reason why secularism rings a discordant bell in India is simply because it is alien to the collective Indian consciousness. This collective consciousness still, largely retains traces of the concept of Dharma. To paraphrase Ananda Coomaraswamy, one generation of English education is sufficient to sever this consciousness for good. And this is the other reason why India is still unable to reconcile itself to the idea of an alien socio-political philosophy. The Marxist cabal against Hinduism came much later–it was preceded by the hordes of Brown Sahibs who not only inherited the British idea of a false sense of superiority but also burdened themselves with ignorance about, and the resultant hatred for their own roots.
And further, and ironically, he notes that
Secularists speak a language alien to the vast majority, so they are only able to condemn communal violence but not to stop it, as Mahatma Gandhi could, in East Bengal in 1947. [.] Part of the problem stems from ignorance. Our children do not grow up reading our ancient classics…
but fails to notice that Mahatma Gandhi had a major role to play throughout, in the train of events that led to the said East Bengal violence. While Gandhi was a very staunch Hindu and took inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita, he had failed to grasp one of its core messages: it clearly condemns any act of pacifying evil as cowardice. The fact that Das uses Mahatma Gandhi as an example to condemn our secularists shows his understanding leaves a lot to be desired. At the risk of gross generalization, the secularist discourse ever since Indpendence has been the discourse of the Nehruvian Congress party. It varies only in syntax. And it was this discourse that led to the uprooting of everything Hindu in our education system. This is really why our children don’t grow up reading our ancient classics.
But I sincerely appreciate his interest in and love for the Mahabharata and his desire that our children learn that from an early age. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that he quotes Sukhtankar, a scholar close to my heart. However, Das’s real failing is that he is trapped by the secularism-as-the-only-solution-to-all-our-problems mantra and is unable to see beyond it.
The epic has given me great enjoyment in the past six years and I have become a Mahabharata addict. I feel sad that so many boys and girls in India are growing up rootless…As we think about sowing the seeds of secularism in India, we cannot just divide Indians between communalists and secularists. That would be too easy. The average Indian is decent and is caught in the middle. To achieve a secular society, believers must tolerate each other’s beliefs as well as the atheism of non-believers. Hindu nationalists must resist hijacking our religious past and turning it into votes. Secularists must learn to respect the needs of ordinary Indians for a transcendental life beyond reason. Only then will secularism find a comfortable home in India.
I’m truly astounded that a person who has read the Mahabharata for six years has failed to even investigate one word that occurs thousands of times in the epic: Dharma. Even a cursory investigation would’ve revealed how hollow, and most importantly, why secularism is unsuited to India.
Postscript: Here’s something for Gurcharan Das to dwell upon. The term Liberal Hindu is itself a misnomer. If you are a Hindu you’re liberal by implication.
Just came across an excellent write-up by Ms Sandhya Jain defining in her own way what Hindutva is or should be ?. One possible answer to the question we asked ourselves earlier in this blog.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=849
Many of us remain very concerned with the direction the secular state is taking us. Unfortunately the Sangh organizations have not only been not able to articulate this concern – it has not succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of many intellectually capable Hindus who can take on all the imperial intrusions in the name of secular and theological truth claims. Here is a fresh example of one such intrusions (courtesy Shantanu’s blog and Vijayavaani) – which if allowed to go unchallenged will harm us in no small measure :
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=846
On a seperate note I shall post my views on the reasons for establishment of muslim rule in India (as the second part of my response to past discussions) in a few days time.
Delete posts with bad language. That is not censorship but good editorial policy and helpful for all concerned.
Sorry to have annoyed.
The truth is bibhatsa (disgusting) rasa is a check on Manyu and Rajsic aspects of personality and thought.
For creative artists the point is not to engage in mere rhetoric but provide a mimesis showing both sides of the question.
However art has its place and it is not always in the home.
As I said delete posts with bad language or which arouse disgust and shame. A man has the right to regulate his own space.
No question of understanding- the worst goonda can understand this.
If a person, or a people, gets seduced by a false tolerance to permitting the space it is their duty to protect to be besmirched then there is no free dialogue- rather it is a type of invasion.
though i might agree with what you have to say…it is not smart to condemn people who cannot be as shameless(as they themselves call themselves) and fearless as arun shourie or sitaram goel. the good thing we have to see is there are now different kinds of hindu voices rising and we must make sure that hindus can fearlessly choose the umbrella they like. For instance someone who has amazing respect for our culture but doesn’t have the required intellectual ammo to take on others will feel pretty secure to come under gurucharan das ji’s umbrella. We might need a few crusaders , but the majority just needs a strong and significant identity .let hindus of all kinds arise and declare their love for their culture, and if they can safely do so only by distancing themselves from RSS or BJP,let it be so…..after all if all hindus can collectively protest against any injustice ….it’s the RSS’s burden that is reduced.
Vivek Iyer,
Please moderate your language. While commenting is free and I don’t generally moderate comments here, I draw a line after a certain threshold.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Hey Mr. Iyer,
You started out as somewhat intelligible but are not the more I read your posts. Your language is atrocious–you should have at least some respect for those here who post decently-
Sorry, I just read what I have written. Real bad spelling.
But, I do want to say something about Pak. They are more cowardly now, under Zardari, than ever before in their history.
One man stormed their Student Hostel. Can you imagine what would happen to one man standing outside an Indian student hostel saying ‘ You are all cowards and homos’
I mean, I am quite a big man- but let me tell you we would have killed anybody who said like that to us.
I myself felt ashamed at the cowardly response op this Zardari Pakistan.
No, no, don’t make a mistake- there was a gentleman using choice epithets who said he’d come down and deal with me.
Like a fool, I was standing there. Then he turned off all the lights. You see, if he wanted me arrested, he should have kept on some lights. Anyway I strode up and down , crowing like a cock.
Bhai, is Pak worthy off our attention? They are like us. But bottom line- they are cowardly little shite.
Haan, I’m about six foot. These fucking cunts only want to fight with Bengalis weighing 35 kh. They don’t like ‘High Caste’ who will beat the fuck out of them.
Which I wouldn’t- it is true when I start to beat I don’t stop- however that is in the context of men who want to have sex with children- my son is now 23 years old- I never beat these cunts till they dont know their own name
Larissa, I take it you are a man.
Just now- within the last hour or two- I went to see my pakistani brothers at their house.
These cowardly shits did not open the door- probably because few real Pakis live there. However, one foul mouthed little shit PUT UP THE SHUTTERS of his window and treated me to some choice epithets.
I said Come down. Let us sort it out here.
As you can imagine, the entire Pak Hostel shut down. Everybody turend off their lights. The gentleman on the second floor who had used choice epitheta against em – turned off his own light.
I was supposed to be frightened off the British Police. But, these cowards did not even try to challenge me when I stood outside their so called Muhammad Ali Jihhah house and accused them of being Homo and Rubbish.
You may say, you have disgraced only youself. However, the fact is, Pakistani people are asking to be able to stay in the Hostel for which their Govt. is paying. Don’t think Pakis dont have some fighters on their side. However, this time, some crap and small Punjabi abused me but did not come down. I strode up and down that road like the cock of the walk.
But, I won’t stop there. The cowardice of this fellow- younger than me- when I tell him I’m a Hindu from India- he makes obscene comment- which also I reply to- but he is a coward- it is so shameful. The cunt says I’m calling police just now- I say- cunt you are a fucking drug dealer. You call the police and we have a warrant. (this is not actually true- under Zardari you have absolutely rubbish people making money.
The only reason I’m blogging this is because I’m not about making money for Pak or Bangla.
However, the cowardice of these MONKEYS should be placed on record.
I used to be Night Receptionist of Indian YMCA- back in 1980- I would go and fight anyone who fucked with us. My elder sister was staying there. I ever had to hit anybody- still people knew I had a motivation to kill them- RESULT- only one Punjabi escaped my wrath- but my cure killed him.
Anyway, as a good South Indian Brhamin- I’m now going to use my Urdu to really fuck up those Paki cowards.
Well I also respect cultured Bengalis ( or anyone with culture for that matter), but what to make of this man who praises Akbar–the illiterate one–as an enlightened emperor? Because he threw some scraps of mercy at Hindus every now and then? What was enlightened about him? His attempt to found a new religion and force it on others? Moreover, in that book, his treatment of enlightened Hindus is confined to Bengalis, and just represents typical Bengali communal thinking…I have always wondered why so many Bengalis become Marxists–perhaps its because Bengal is largely agricultural. People like Amartya Sen should stick to being an economist and write within their area of specialization –why write about things which obviously he does not know much about?
Bengali Mule! That’s very funny. Or tragic when you see how much genuine creativity and scholarship from that region- absolutely vital to the whole country- has been crowded out by intellectual chamchagiri backed up by ruthless goonda tactics.
Make no mistake- I absolutely worship Bengal. However elite foreclosure of the true spirit of Bengal, which does not speak with a post Oxbridge accent because it actually has something to say- something vital for our moral and spiritual survival- is a threat to our ethos.
I remember, I was once giving a speech on Hinduism at Speaker’s Corner, Hyde Park. An expert heckler reduced me to uttering impotent expletives. A big man, there with his wife and children, came to the defence of Hinduism. I thanked him later on. He was a Bangladeshi Muslim on holiday.
Unfortunately, Western Professors and ‘intellectuals’- though of Bengali origin- will never raise their voice to support the true Bangladeshi who does not want goondagiri in the name of religion. Instead they will do any sort of intellectual somersault to prove that hooliganism and violence is always good so long as it is Marxist or ‘Muslim’.
Incidentally, the Gandhi family cat is showing some signs of tolerance towards Hinduism- drinking milk rather than savagely attacking and devouring cows it encounters.
So, I’m sorry, cat will not be available to lead us. Even Amartya Sen has revised his opinion about the cat’s high intelligence and fitness for Prime Ministerial office.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news- still, better you hear it from me than some malicious neighbour.
“”You know, Amartya Sen thinks he’s very bright. He will go off and become a Professor.
What on earth will we do without him? Well, I hear good things about his cat. Tell you what we will manage with the cat. After all, we’re Indians. “”
vivek iyer
Even Western economists do not think highly Amartya Sen–I was told that he engages in “Mother Teresa” economics, and has really done nothing substantial in economics–I read his book “The Argumentative Indian”–what can I say? Its just full of politically correct nonsense –Bengali Mule is what I said to myself when reading him. That book is total garbage. Well he caters to the political correctness of the times–there are a lot of adademics like that —because if they dare speak the truth, they are in danger of losing their jobs–when you read him you can see though that he is writing things he himself does not believe in–that was my impression.
India’s problem lies in the fact that its classical civilization was destroyed and interrupted( although not completely) by barbarian invasions–and that it entered the dark ages under Islamic rule–whether it can get out and rediscover its old greatness is something to be seen–but with the forced secular environment and a government that wants to keep Indians in “amnesia” as far as their history is concerned, one can’t be optimistic. India simply has to advance economically and recover its dignity again in the modern world–thats whats really at issue–
But Western Europe is also undergoing a change and is in a post-Christian era…
Siddhartha -
Once more now.
# The acts of the LGBT(B) are acts that cannot be denied. They cannot be wished away.
The fact also is these “sexual minorities” have existed for as long as life itself. What is new is their clamor for heterosexual rights to marriage and adoption. This is something that has never been recognized even by Hindu society for good enough reasons.
These “sexual minorities” can use their existing model or evolve another without encroaching on heterosexual societal norms, thereby causing confusion for everybody.
Decriminalizing LGBT(B) cannot mean creating an imbalance elsewhere. Heterosexuals have rights too you know.
What would you loose if they have the same rights?
- Well, what will I lose if my next door neighbor is having a sex orgy? Or is “partnering” a dog or a cat? Or is indeed partnering his or her own son or daughter?
Human imagination can come up with many things that need not affect me. But that’s how a dead society would think. Not a living one.
Cause and effect.
The rot generally starts when we are given to easy rationalizations.
1.Well, just because that exists, that would not mean that there is a case for it. If I make a case for bestiality, one can extend the same case to paedophilia. I do not believe there is any legitimate case that can be made for bestiality. People who engage in it need help. It is not right to think LGBT and bestiality are same cases. They can not be put to the same category together.
- Why not? Because Siddhartha says so? How cruel?! These were the very same arguments used against the LGBT. How very oppressive! Zoophiliacs exist but they are insane. They need help. Is this because they don’t have a campaign going? Or don’t have powerful sponsors?
Indeed why not paedophilia too? Surely you know there are countries with ages of consent going down to 12 years or less? Aren’t human beings the same everywhere?
The fact is you are not comfortable with bestialty today. However its only a matter of time before even this is justified in the name of rights.
2. I am having trouble getting this line of argument. LGBT have not withdrawn themselves from right to reproduce psychologically. They have lost it by birth. A heterosexual can not become homo sexual by choice, a lesbian can not find attraction in a man regardless of her willingness to do so.
- Arranged marriages was always a good idea.
Btw, there are folks who have normal families but suddenly discover they are amongst the LGBT. Then they want out. They don’t give a damn about how their loved ones feel.
This is amounting to the drive of pure selfishness.
When they cannot, psychologically, reconcile with the opposite sex, how can they psychologically feel the need to parent?
All organic cause and effect is lost here. Only “individual rights” at play.
The need for human pets is being whitewashed as “parental desire”.
3. Would you mind explaining this blanket statement? What are the scientific or logical or empirical facts that helped you to reach this blanket statement? My aunt managed to bring up two sons after her husband died early and both of her sons have grown to be successful men. Until I read your post I did not know that for twenty years she has done a ridiculous job. She actually needed pets!!!!
- You prove my point. Firstly, your aunt married her husband. Secondly, she bore children. Thirdly and very unfortunately, she lost her husband and she could have married again. A choice to remain unmarried could have been driven by the need to care for her sons fully and without distractions and possible complications with a step-father.
She has been absolutely selfless and perhaps an excellent reason why her sons turned out so well. I just hope her sons take care of her as well as she did, them.
This lady is ideal. She cannot be compared with the LGBT or single parenting. The latter is a fashion statement these days. Not one arising out of circumstances.
4. Your 4th point is answered by the fact that if 10% of any population is homosexual (mind you, only homosexual) we are talking in excess of a 100 million people here.
It would be very interesting to see how many are leading normal lives. The fact that’s undeniable is that many indeed are. Why is the LGBT crowd not taking this into consideration?
But they have. They simply label them “conformist” or “oppressed”.
5. Interesting. So the plight of a LGBT teenager in a hetero sexual household is small enough to ignore? The question of rights come up just to ease both the plights.
- Ignoring his/her plight is subjective. There are many who will still lead normal lives.
However, an adopted child in being thrown into a virtual whirpool. Why is the child being experimented with simply to alleviate adult LGBT guilt at not being able to have their own? Or to show their “normalcy”.
6. If an adopted child is forced to conform, then I have to believe that every child in hetero sexual household is forced to conform too. So how did LGBT community managed to exist without conforming to hetero sexual doctrine that would be supposedly imposed on them?
- Because heterosexuality is not a doctrine. Because it is natural for human beings to reproduce and exist. Because the LGBT cannot exist without, parasite-like, feeding on the heterosexual fruit.
Conformity with the most obvious benefit is essential.
Not all of us or any of us get our own way in life every time. Perhaps the LGBT too, need help? We will not be giving that help if we keep giving in to their preposterous demands.
7. Do you really want me to buy this story of “persecution”? No numbers or percentages? The CJI himself has said he has not come across a single prosecution of the LGBT in his courts.
In Bengaluru, at most traffic signals, there are Transgenders accosting drivers for money. I have not seen a single arrest. Cops are at every signal. So…
8. I’m sorry. Our family structures have served us very well. In fact where such structures have been willfully destroyed, there is mosty degeneration and chaos.
I realize any argument can be made to support a theory but let’s not go overboard. Would you rather families cease to exist just so that sexual minorities can feel at home? That’s what Ashok Row Kavi says when he pronounces marriages an “oppressive institution”!
Today, there are fancy studies being conducted that show how psychologically damaging divorce and then re marriage can be for women. The same thing has been taught by societal norms since ages; but those are somehow oppressive. The list goes on.
9. Please go and read some old newspaper, will you? And why blame the RSS or VHP only? Every time we have discussed that name, you always tried to provide a reason of why he was like that.
- The onus is on you to prove Babu Bajrangi had stature and why he doesn’t today. Asking me to refer news reports is lazy. You made the charge, prove it.
10.Finally I have something to agree to. If the causes were addressed we would not be discussing this here. Are not we going too far from our line of discussion? You apparently believe that homo sexuality (as well as trans sexuality) is a choice that should not exist or must be discouraged. I believe that it is a natural phenomena and anyone should help those people who are desperately in need of assistance. Did you ever see how most trans-genders live in our country? Do they deserve the life they get? Arguments like yours do not solve anything, they create more problems and complicates the situation.
- So, I agree with you when you see it as a problem. But disagree strongly when you see it as something that needs to be accepted into heterosexual society.
@Sid
-’Vivek,
If I understood you correctly, then you are arguing that:
If Hinduism is to survive, it has to adopt some of the traits of Abrahamic religions. The adopted traits would force Hindus to group under a central framework and form a cohesive as well as much stronger response to the hostilities of other religious communities.’
No, I don’t suggest that- I agree that an attempt to create a monolithic centralised religion would be counter productive. I was merely arguing for a return to a Spiritual and Ethical Mimamsa rather than this Historicist Mimamsa which justifies ignoring Dharma and just concentrating on the adversarial relationship between jatis.
No question, there was a tradition of heated polemics in India. Indeed the ‘brahmoyuddha’ concept was that the loser in a Brahminical debate should lose his head. In Buddhist monasteries too you see this tradition kept up. However, long ago in our history, the whole thing became a comedy item. The young Brhaman/Shraman- often no more than a boy- shows his brilliance, everyone claps but the real gift of grace may lie with a bullock cart driver, a butcher, an old woman etc.
If we consider our own family religion, we may find it is a sort of hybrid of 2 seemingly irreconcilable sectarian positions- e.g. Jain-Vaishnava, which combines Jain emphasis on non-violence, self reliance to achieve kevalya, plural ontology- and Vaishnava, pure devotion, i.e. salvation by Grace. This marriage works very well. However, in practice there is little to really distinguish an Iyengar like this from a Saivite-Buddhist Iyer- who combines ‘Smarta’ i.e. Purva Mimamsa with SAivism (itself seemingly incongruous) but then throws in Nagarjuna into the mixture. But, it works.
Initially, reading Radhakrishnan or other older generation writers, one may have a bigoted sort of Advaita belief. When one reads well argued presentation of Madhavacharya, however, this belief in the primacy of ontology melts away.
We are struck by Madhava’s interpretation of R.V ‘rupam rupam pratirupo &c’- we lose our suspicion of ‘new’ temple set up by Swaminarayan or who ever.
Let study, knowledge and inspiration remain free and decentralised. However, there would need to be some pooling of resources, more co-ordination and mutual support.
I don’t know how this can happen without good leadership coming forward.
Palahalli,
What is not granted at all but taken as given (by the LGBT) all the same is that the LGBT will have the same rights too.
What would you loose if they have the same rights?
1. Well, I hope you are not denying the existence of bestiality (Refer Kinsey reports). If not, then please tell me if they are entitled to equal rights? If not, why not?
Well, just because that exists, that would not mean that there is a case for it. If I make a case for bestiality, one can extend the same case to pedophilia. I do not believe there is any legitimate case that can be made for bestiality. People who engage in it need help. It is not right to think LGBT and bestiality are same cases. They can not be put to the same category together.
2. …the LGBT are not ready to parent children. Psychologically, they have withdrawn themselves from the process of reproduction.
I am having trouble getting this line of argument. LGBT have not withdrawn themselves from right to reproduce psychologically. They have lost it by birth. A heterosexual can not become homo sexual by choice, a lesbian can not find attraction in a man regardless of her willingness to do so.
3. Single “parenthood” is as ridiculous as LGBT “parenthood”. Both don’t need children. They need pets.
Would you mind explaining this blanket statement? What are the scientific or logical or empirical facts that helped you to reach this blanket statement? My aunt managed to bring up two sons after her husband died early and both of her sons have grown to be successful men. Until I read your post I did not know that for twenty years she has done a ridiculous job. She actually needed pets!!!!
4. ..that the adopted child will be under tremendous pressure to conform…
Conform to what? Hetero sexuality like most of their friends? Homo sexuality like their parents? They would be what they would be. The fact that they are gays or heteros is not within their realm of choices. Where is the question of conformity or question of choice comes from?
Why do not you answer this with simple logic: Would the adopted son of a homo sexual be a homo sexual always? If yes, how and why? If yes, by the extension of same logic, do you believe that adopted/biological son of a hetero sexual couple be a hetero sexual always? If yes, then how come LGBT community exist? After all, each of them is a child of a hetero sexual couple?
5. The plight of an LGBT teenager is qualitatively different from the plight of a heterosexual child now teenager, given in adoption to LGBT “parents”. The latter is forced to conform to liberal standards of relationships.
Interesting. So the plight of a LGBT teenager in a hetero sexual household is small enough to ignore? The question of rights come up just to ease both the plights.
6. This is the most unnatural thing I’ve heard.
If you think so, then so be it. I am just returning the favor. I have heard plenty of unnatural things in last one or two of your posts.
The adopted child will be forced to conform – if for nothing else but to prove that the LGBT were always right in claiming to be as normal as heterosexuals.
If an adopted child is forced to conform, then I have to believe that every child in hetero sexual household is forced to conform too. So how did LGBT community managed to exist without conforming to hetero sexual doctrine that would be supposedly imposed on them?
You still have to prove “persecution” in this country.
OK, google “Manavendra Singh Gohil” or “Zoltan Parag”. Also consider the reaction to movie “Fire”, especially the awesome reaction of your heroes including Thackaray clan. On a side note, do not start a separate line of discussion on why “Fire” is wrong. I did not like the subject matter (it was horribly stupid given the story line), so I did what was logical. I did not buy the ticket. That is the same reaction to all the B movies the cinema halls in my small city put at 11:00 AM show.
However, marriage and adoption are something else altogether. They were not condoned then, they will not be condoned now.
Over time, our definition of marriage has changed. The old family structure has gone. We have changed, some of the old laws have no meaning. Some of the old prejudice should go too. We can not go back to 100 BCE or 100 CE. We are in 2000 CE, we should discuss and decide. What is the logic for not allowing gays and lesbians to marry? Nobody is saying that they should marry in a temple. Let them get married. If two gays are not married and goes to public market holding each other’s hand, how grand would our social structure would look like?
Hail him as what? And why “initially”? What happened afterwards?
Please go and read some old newspaper, will you? And why blame the RSS or VHP only? Every time we have discussed that name, you always tried to provide a reason of why he was like that.
Please try him and then, if proved, prosecute him.
……
There is this great tendency to not view society and developments in terms of cause and effect. So there are islands all over the place. When a Babu Bajrangi speaks of killing and persecuting, only he is wrong by himself. His acts are wrong and his speech is wrong. What is forgotten or ignored as irrelevant is what made a Babu Bajrangi in the first place? Have the causes been addressed?
Finally I have something to agree to. If the causes were addressed we would not be discussing this here.
Are not we going too far from our line of discussion? You apparently believe that homo sexuality (as well as trans sexuality) is a choice that should not exist or must be discouraged. I believe that it is a natural phenomena and anyone should help those people who are desperately in need of assistance. Did you ever see how most trans-genders live in our country? Do they deserve the life they get? Arguments like yours do not solve anything, they create more problems and complicates the situation.
Rajiv,
That clears a lot of smoke about your argument. Hmmmm….a different point of view indeed, but not heretic, not at the intellectual level. Man, what would you call Chetan Bhagat if you call this heretic? Ooppsss, sorry, I did not want to insult you.
All I can say is that you should have a blog. There is nothing I can disagree to.
Vivek,
Contd…..
However, I share the concern. Unfortunately, I can only hope that a better solution emerges, because if it does not we will have a much harsher life than our predecessors had.
Vivek,
If I understood you correctly, then you are arguing that:
If Hinduism is to survive, it has to adopt some of the traits of Abrahamic religions. The adopted traits would force Hindus to group under a central framework and form a cohesive as well as much stronger response to the hostilities of other religious communities.
There is no denial that if a nation has to survive it must group itself. For example, China has followed path of ultra-nationalism that trumps every other differences Chinese people has. Only recently, intolerance (religious or regional) of uighurs has trumped the ultra-nationalism.
But is it same when we think of a religious community like Hindus? If we are to adopt a central framework, would not we loose the very essence of Dharma? Do we need a temple to tell us whether we should use condom or not? We have a social caste system, but does our religion permit only a class of people to communicate to him (like Christian Father or Maulavi or Rabbi)?
For example, I was born to a family that is loosely affiliated to a small Vaishnav sect. Our religious practice does not make us dependent on Brahmins (although I happen to be son of a Brahmin) and we do not believe that God only exists in Tirupati or a small temple a few rich man in city built in outskirts. What religion should we identify with if a central framework establishes certain do’s and dont’s and our belief system is not among those do’s? If we Hindus recognize our religion and basic nature of the religion, that is good enough of a bond. The history of last 1000 years do not make me hopeful, but I am not fond of the idea of a Hindu central framework that would have a iron hand.