The Great Indian Political Debate - 3

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Maharashtra at least it was named after the b@st@rd Aurangzeb, imagine having cities named after Hitler in Israel, on top of this no city named after Shivaji.

What did Shiv Sena do when in power to wipe out this blot on the nation?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its shame, worst in India's capital, just in center, one road is named Aurangzeb, other is Akbar, Lodhi.
BJP tried to change Aurangzeb name but as usual congressi and Muslims were out in street.
Shiv Sena is a joke, no action only Gunda gardi, no vision.
Road in front of Sonia house should be changed to her nation's great hero Benito Musolini. Her father was member of Musolini fascist party. Back street she should name Vinci.

[Guest]

<b>RSS holds programme to 'reconvert' villagers</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By HT
Wednesday December 26, 12:37 AM
AROUND 150 persons from half a dozen villages, who had reportedly converted to Christianity a few years ago, were reconverted to Hinduism in a ceremony convened by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on Tuesday. The police have confirmed the report of the event been held in a village, 15 km from here.

Dharam Jagran Samanway Vibhag of the RSS, led by Shiv Prakash, organised a 'religious purification' camp at Sadhouli village for hundreds of people of a Dalit community. Around 600 people from various villages were presented at the venue.

Dalit families from villages like Sadouli, Udalheri, Susada, Bhaktowali, Alipur, etc., took part in the 'religious purification' camp. "Yes, a programme for purification of such Dalit families was organised today," Station Officer (Police) S.B. Negi confirmed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

eklavya wrote:
Shiv, I had understood that a populat tenet of traditional Hinduism is that "vasudev kutumb kam" (the whole world is a family). Doesn't that suggest that tolerance and secularism are not alien to traditional Hindu thought? Any answers gratefully considered.


I will have to digress from Islamic extremism for this, because the tackling of islamic extremism is only one small part of the problem.

I have an entire essay to write on secularism - it is in my mind now and I will write about that separately, but I will only mention the word here.

eklavya I sense a dichotomy in India at this point in time and that dichotmy is different from the usual "secular-Hindutva" divide that we imagine.

I mentioned this dichotomy earlier.

The "average hindu on the ground" is definitely "tolerant" but he is also "free and undhimmified". He gives the average Muslim on the ground space to live and he protects his freedom to celebrate his "kafirosity". The Muslim "on the ground" too does not have any great axe to grind with the Hindu and tolerates.

What we are seeing is a war for space being fought at a different level. Islamic extremism is only part of the problem, but Islam was the source of the problem. It is less of a problem now.

Islam, in order to survive in India built up a large number of dhimmis who later ascended to postions of power on the back of Macaulay. These dhimmis are actually a hindrance to India.

For whatever reason, history ensured that Hindus got a bad reputation. Hindu thoughts, customs and knowledge took a serious beating for over 1000 years for many reasons that we have listed on this thread:

1) Hindus themselves were inward looking and accepting of one and all, and did not know what hit them when Islam arrived.

2) Muslims created a class of dhimmi Hindus who under pain of punishment or death had to accept that Islam was supreme, and that Hinduism had to be kept in the background as an also ran. While Islam did this - it did not destroy Hinduism.

3) The British, who conquered Islam and the world saw Hinduism as a defeated and worthless force through the dhimmitude they found. They saw nothing in Hindu thought and practice to help them maintain an industrially driven empire with its technology, science, economy and governance. They stopped funding Hindu education, and created a class of brown British Hindus who hated all things Hindu with a vehemence that enabled them to be "British" and integrate a rural, primitive India into the world economy - which in those days was the same as the British Colonial economy.

The British, along with brown British Hindus were instrumental is conjuring up every single argument to show that Hindus are rubbish. They also invented every single Hindu-Muslim equal equal argument that we hear today.

Now if you ignore the Hindu "on the ground" within India whom I mentioned earlier, we find that newly educated Hindus who join the global economy still have to suppress, ignore and curse their own heritage and vast knowledge.

They find that they have to do this because of two factors:

1) All the existing knowledge in the world - starting from ye olde Encylopaedia Brittanica and all its modern descendants either tell you NOTHING about Hindus and Hinduism or whatever is written is the usual rubbish.

2) Any effort to change this rubbish is opposed by the descendants of the brown British Hindus. Even if anyone in the West is willing to listen to new information on Hindus and their view, it is basically opposed by the HISI Brown British Hindus descendants and their words count. They have the ears of the goras who own the media.

If you try and bring up any Hindu viewpoint, these British brown Hindu seculars (HISI) call you a Hindu fundamentalist, a follower of the caste system and untouchability and a killer people.

This problem exists in every sphere of life in India. For the purpose of this thread, I am referring ONLY to the extent that the problem affects fighting Islamic extremism in India.

So, when we oppose Islamic extremism, the same HISI, Indian secular brown British Hindus immediately disagree with you and say that you are being "intolerant". They do not realise that THEY are being intolerant to a Hindu viewpoint. they accuse Hindus of intolerance because that is what they feel, based on dhimmitude and the distaste for being Hindu brought in by British "global" education.

Combating Islamic extremism in India is hampered by a blindness of a large number of educated intellectual Indians that their own views of Islam are colored by dhimmitude, and a hatred for Hinduism. And when these people address the "aam junta" who have no innate dhimmitude, they teach them that they must "tolerate" being blown up by terrorists, or "tolerate" their sons dying in the Army, fighting terrorism. If they do not "tolerate" all this sh1t, Muslims will get upset.

The people tolerate, and when they get sick and tired, they kill. Then the seculars say "Oh these Hindus used to be tolerant. They are being made intolerant by Hindutvadis"

Sorry for the long post. I will write about secularism separately.

[acharya]

Shourie writes about the "secular intellectual" whom I have called HISI - Hindu Indian Secular Intellectual.

However, I also have a new name. And to introduce that new name I will make a post that has been bubbling within me for days.

I have three graphics to illustrate my point. I tried to do this in one picture - but have not succeeded (yet)

Picture 1 is the behavior of a true liberal. When faced with Hinduism he may have something to criticise and something to praise. Similarly, when faced with Islam, he may have something to criticise and something to praise.

True Liberal:
<img src='http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/brf/liberaltrue.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Picture 2 shows the behavior of a dhimmi liberal. Fear of Islam (Fatwas, riots, history of headchopping) makes him afraid of being critical of Islam

Picture 2
Dhimmi Liberal (Indian Secular) behavior
<img src='http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/brf/liberaldhimmi1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Finally Picture 3, is a composite of picture 2 and shows up the behavior of the "Hindu Indian Secular Intellectual" who is actually a liberal, but also a dhimmi, and faces both Islam and Hinduism together in a mixed society.

Now islam and Hinduism have many many "opposites" Islam opposes Hinduism's liberalism, many Gods, idols, compassion for life etc. Islam also opposes any opposition. The dhimmi liberal faces a dilemma when confronted with a mix of Hindus and Islam. Criticizing Islam is a strict no-no. But even praising anything about Hinduism constitutes opposing Islam. So when the HISI/Dhimmi Liberal faces a mixed Hindu and Islamic society his easiest path is to invariably criticize Hindus or invariably praise islam. That explains our secular intellectuals to a T.

He does not have the honesty and guts to understand that he is being a pseudo-liberal and that dhimmi behavior is no longer required.

I bet my testimonials that the dhimmi liberal, on recognizing himself in these pictures will get angry and deny because of cognitive dissonance.

Picture 3
Dhimmi Liberal faced with mixed Hindu Muslim society
<img src='http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/brf/liberaldhimmi2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[acharya]

Hindutva and radical Islam: Where the twain do meet - Arun Shourie

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Your Hindutva is no different from Islamic fundamentalism’ — a fashionable statement these days, one that immediately establishes the person’s secular credentials. It is, of course, false, as we shall see in a moment. But there is a grain of potential truth in it — something that does not put Hinduism at par with Islam, but one that should, instead, serve as a warning to all who keep pushing Hindus around. That grain is the fact that every tradition has in it, every set of scriptures has in it enough to justify extreme, even violent reaction. <b>From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived non-violence and satyagraha, Lokmanya Tilak constructed the case for ferocious response, not excluding violence. From the very same Gita from which Gandhiji derived his ‘true law’, shatham pratyapi satyam, ‘Truth even to the wicked’, the Lokmanya derived his famous maxim, shatham prati shaathyam, ‘Wickedness to the wicked.’</b>

In the great work, Gita Rahasya, that he wrote in the Mandalay prison, the Lokmanya invokes Sri Samartha, ‘Meet boldness with boldness; impertinence by impertinence must be met; villainy by villainy must be met.’ Large-heartedness towards those who are grasping? Forgiveness towards those who are cruel? ‘Even Prahlada, that highest of devotees of the Blessed Lord,’ the Lokmanya recalls, has said, ‘Therefore, my friend, wise men have everywhere mentioned exceptions to the principle of forgiveness.’<b> True, the ordinary rule is that one must not cause harm to others by doing such actions as, if done to oneself, would be harmful. But, the Mahabharata, Tilak says, ‘has made it clear that this rule should not be followed in a society, where there do not exist persons who follow the other religious principle, namely, others should not cause harm to us, which is the corollary from this first principle.’ The counsel of ‘equability’ of the Gita, he says, is bound up with two individuals; that is, it implies reciprocity. ‘Therefore, just as the principle of non-violence is not violated by killing an evil-doer, so also the principle of self-identification [of seeing the same, Eternal Self in all] or of non-enmity, which is observed by saints, is in no way affected by giving condign punishment to evil-doers.’ Does the Supreme Being not Himself declare that He takes incarnations from time to time to protect dharma and destroy evil-doers? Indeed, the one who hesitates to take the retaliatory action that is necessary assists the evil to do their work. ‘And the summary of the entire teaching of the Gita is that: even the most horrible warfare which may be carried on in these circumstances, with an equable frame of mind, is righteous and meritorious.’</b>

Tilak invokes the advice of Bhisma, and then of Yudhisthira, ‘Religion and morality consist in behaving towards others in the same way as they behave towards us; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons.’ Of course, act in a saintly way in the first instance, the Lokmanya counsels. Try to dissuade the evil-doer through persuasion. ‘But if the evilness of the evil-doers is not circumvented by such saintly actions, or, if the counsel of peacefulness and propriety is not acceptable to such evil-doers, then according to the principle kantakenaiva kantakam (that is, “take out a thorn by a thorn”), it becomes necessary to take out by a needle, that is by an iron thorn, if not by an ordinary thorn, that thorn which will not come out with poultices, because under any circumstances, punishing evil-doers in the interests of general welfare, as was done by the Blessed Lord, is the first duty of saints from the point of view of Ethics.’ And the responsibility for the suffering that is caused thereby does not lie with the person who puts the evil out; it lies with the evil-doers. The Lord Himself says, Tilak recalls, ‘I give to them reward in the same manner and to the same extent that they worship Me.’ ‘In the same way,’ he says, ‘no one calls the Judge, who directs the execution of a criminal, the enemy of the criminal...’

Could the variance between two interpretations be greater than is the case between the Lokmanya’s Gita Rahasya and Gandhiji’s Anashakti Yoga? Yet both constructions are by great and devout Hindus. <b>Are ordinary Hindus nailed to Gandhiji’s rendering? After all, at the end of the Gita, Arjuna does not go off to sit at one of our non-violent dharnas. He goes into blood-soaked battle.</b>

The comforting mistake

The mistake is to assume that the sterner stance is something that has been fomented by this individual or that —in the case of Hindutva, by, say, Veer Savarkar — or by one organisation, say the RSS or the VHP. That is just a comforting mistake — the inference is that once that individual is calumnised, once that organisation is neutralised, ‘the problem’ will be over. Large numbers do not gravitate to this interpretation rather than that merely because an individual or an organisation has advanced it — after all, the interpretations that are available on the shelf far outnumber even the scriptures. They gravitate to the harsher rendering because events convince them that it alone will save them.

It is this tectonic shift in the Hindu mind, a shift that has been going on for 200 years, which is being underestimated. The thousand years of domination and savage oppression by rulers of other religions; domination and oppression which were exercised in the name of and for the glory of and for establishing the sway of those religions, evinced a variety of responses from the Hindus. Armed resistance for centuries... When at last such resistance became totally impossible, the revival of bhakti by the great poets... When public performance even of bhakti became perilous, sullen withdrawal, preserving the tradition by oneself, almost in secrecy: I remember being told in South Goa how families sustained their devotion by painting images of our gods and goddesses inside the tin trunks in which sheets and clothing were kept. The example of individuals: recall how the utter simplicity and manifest aura of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa negated the efforts of the missionaries, how his devotion to the image of the Goddess at Dakshineshwar restored respectability to the idolatry that the missionaries and others were traducing... The magnetism of Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi... Gandhiji’s incontestable greatness and the fact that it was so evidently rooted in his devotion to our religion...

Each of these stemmed much. But over the last 200 years the feeling has also swelled that, invaluable as these responses have been, they have not been enough. They did not prevent the country from being taken over. They did not shield the people from the cruelty of alien rulers. They did not prevent the conversion of millions. They did not prevent the tradition from being calumnised and being thrown on the defensive. They did not in the end save the country from being partitioned — from being partitioned in the name of religion...

<b>There is a real vice here. The three great religions that originated in Palestine and Saudi Arabia — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — have been exclusivist — each has insisted that it alone is true — and aggressive. The Indic religions — Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism — have been inclusive, they have been indulgent of the claims of others. But how may the latter sort survive when it is confronted by one that aims at power, acquires it, and then uses it to enlarge its dominion? How is the Indic sort to survive when the other uses the sword as well as other resources — organised missionaries, money, the state — to proselytise and to convert? Nor is this question facing just the Hindus in India today. It is facing the adherents of Indic traditions wherever they are: look at the Hindus in Indonesia and Malaysia; look at the Buddhists in Tibet, now in Thailand too. It is because of this vice, and the realisation born from what had already come to pass that Swami Vivekananda, for instance, while asking the Hindus to retain their Hindu soul, exhorted them to acquire an ‘Islamic body’.</b>

Instigating factors

We can be certain that his counsel will prevail, our secularists notwithstanding,

• The more aggressively the other religions proselytise — look at the fervour with which today the Tablighi Jamaat goes about conversion; look at the organised way in which the missionaries ‘harvest’ our souls;

• The more they use money to increase the harvest — whether it is Saudi money or that of Rome and the American churches;

• The more any of them uses violence to enlarge its sway;

• The more any of them allies itself with and uses the state — whether that of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan — for aggrandisement.

Nor is what others do from outside the only determinant. From within India, three factors in particular will make the acquiring of that Islamic body all the more certain:

• The more biased ‘secularist’ discourse is;

• The more political parties use non-Hindus — Muslims, for instance — as vote banks and the more that non-Hindu group comes to act as one — ‘strategic voting’ and all;

• The more the state of India bends to these exclusivist, aggressive traditions.

<b>It has almost become routine to slight Hindu sentiments — our smart-set do not even notice the slights they administer. Recall the jibe of decades: ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. When, because of those very socialist policies that their kind had swallowed and imposed on the country, our growth was held down to 3-4 per cent, it was dubbed — with much glee — as ‘the Hindu rate of growth’. Today, we are growing at 9 per cent. And, if you are to believe the nonsense in Sachar’s report, the minorities are not growing at all. So, who is responsible for this higher rate of growth? The Hindus! How come no one calls this higher rate of growth ‘the Hindu rate of growth’? Simple: dubbing the low rate as the Hindu one established you to be secular; not acknowledging the higher one as the Hindu rate establishes you to be secular!</b>

Or M.F. Husain. He is a kindly man, and a prodigiously productive artist. There is no warrant at all for disrupting all his exhibitions. I am on the point of sensibilities. <b>His depictions of Hindu goddesses have been in the news: he has painted them in less than skimpy attire. I particularly remember one in which Sita is riding Hanuman’s stiffened tail — of course, she is scarcely clad, but that is the least of it: you need no imagination at all to see what she is rubbing up against that stiffened tail. Well, in the case of an artist, that is just inspiration, say the secularists. OK. The question that arises then is: How come in the seventy-five years Husain has been painting, he has not once felt inspired, not once, to paint the face of the Prophet? It doesn’t have to be in the style in which he has painted the Hindu goddesses. Why not the most beautiful, the most radiant and luminous face that he can imagine? How come he has never felt inspired to paint women revered in Islam, or in his own family, in the same style as the one that propelled his inspiration in regard to Hindu goddesses?

‘In painting the goddesses, he was just honouring them,’ a secular intellectual remarked at a discussion the other day. ‘It was his way of honouring them.’ Fine. It is indeed the case that one of the best ways we can honour someone is to put the one skill we have at the service of the person or deity. But how come that Husain never but never thought of honouring the Prophet by using the same priceless skill, that one ‘talent which is death to hide’?

‘Has Mr Shourie ever visited Khajuraho?,’ a member of the audience asked, the implication being that, as Hindu sculptors had depicted personages naked, what was wrong with Husain depicting the goddesses in the same style. Fine again. But surely, it is no one’s case that the ‘Khajuraho style’ must be confined to Hindu icons. Why has the artist, so skilled in deploying the Khajuraho motifs, never used them for icons of Islam? The reason why an artist desists from depicting the Prophet’s face is none of these convoluted disquisitions on style.

The reason is simplicity itself: he knows he will be thrashed, and his hands smashed.</b>

Exactly the same holds for politics. How come no one objects when for years a Muslim politician keeps publishing maps of constituencies in which Muslims as Muslims can determine the outcome, and exhorting them to do so? <b>When, not just an individual politician but entire political parties — from the Congress to the Left parties — stir Muslims up as a vote bank. When Muslims start behaving like a vote bank, you can be certain that someone will get the idea that Hindus too should be welded into a vote bank, and eventually they will get welded into one. Why is stoking Muslims ‘secular’ and stoking Hindus ‘communal’?</b>

And yet perverted discourse, even the stratagems of political parties, are but preparation: they prepare the ground for capitulation by the state to groups that are aggressive. And in this the real lunacy is about to be launched, and, with that, the real reaction.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

From another forum<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
When "seularism" was brought into life in Britain, it was secularism that existed in a basically Christian land.

Governance would have no influence from the Church and in exchange teh Church would be left alone by government as long as it kept its word and did not meddle in governance.

Society in India before Britain came into India was totally religious, and highly communal. Religion existed at the highest levels of Government. Kings constructed temples, or supported one or other religion. India until the British came was a highly unsecular land. It had a fair share of intolerance too.

Then Macaulay came and

1) Stopped British funding of Sanskrit and Arabic education
2) Started English education
3) Introduced a secular penal code.

Macaulay did not impose a secular civil code. The Civil code remained divided on religious and communal lines.

Then India got independence and became a secular republic. The meaning of secular was taken from the British.

I repeat that the Indian Government would not be influenced by the Church (religion) and the Church (religion) would not meddle in governance.

But this was originally an agreement reached in Europe between Church and Christian people after much fighting and killing. It was not a decision taken by Hindus or Muslims, who always had religion as part of their governance.

It was then that the whammy struck Hindus.

The India government introduced a civil code for Hindus. The Indian government indulged in an unsecular albeit constitutionally valid act by introducing a Hindu civil code.

The Muslim civil code was left untouched. (One can read the reasons for this in any history book. I suggest Ram Guha's book)

In other words, the Indian government remained secular towards Muslims and kept its word. But it did not treat Hindus in the same secular way and leave their civil code alone. And the Government continues to be secular towards Muslims and leaves their civil code alone even as sharia is used to whip up terror and intolerant or anachronistic behavior in India.

But that is not all.

The Indian government still allows a skewed kind of secularism in the public domain that it is not supposed to touch, but touches as and when it feels like touching.

The government allows "all religions to be practised and propagated freely". That sounds fair. As a result, both islam and Christianity are allowed to spread their faith. That is obviously fair and secular, and in line with Indian secularism

However, in the process of spreading their faith in India, Islam and Christianity can only get new recruits from the majority Hindus. In order to get new recruits from Hinduism, Christianity and Islam have to inform potential Hindu converts that their religion is false as are their Gods, who must be repudiated.

Someone please explain to me how Hindus are being "intolerant" and "unsecular" if they complain that Christian and Muslims spreading their religions are declaring Hindu Gods as false, to be rejected in favor of a Christian or Muslim God.

If the secularism and tolerance that is expected from Hindus include silent assent when someone, legally protected by the Indian government comes and declares Hindu gods as "false" then I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT BRAND OF SECULARISM AND TOLERANCE. I am not that secular or tolerant.

It does not require much intelligence to understand that I am not being unfair AT ALL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Shambhu]

Available at Amazon:


<b>Lies, Lies and More Lies: The Campaign to Defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism </b> (Paperback)
by Vivek (Author)

Excerpt p 63:
When a quarter million people belonging to a specific community are driven from their homes to become refugees in their own country, when thousands of families see their abodes go up in flames right before their eyes, when men have to endure the agony of their daughters and wives being blatantly molested in their presence or carted away as booty and we, as a people and a nation choose to remain mute spectators, what does it say of us? Yes, this is the heart-rending tale of the Kashmiri Pandits, forsaken and forgotten by a society of which they are a part, ignored by a press that is supposed to champion the cause of the oppressed, and betrayed by a nation of which they are citizens. This is the ethnic cleansing the world—and more importantly India—chooses not to see and appears to have forgotten.

To drive home the magnitude of the crime that is occurring, let me cite some statistical data. These are figures derived from independent international organizations. The Global IDP project of the Norwegian Refugee Council is an international non-governmental body working for the welfare of internally displaced people. Their records indicate that close to 350,000 (three and a half lakh*) Kashmiri Pandits have been displaced from the Valley, constituting more than 90 percent of the Hindu population of Kashmir.2 The exodus has not stopped; unopposed threats by militants ensure its continuity. In 2004, another 160 of the remaining 700 families fled the Valley.

Kashmiri Pandits are the original inhabitants of Kashmir with a culture and tradition that goes back 5,000 years. At the beginning of the century there were close to 1 million Kashmiri Pandits. Today, not more than 9,000 Pandits remain in the Valley according to Global IDP. Others put the figure even lower, at 3,000. Data from the National Human Rights Commission indicate that Kashmiri Hindus made up 15 percent of the population in 1941. By 1991, their numbers had dwindled to comprise a mere 0.1 percent of the population. These are the stark facts that tell the tale of the Kashmiri Hindu. When the population of a specific community is decimated by fear from over 1 million to less than 10,000 and now constitutes a bare 0.1 percent of the population, there is only one word to describe it: ethnic cleansing. No amount of explanations, no amount papering over can contradict this harsh reality. Neither can this be wished away as the propaganda of Hindu communalists. Figures don’t lie. In addition at least 1,000 Pandits have been killed and close to 16,000 homes have been burnt. To sum it all up: 350,000 displaced; over 1,000 killed; and at least 16,000 homes burnt. Let these figures sink in for you to decide for yourself the enormity of this human calamity.

The world has seen other instances of attempted ethnic cleansing in modern times, but that of the Kashmiri Pandits stands out as the only one that has been carried out to completion with near-total eradication of a community from a region. While in Rwanda and Bosnia the numbers involved were larger, the redeeming feature was that the international community stepped in, aborted the ethnic cleansing and reversed the situation. In contrast, nothing of that sort is in the offing in Kashmir, making it by far the largest and worst case of successful ethnic cleansing.



* One lakh is equal to 100,000.



2. IDMC Online, http://www.internal-displacement.org, February 24, 2007.

Comment


Why Hindu Nationalism?
5:57 PM PST, November 26, 2007
Lies, Lies and More Lies. The Campaign to Defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism (ISBN0595435491)
Excerpt p 3:
Indian history from the seventh century onwards till the twentieth century has been one long, tragic story of repeated foreign invasions, inhumane butchery of millions of innocent Hindus, senseless destruction of hundreds of Hindu temples, and economic devastation that reduced one of the richest countries in the world to unimaginable penury. Islamic invaders who reached India’s borders in the seventh century a.d. gave a new meaning and a new dimension to the words destruction, loot, repression, and human carnage.

The brutalities of this era are clearly corroborated by world historians and are not the fantasies of Hindu nationalists as some in India claim. Alain Danielou in Histoire de l’Inde writes:

From the time Muslims started arriving, around a.d. 632, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of “a holy war” of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races.

American historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization categorically states that the Islamic conquest of India is “probably the bloodiest story in history”[emphasis mine]. He adds: “It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without….”

More recently Francois Gautier, the India correspondent for the French newspaper Le Figaro has this to say about the Muslim invasion in his book Rewriting Indian History:

Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.

It was in this setting that the ideology of Hindutva (Hindu Nationalism) began taking shape. I would have considered it perverse had such all-consuming evil evoked no resistance or response from the Hindus. I would have considered the Hindus effete had they not rebelled against this injustice. It rankles me even today when people try to gloss over these atrocities or attempt to mitigate the magnitude of these crimes.

I am willing to forgive, but I am not willing to forget. For to forget is to leave the door open for these atrocities to recur.

Comment


Does a billion-strong community which accounts for 80 percent of the country's population require protection?
5:22 AM PST, November 17, 2007
Excerpt p 8:Lies,lies and More Lies.The Campaign to defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism (ISBN 0595435491)

Today when I write this it is July 3, 2004.The Amarnath yatra (Hindu pilgrimage) is under way in Kashmir, India. But it is shrouded in controversy. The state government of Kashmir, a part of the democratic, secular nation of India is imposing restrictions on the duration of the yatra.They have a point: the yatra is a plum target for Islamic militants operating freely within the borders of the so-called secular democratic nation of India. But is it not the duty of the government to provide the security and freedom to practice any religion anywhere in India? Or is that a right only conferred to the non-Hindu or non Vedic religions? Have you ever heard of any Muslim religious pilgrimage in India being targeted violently by Hindus? So, if in a democratic, secular nation with an 80% Hindu majority, the Hindus need protection to practice their religion and if there are restrictions imposed on their religious practices, am I wrong to infer that the Hindus are a community whose rights need to be safeguarded?


Read also about how millions of dollars donated to Hindu temples in India are siphoned by the government to benefit Islamic institutions and those of other religions in direct contravention of secular principles in Lies, lies and More Lies. The Campaign to defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism (Ch. 15).

Comment

› Read more of Vivek's Blog


Inside

[Guest]

<b>Lalu's sons accused of eve teasing, roughed up </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, Jan 2 (IANS) Sons of Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav were reportedly beaten up by unidentified youths for allegedly passing lewd comments on girls, while partying at one of the south Delhi's farm house.

According to the police, the scuffle broke out on New Year's Eve when Lalu's sons, Tejasvi and Tejpal, allegedly passed obscene remarks at some girls at a Mehrauli farmhouse.

Police officials said the duo accompanied by the personal security officers (PSOs) of Delhi Police and Railway Protection Force, first attended a party at five-star hotel and then proceeded to Connaught Place area. Later, they moved to a farmhouse in Mehrauli area and started passing obscene comments at some girls partying there.

But this time some unidentified youths protested and a scuffle broke out between them. <b>The security personal sensing the situation didn't reveal Lalu's sons identity. Before the officials could intervene, Tejasvi and Tejpal suffered rbuises on their faces and body during the scuffle.</b>

The duo was taken to a nearby hospital where they were given first-aid and discharged.

<b>Police officials said during the fight one of the security officials lost his service gun.</b> The mater was later reported to the police.

'We have registered a case at the Mehrauli police station and investigation are underway. No arrest has been made yet,' Delhi Police Commissioner Y.S. Dadwal told reports on the sidelines of annual press conference.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[shamu]

Anand Jon's sister seeks India's help

[ramana]

Well UPA went through hoops for Mohd Hanif case in Australia. If Anand Jon has Indian citizenship it makes sense to put in a word for him. Cant let the Idi Amins harass Indians in the rest of the world.

Even if he is a US citizen his products might still be made in India and that provides a figleaf for asking about his case.

[shamu]

Anand Jon is a christian and most of the Indian christians have a pro-west point of view. Anand is now being victimized in the citadel of evangelists because of his race, and his religion is not helping him. His case should be paraded in front of all pro-EJ Indians to tell them that they are still Indians and they should not work against Indian interests. At the same time Indian govt. should work for his help to prove that only India can protect Indians.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> At the same time Indian govt. should work for his help to prove that only India can protect Indians. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For Indians in Kenya, Indian govt's hand off policy but for jihadi Muslim,PM lost his sleep for Jon he will make private visit to LA court. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

One should know, Jon was quiet popular in Indian elite circle and was very special Indian for Indian diplomats. Only problem with this guy, he was very sleazy and never checked girls age. No surpise he is in trouble.
Same thing happened with Infosys executive in Fremont, CA.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Snake-charmers set up Modi-temple</b>
Ahmedabad, Jan 3: After Big B, Jayalalithaa and Rajnikant, now it is the turn of Gujarat Chief Minister and ''Hindutva Posterboy'' Narendra Modi to have his temple.

A settlement of snake-charmers in a sleepy village of Bhojpura in Vanakaner, about 300 Km from here, have made a Modi temple. Like any other temple, this too has daily Pujas.

<b>According to residents of the village, 111 snake-charmer families settled there a decade ago. At that time they used to live in tents. But life became difficult as their families grew larger.

Some prominent people of the community made representation to Modi government and requested for some basic amenities.

To their surprise, the government acted promptly. They were provided with plots of land and were also helped to construct houses, a school was also set up for the children of the tribe.

The children, who were expected to play with snakes, are now playing with computers.

A grateful community decided ''Modi is our God!'' and they set up a makeshift Modi temple.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

From another forum

Which way are Hindus headed?

Hindu society, about 1000 years ago when the first Islamic invasions took place was splintered up into group (community) identity and loyalty. There was some general agreement on what was holy and where the Holy Hindu places lay, but no "unity". Surprisingly even the sort of "national unity" called for by a nation state such as Britain in WW2 would appear like fascism from the viewpoint of a splintered Hindu society of the sort that existed then. When Islam came in, it was not opposed as a religion, and when it settled into India, Muslims just became "one more community" with "yet another God" in India like Madhwa brahmins or Vokkaligas or Counders. In fact this was how the British found India.

But the education fostered by the British, followed by India's Hindu civil code has to a very large extent rendered caste and community splintering among Hindus irrelevant. For the first time in millennia, or perhaps for the first time in history, Hindus are beginning to look like a monolithic body who search for similarities rather than differences. The similarities are often pooh poohed as non existent, but the new found Hindu solidarity is built around undoubted commonality of history and worldview. If you look at it objectively, it hardly makes sense to deny that there is some unity. Hindus were seen from the outside as one group, but close study revealed fragmentation. With measures to reduce that fragmentation having been in place for decades if not centuries it is hardly surprising that fragmentation is being replaced by solidarity.

But whether anyone acknowledges this new solidarity or not will be immaterial if Hindu solidarity comes and bites all its detractors with a vengeance.

Hindus in India form a vast majority and form the bulk of the forces leading to economic and social change. There is an increasing sense in India that Hindus have been given a raw deal in history. Cynicism for a Western view of history that was expressed with a shake of the head and resignation when I was a boy is now being thought of as points that need to be corrected by ramming facts down ignorant throats by brute force - a brute force that Hindus are set to acquire. These feelings are not restricted merely to what is fashionably described as the "right wing" but is supported among many "moderate" educated Hindus that I meet across the board. The same people who used to shake their heads with resignation about the ignorance of an Indian view in the past now are eager to see a ramming down of information by brute force, and will not oppose that if it happens. And Indians are getting a chance to do just such ramming down of information day in and day out starting from the most unexpected areas.

In my mind, nowhere is that going to be more significant in the relationship of Hindus with "minority" religions in India.

India occupies a unique place in the world. In which other country would 140 odd million people be a "minority"? The world, thus far, has never had to deal with such numbers and does not have the jargon to cope with such concepts. The "world" may not have such concepts but people in India read and digested these things long before the world.

When the movement for independence started it became expedient for both the British, and the Ashraf (former ruling class) among Muslims to state that several hundred million people should not become a "minority", as they would if things were not changed. Hundreds of millions of Muslims, it was theorized, formed a separate nation, unified by Islam. This runaway thought process led to the formation of Pakistan which I believe was a good thing for India just as the amputation of a gangrenous limb is "good". Pakistan has been uncovering the unity, peace and egalitarianism of Islam for 60 years now, but that is a separate issue.

What is pertinent to my viewpoint is that Islam before the British came was "one more community" in India. Splintered Hindus hardly saw Islam as anything else. A new religion was never a problem from the viewpoint of Indians whose disputes lay elsewhere.

And despite the arguments posed by various groups, no country in the world other than India allows Muslims to live in their various hues as freely as it is possible in India. No country in the world has allowed, indeed forced Shias, Sunnis and Ahmedis to live side by side without letting one dominate or decimate the other. Not even Pakistan, where Sunni Islam with a Salafi and Wahhabi flavor are dominating Shias, having eliminated Ahmedis as non Muslims. Not even Iraq, where the removal of Saddam's iron fist has provoked Shia-Sunni conflict. No country in the world freely allows the mullah dominated Muslim girl to walk around unquestioned in a burqa side by side with another Muslim girl who is allowed to flash her skin on TV or in the media without being killed, while allowing fatwas to be made, but making them fall by harmlessly. We do have a unique thing going, and it must not be either misconstrued or misused.

The newly united and empowered Hindus recognise all this, and resent being misrepresented. One of the biggest problems that India is going to have to cope with is a huge dominant, wealthy and vociferous class of Hindus who do not look kindly on being fed half truths and lies, or being blamed for some excesses without a concomitant "honest and open" identification of factors that are seen as excesses against Hindus.

Hindus are not innocent of excesses and what bothers me is that they will not give a damn about even appearing to be innocent if the rage building up within is not brought out into the open and addressed frankly and freely. And the rage is building up on several counts, one factor feeding the other. The Indian constitution and the Hindu civil code were aimed at moderating the overwhelming force of the Hindu majority while reducing their fissiparous traits. The "minority" religions, particularly Islam, were left untouched, and protected by constitutional guarantees.

Internal Hindu fission having now been made relatively quiescent, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the burden of "secularism" is placed on Hindu shoulders far more that that required from "minority religions" Islam and Christianity. I will not go into the detailed arguments to show why this is so from a constitutional viewpoint, but for now trust me that this is true and seen to be true by an increasing number of Hindus.

I would rather not see this spill over into violence, as has happened more than once before. Things can be contained and settled. But what is required is a recognition of the direction in which society has moved and an acknowledgement that the feelings and emotions expressed from all sides must be given equal airing in debate, without dismissing one side as "extremism" and highlighting the other side as "victim". That is a game that two can play and it will lead only to violence. And in a massively Hindu majority India, there are no prizes for guessing who will bear the brunt of the violence.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->150 families return to Hinduism in Uttarakhand
By Ravindra Saini

Around 150 families from several villages, who had reportedly converted to Christianity a few years ago, were welcomed home in a ceremony recently at a village, 15-km from Roorkee under Haridwar district. Dharma Jagran Samanvaya Vibhag of RSS led by Shri Shiv Prakash, Prant Pracharak of Uttarakhand, organised a purification camp at Sadhauli village for these.

<b>Thousands of people from various villages were also present at the venue. Dalit families from villages like Sadhouli, Uddhalheri, Susada, Bhaktowali, Alipur, Sherpur, Gokulpur, Lakhanauta, Khadoula, etc. took part in the religious purification ceremony</b>.

The back to Hindu fold people admitted that they were Hindus previously and were tempted by the Christian missionaries time to time. The temptation offered by the missionaries made them give up their ancestral way of worship. They revealed on this occasion that the missionaries promised them that they would be given good jobs and their daughters will be married with good boys but after their conversion they all proved futile. Having come to know the reality for the missionaries, they had to repent. They were emotional on the occasion and revealed that the missionaries used to come in their villages regularly and inspired them to give up Hinduism and embrace Christianity<b>. Christianity is flourishing in this area by leaps and bounds and the missionaries have purchased the land for the construction of a vast church in this area but the efforts of swayamsevaks have brought fruits and the conspiracy of the Christian missionaries has been stopped.</b>

People on the occasion raised slogans that they would not let the missionaries succeed in their dirty game of conversion. The missionaries would not be let play their dirty game of conversion of poor people of Hindu religion. Neither the Hindus believe in conversion not they would endure such petty crime.

<b>Incidents of conversion by the Christian missionaries are increasing at the time when the Khanduri government is planning to introduce anti-conversion law in the state soon. “Re-conversion in Hinduism has made us sacred and has prevented us from going to hell. </b>We are extremely grateful to RSS men who have encouraged us for this great occasion. We, the poor people were too innocent and ignorant to understand the ill-motive of the Christian missionaries but now we will be sensitive enough on conversion,” said the people
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hindu rights in peril </b>
pioneer.com
A Surya Prakash
The Punjab Government's decision to challenge the verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that Sikhs are not a minority in the State has grave implications for the constitutional rights of Hindus in the country even as it raises the question whether the Indian state will be even-handed in the treatment of minorities in different regions of the country.

The reaction of the State Government and the brouhaha in Sikh religious institutions over the High Court judgement is inexplicable because the criterion for determining the majority or minority status of a community was laid down unambiguously by the Supreme Court in the TMA Pai Foundation Case in October 2002. In that momentous judgement, 10 of the 11 judges on the Bench that heard this case declared that the geographical unit to determine whether a group of citizens belonged to a linguistic or religious minority under Article 30 of the Constitution would be a State and not the whole of India. Yet, despite this overwhelming consensus among 10 judges of the apex court, the Government of Punjab claims that Sikhs, who constitute 59.9 per cent of the population in that State, are a "minority"!

The Punjab Government's response to the High Court's verdict is yet another example of how vote-bank politics can corrode secular principles, disturb the constitutional equilibrium and even challenge the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. Those who track demographic trends in the country will vouch for the fact that if the State of Punjab is allowed to get away with this obvious deception, <span style='color:red'>it will encourage some other States to resort to similar subterfuge and eventually rob Hindus of their basic rights.</span>

Notwithstanding the foolhardy attempt made by the Census authorities (at the behest of some pseudo-secular politicians in the ruling coalition at the Centre) to provide a fraudulent interpretation to the 2001 Census data, the numbers tell their own story. Here are some religious demographic truths. There is a visible decline in the percentage of Hindus in India over the past 30 years and Hindus are now in a minority in five States and one Union Territory. They are in a minority in Jammu & Kashmir (29.6 per cent of the population), Punjab (36.9 per cent), Nagaland (7.7 per cent), Mizoram (3.6 per cent) and Meghalaya (13.3 per cent). They are also a hopeless minority in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep (3.7 per cent).

Apart from these States, two other States -- Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur -- are witnessing a steep drop in the population of Hindus. For example, the percentage of Hindus in Manipur has crashed from 60.04 per cent to 46 per cent is just 20 years. The population of Hindus in Arunachal Pradesh is a mere 34.6 per cent. In some of these States, religious conversions have brought about unprecedented demographic changes. For example between 1981 and 2001, the Hindu population in Nagaland dropped from 14.36 to 7.7 per cent, while the Christian population jumped from 80.21 to 90 per cent.

The absurd argument of the Punjab Government notwithstanding, the Supreme Court's judgement in the TMA Pai Foundation case is critical for the protection of the minority rights of Hindus in these States. The majority view, expressed by Chief Justice BN Kirpal and five other judges -- Justice GB Pattanaik, Justice Rajendra Babu, Justice Balakrishnan, Justice Venkatarama Reddi and Justice Pasayat -- is as follows: The opening words of Article 30(1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put on par in so far as this Article is concerned. India is divided into linguistic States and these States have been carved out on the basis of the language of the majority of people in that region. Therefore, since the State is regarded as the unit to determine a "linguistic minority" vis-à-vis Article 30 and since "religious minority" is on the same footing, the State has to be the unit in relation to which the majority or minority has to be determined. Further, although Parliament can legislate in regard to education after the 42nd Amendment, "the determination of who is a minority for the purpose of Article 30 cannot have different meanings depending upon who is legislating".

Finally, the court declared that for the purpose of determining a minority, the unit will be the State and not the whole of India and linguistic and religious minorities "have to be considered State-wise". Four other judges on the Bench concurred with the majority view expressed by these six judges. Only one judge dissented. Concurring with the majority, Justice Khare said, "There can only be one test for determining minority status of either linguistic or religious minority." Justice Quadri, Justice Variava and Justice Bhan said they agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the majority.

Prior to the TMA Pai Foundation case, the larger issue of determining the unit for identifying a minority had already been considered by the court in two cases pertaining to DAV College. These cases also dealt with the question whether Hindus were a religious minority in Punjab. In both these cases, the Supreme Court took the State as the unit to settle the issue. It rejected the contention that since Hindus were a majority in India, they could not be a religious minority in Punjab.

Thus, 10 judges on an 11-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court have categorically declared in 2002 that the State is the unit to settle the question as to who constitutes a linguistic or religious minority. Further, in this judgement which was delivered over five years ago, the court had reminded all those who cared to listen that the specific question as to whether Hindus were a religious minority in Punjab had been settled by the court in two cases prior to the TMA Pai case. Yet, the Punjab Government goes about its business as if the TMA Pai case is not part of our case law!

Since we have the 2001 Census data before us, we need to ask all States and Union Territories where Hindus are in a minority whether they will follow the absurd, unconstitutional logic of Punjab or will adhere to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The attitude of Punjab vis-à-vis protection of a religious minority (Hindus) makes one wonder whether Hindus are in for a double whammy -- decline in demographic terms and deprivation of constitutional rights. It also raises the question whether Hindus are constitutional pariahs who have no right to claim the basic rights available to citizens belonging to other religious persuasions.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Gujarat mirrors India </b>
Pioneer.com
Prafull Goradia
There is a slow but steady crystallisation of Hindu identity, thanks to a perverse form of secularism being practised in the country

In a recent article on the Gujarat Assembly election, Mr Ramaswamy R Iyer has let the cat out of the bag. He writes, "What should worry us, then, is not whether Mr Modi is a demon, but the change in the Gujarati psyche. What has happened to Gujarat? Is it still redeemable?

The post-Godhra violence of 2002 is not a matter of deep concern. Even if the allegation that the arson, loot and killing were state-sponsored is true, it matters less. What matters most is the change in the Gujarati psyche!

<b>The resentment against Muslim conquerors is as old as the conquest of Patan by Muzaffar Shah in 1391 and the establishment of Ahmedabad at the site of Karnavati by Ahmed Shah in 1411. The deprivation of Junagadh from the Kshatriya Chudasamas by Bahadur Shah in 1610 was another upsetting event. </b>

As recently as 1989, I had travelled in a bus in Ahmedabad when my fellow traveller asked for a ticket to Pakistan. He meant Jamalpur. Over the years, I have heard again and again how in localities like Kalupur and Dariapur, Hindu families have vacated their flats because Muslim neighbours cooked meat and fish. How the neighbours' sons whistled at their daughters. The families sold their flats at, say, Rs 4,000 a square yard, whereas they had to pay Rs 12,000 for their new residence in, say, the Satellite area. This expensive residence cleansing was at the back of middle class women helping their menfolk in the 2002 violence.

<b>In 1969, Ahmedabad had witnessed a much bigger riot which lasted for weeks together. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan had to be invited from Pakistan to calm public anger at the time.</b>

<b>The year 1985 saw a long lingering riot which eventually cost Mr Madhavsinh Solanki his chief ministership</b>. But prima facie, none of these cataclysms changed the Gujarati psyche. The age-old hypocrisy continued to adorn Hindu lips. However misguided some Muslims might be, they are our brethren. Most of them are of our own common blood. They are less educated. Many of them are poor and backward. Hindus in influential positions do not give them jobs. Political parties exploit them for their electoral advantage. Muslims should, therefore, be helped rather than blamed. So went conversations except in very private when bitterness was allowed to spew. Otherwise, politically as well as socially, it was correct to sound secular.

As a child, I had overheard an aunt of mine, in exasperated anger, call her husband Nadir Shah, although she wore khadi and was in society a paragon of Gandhian samabhav. This is despite Mahatma Gandhi writing in his journal -- Young India, Collected Works -- that every Hindu is a coward while every Muslim is a bully.

Gandhi had set the pace with his taking over the leadership of the Khilafat movement in 1919. His motive was to befriend Muslims. Two leading maulanas, Muhamm-ed Ali and Shaukat Ali, were particularly determined to retain the Sultan of Turkey on his throne and in his Caliphate. After World War I, the British were keen on abolishing the Sultanate and as was Mustafa Kemal Pasha on ending the Caliphate. The Maulana-Mahatma agenda was so dreadfully communal that even Mohammed Ali Jinnah was opposed to it.

The Moplah riots were the direct result of the Khilafat movement. The official reports of the time stated that the main brunt of Moplah ferocity was borne by Hindus. They were massacred by the thousand, forcibly converted to Islam and their women were raped and killed.

The reaction of Gandhi to those atrocities was shocking. He described the Moplahs as "brave god-fearing fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious".

The era of Ishwar Allah tero naam and sarva dharma samabhav was inaugurated by Gandhi. The Mahatma's samabhav, which was succeeded by Jawaharlal Nehru's secularism, rose to extraordinary heights. An example was the murder of Swami Shradhananda in 1926 by one Abdul Rashid. The murderer's defence counsel was Nehru's friend and Congressman Asaf Ali. The accused was sentenced to death and hanged. Gandhi's comment was "I have called Abdul Rashid a brother,... I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder". Most Hindus are still in the grip of this 'secular' samabhav, which explains why within decades after Partition, self-styled secularists are creating conditions for another vivisection of the country.

<b>Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has boldly declared "Muslims First". India is a crypto-Muslim's paradise, be he a secularist, a Leftist or a Communist.</b>

After the 2002 Assembly election, fears began to gather that some Hindus, especially in Gujarat, had begun to break out from the chains of 'secular' samabhav and come into their own. The ripples of change also began to reach Hindus living outside Gujarat.

<b>In 2004, at the Calcutta Club there was a seminar with four speakers. Mr Narendra Modi, after speaking in Hindi on a Uniform Civil Code, received a roaring applause. The growing anxiety of crypto-Muslims was reflected in the media more and more</b>. The demonisation of Mr Modi increased as the 2007 election neared. Little did the detractors realise that with every attack, the polarisation in his favour would be solidified harder.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

Since I seem to be "in the mood", let me write an FAQ even at the risk of repeating some stuff.

1) Who is a Hindu fundamentalist?

A Hindu fundamentalist is a person who is accused of hating Islam and Muslims, as well as Christians and Christianity. He is often, but not invariably critical of both faiths and groups.

The Hindu fundamentalist is accused of violence, riots and murder. Anyone who can be accused of Hindu fundamentalism has the following labels or characteristics attached to him even if he does not have any connection with those labels. The labels are "Right Wing; BJP; RSS; Hindutva; RSS; Bajrang Dal; High Caste; Murderer of Graham Staines; Murderer of Muslims in Gujarat"

The minute a person is declared a Hindu fundamentalist he is a hater of all Muslims and Christians and is accused of wanting to set up a Hindu state in India. Denial of this is no use. Once he gets that label - that is it.

1) Who is a Secular Hindu?

A secular Hindu worries that Hindu fundamentalists are out to kill or banish his Muslim and Christian brothers. He feels that the future of India is dependent on ensuring that Muslims and Christians are protected from Murderous Hindu fundamentalists. If a Muslim or a Christian is upset by something that can be attributed to a Hindu fundamentalist, the secular Hindu worries that the "secular fabric" of the nation is being torn apart by Hindu fundamentalists. The idea that a Hindu might ever get upset by Muslim or Christian action is horrifying to the secular Indian.

The secular Indian believes that all Hindus are (supposed to be) secular, tolerant and non violent. He believes that upsetting a Muslim or a Christian is a bad idea because they already tolerate Hindus and asking them to tolerate more may be intolerable

However, if you ask any Muslim or Christian group that has faced a Hindu mob if Hindus are secular, tolerant and non violent, they are unlikely to agree.

So who is right, the secular Hindu or the Muslim/Christian? Since we must not upset our Muslim and Christian brothers by accusing them of lying, we must accept that they are telling the truth about Hindus.

This sad fact makes the secular Hindu very upset. He demands that all Hindus be secular, tolerant and non violent like he is. And those who are not are the fundamentalist right-wing Hindutva group! Evil or Very Mad

3)Why are all Hindus not like the secular Hindu?
This is a trick question.

The problem is in this silly language "English". It has all these words with strange meanings that Indians cannot understand. The secular Hindu does not understand that the word "secular" means "absence of religion". No religion. "NO" means "absent", "nahin", "illa", "illai", "nako" "ledu" "na" "nathi" "nyet", "non" etc. depending on the language.

The secular Hindu forgets that he is himelf religious. He celebrates Hindu festivals and gives sweets to his Muslim neighbor to share goodwill. He celebrates Christmas with a tree, cake and lights and says "Merry Christmas". He attends Iftar parties and says "Id Mubarak". He even sometimes goes to the extent of saying "Muharram mubarak" as was spotted in a sign in Bangalore in 2008. Surprised

The secular Hindu thinks this behavior is secularism". He fails to understand that this behavior is NOT secularism, which means "No religion". It means "pluralism" - which allows ALL religions.

So, in reply to the question as to why fundamentalist Hindus are not secular, the answer is that Hindus are not secular. They are pluralist.

4) But what about violence? Can Hindus be violent?

Unfortunately yes. Hindus can be perfectly violent. We already know that from what our Muslims and Christian brothers have told us.

5) OK, what of "tolerance" then. Shouldn't Hindus be tolerant?

The question should be "tolerant of what?"

Hindus are human and tolerate some things and are intolerant of other things. There are some Hindus who do not tolerate the idea that the Gods that are holy to Hindus can be declared as "false" or the idea that the idols they worship are something that is wrong.

Who says Hindu Gods are false? Who says Idol worship is bad?

Well mostly nobody says that, but there is small group of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians who insist that this is so. It is this group that some Hindus are not tolerant about.

6) But our nation calls for secularism. Secularism is our life blood isn't it?

Yes of course. Our constitution swears by secularism, and religion is not supposed to play any role in politics.

But the people are not secular. And the people are not living with politicians. They are living with each other. The people living together are Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

The vast majority of these people are not secular. They are pluralist. They celebrate their festivals in public and share their festivals with everyone else, either in the form of food, lights, decorations or loud chanting, noise or music.

Secularism is totally absent. It is mostly pluralism. But in this plural society there are some unsatisfied Hindus who feel that some people are not plural enough.

In a society such as Indian society, it is OK if nobody is secular as long as everyone is a pluralist and allows every religion to exist equally.

Unfortunately a small minority of Muslims and a smaller number of Christians believe that pluralism is also wrong. They have a certain idea of "God" and feel that only that idea is correct. This upsets some Hindus. Maybe the latter would not mind if these ideas were kept within the comunity of Muslims or Christians. but they get angry when these ideas are spread among Hindus. They feel that this idea is offensive to Hindu belief.

The assertion that there is only one God and that it is wrong to worship idols is very irritating to some Hindus. At the same time the assertion that there can be more than one God, or that idols can be worshipped is very irritating to some Muslims and Christians.

When people get irritated they fight, and fights sometimes get dirty. And there are a lot more Hindus than Muslims or Christians so when a fight gets dirty. it becomes a one-sided fight.

The father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi recognized that such fights would be one sided fights, and he managed to convince Hindus that they should not fight. As long as he was alive, his word worked, often by the use of threat of slow suicide by fasting. But Gandhiji is now no more.

In the meantime, some Muslims of India too recognised that fights would be one-way fights in a Hindu dominated India. They felt that creating pockets of pure Muslims would prevent one sided Hindu-Muslim fights. But that is another story.

The question is, what kind of compromise can be reached that satisfies everyone and does not upset anyone's religious sensitivities?

Is it necessary at all to reach any compromise?

Why not just get all minorities to bend to majority will?

Can you banish religion from among the people and become a "secular" society as opposed to a pluralist society?

[Shambhu]

The best answer to people who accuse you of being a vitriolic Hindu fundoo:

"But it is so hard to find time to kill Muslims these days. Widow burnings take up most of my time; most of whatever time is left is used up in oppressing those damn lower caste people. Muslim killing? Forget it, I will call myself lucky even if I get to kill a few Christians.."

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Jan 17 2008, 12:21 AM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Jan 17 2008, 12:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The best answer to people who accuse you of being a vitriolic Hindu fundoo:

"But it is so hard to find time to kill Muslims these days. Widow burnings take up most of my time; most of whatever time is left is used up in oppressing those damn lower caste people. Muslim killing? Forget it, I will call myself lucky even if I get to kill a few Christians.."
[right][snapback]77193[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->