Indian/Hindu Identity

[acharya]

Indians are racially same and hence do not have much
difference.


What makes you say that ?

Racial characteristics vary widely in India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and from Sindh(yes, I am including the historic aberration, Pakistan, within India ) to Imphal.

There is also a wide diversity of religious, culinary and other "cultural" traditions, even though there are some common strands.

"Multiculturalism" in Indian context is an essential fact.

Quote:
Indian language and religion has come from the same region and hence there is same root in history for a common heritage. The term diversity is a misnomer for Indians.


Is that so ?

Christianity and Islam of various sects, Zoroastrianism, Judaism are all contributors and part of society and culture in different parts of India.

Don't think of India as just as a uniform Hindu-Buddhist-Jain-Sikh culture.

Quote:
Indian language and religion has come from the same region and hence there is same root in history for a common heritage. The term diversity is a misnomer for Indians.


Is that so ?

Christianity and Islam of various sects, Zoroastrianism, Judaism are all contributors and part of society and culture in different parts of India.

Don't think of India as just as a uniform Hindu-Buddhist-Jain-Sikh culture.


All of the above mention by you have found a Indian way of expressing their religion and they have Indianized to become part of Indian culture. It has withstood the test of time. The followers have roots in India.
Just because some commie and psec talks about diversity BS does not mean it is true.

S.Valkan wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Indians are racially same and hence do not have much
difference.


What makes you say that ?

Racial characteristics vary widely in India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and from Sindh(yes, I am including the historic aberration, Pakistan, within India ) to Imphal.

There is also a wide diversity of religious, culinary and other "cultural" traditions, even though there are some common strands.

"Multiculturalism" in Indian context is an essential fact.


To figure out the origin of Indian races start reading this book
Quote:

"The real Eve"
by Stephen Oppenheimer

Available at Amazon

DNA shows that the non-african world was colonised by different waves of emigrants from India

He has analysed both maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) and Paternal DNA, the Y chromosome

There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India
However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab

Next ALL non-African humans resided in India from 85k to 60k years ago
The root DNA for all non-africans is in India

Every single non-african human is traceable to India
which was the only inhabitable place outside africa till about 50k years ago

The out of Africa Adam, breaks up into 3 paternal lines
YAP, RPSY, and 89
Virtually 97% of Indians are descended from 89
The root for all 3 male lines are in India
South Asia is the first homeland for out of Africa humans

Oppenheimer's genetic map:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/



There is discussion HERE about the DNA and races

Acharya wrote:
There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India
However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab


Obviously, therefore, the DNA link of Kashmir and Punjab are different from those of Manipur and Kerala, correct ?

Quote:
Next ALL non-African humans resided in India from 85k to 60k years ago
The root DNA for all non-africans is in India


This "research" is not only debatable, but also speculative at best.

Researchers are still stumbling to create a whole line of DNA linkages for the genes of Outer Mongolians or Japanese Ainus or Peruvian Incas or Kiwi Maoris.

To trace them magically all to India is an intellectual travesty, the yearning of many notwithstanding.

S.Valkan wrote:
Acharya wrote:
There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India
However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab


Obviously, therefore, the DNA link of Kashmir and Punjab are different from those of Manipur and Kerala, correct ?

There are differences but roots are the same for the last 50k years. Hence if these people have been living for 50k years in the same region how much diversity should be talked about. There are larger continent countries who call themselves as one country with different races altogether and they dont talk about diverse country.

This thread is not for race origin can be taken up somewhere else.
It is OK if you dont believe in science

Acharya wrote:
There are differences but roots are the same for the last 50k years. Hence if these people have been living for 50k years in the same region how much diversity should be talked about.


Unfair statement.

We share same genetic roots with fish and frogs too, give or take a few million years.

And we have shared this planet with them for a long time. What diversity can there be between them and us ?

That's not how one approaches multiculturalism.

Racially, Indians are a heterogeneous mix.

For the last 10,000 or so years, India has undergone a slow transformation from a racial salad to a racial melting pot, much like what Europe and America are undergoing now.

In fact, most Indians are racial "mulattos", to borrow an American expression.

And Europe and America are slowly moving in that direction with inter-racial marriages etc.

So, that part of the equation is common.

However, the bigger fish to fry is the question of culture.

India developed islands of culture in different parts, depending on the population mix of the time, the language preference of the rulers of the region, the vegetables and spices growing there, the exposure to other religions and philosophies and literature, etc.

The common threads are undeniable. It is part of cultural diffusion.

But there is no denying that the islands were developing distinctly, and the beauty of Indian multiculturalism is the ability for each to flourish on its own merit, while a dynamic and vibrant fusion took place among the islands of culture.

Influence of the islands of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism on the syncretic regional Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Buddhist cultures, and vice versa, in the Indian context is unmistakable.

This is what is also being tasted and tested in Europe ( and America ).

The more they learn from the successful Indian experiment rather than think on the lines of Huntington ( except in the case of Islamist hypocrisy ), the better it will be.

Quote:
It is OK if you dont believe in science


I see that you added this snide remark later.

I will not dignify it with anything but a terse response.

Let's just say that I understand ( and not just believe ) in science. You are free to believe in others, but I don't fall for Argumentum Ad Veracundiam.

The book which Acharya referred to is science, but don't let your assumptions get affected by reality....please carry on with your "DNA diversity" blather.

India is basically one culture (call it Hindu/ Indic/ Bharatiya whatever)... all regional diversity you mention fall within the ambit of 85% of the populace accepting this land as the land of their forefathers, the land of their cultural/ religious symbols (it is difficult to distinguish between the two in Indian thought), prophets/ saints and personas

The fact remains that all the other cultures do not have critical mass. The fact is that India was partioned when one such different culture reached this critical mass (aided and abetted by the colonial master, but that is a separate discussion)

if we are "multicultural" can you please explain the basis of Indian nationalism and the reason for India's existence as a nation? or do you think we owe our national identity to the areas colonized by the Raj (ie an accident of geography)?

Just to be very clear, the fact that India's existence as a nation owes it to cultural commonality does NOT mean that the state should accord it any special recognition in governance (ironically, Jinnah expressed that very well when Pubistan was founded).......... but let us not ignore the social and cultural reality

Acharya wrote:
All of the above mention by you have found a Indian way of expressing their religion and they have Indianized to become part of Indian culture. It has withstood the test of time.


Some people here get upset at this everytime, but please reconsider this statement.

Worshipping of Mithra and Varuna, or propitiating the Ashvins as a daily routine have not withstood the test of time.

And even the BrahmaVaivarta Purana declares "Ashvamedham Gavalambham(slaughtering cows) Sannyasa Pala Paitrikam Devarena Sutotpattim Kalau Pancha Vivarjayet".

Obviously, you have a serious misunderstanding of what has withstood time.

And definitely Cauliflower, cabbage, potatoes, tomatoes and green chillies were not part of the Vanaspati-Osadhi diet for centuries.

Even the Vedic Indian culture has evolved, and not only that,- various individual strains of that culture have evolved in individual local fashions.

Not only that, multiple cultures transplanted to India have thrived, and exchanged elements with this local Vedic undercurrent.

The Jews of Comorin and Calcutta have retained as much of the Hebrew traditions as feasible. They have not "Indianized" Judaism, but elements of Indian cultural mileu from their local surrounding has seeped in, some consciously and some unconsciously.

Same holds for Christians and Muslims of various shades.

That is the basis of the successful multiculturalism in India.

Quote:
The followers have roots in India.


Over a period of time, yes.

But many followers are Bactrian Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, Hiung-Nus, Kuei-shuangs, Siams ( in the early times ), Arabs, Turkmen, Mongols, Afghans, Uzbeks and displaced Persians and Jews ( medieval times ).

Although Europeans failed to integrate into India in colonial times, and even Anglo-Indians migrated to Australia and Canada post-independence, the "foreign" elements of these faiths and their distinct islands of culture developed for a few centuries can't be ignored.

Think the same way in Europe.

Indians and Chinese and others migrating there have brought their own cultures, and are slowly creating their own versions of it ( globalisation, ready access to "motherland" and so on may have introduced artificial slowdowns in this process ).

The Europeans are also being affected. UK already suggests that elements of Indian culinary items are now integral parts of British national culture.

Thinking the other way, we also have offshoots like ISKCON and other "Euro-American" islands of Indian culture, much like what Islam and Christianity produced in India ( Barelvis and Qadianis and so on ).

This is the multiculturalism that Europe is experiencing, slowly.

The success of it depends on how Europe learns from the Indian experiment of tolerance, and borrowing from each other, without hindering their individual growth.

This is what Europe has to learn from India,- letting a thousand flowers bloom, and creating a wonderful garden in unison.

asharma wrote:
The book which Acharya referred to is science, but don't let your assumptions get affected by reality....


Let's just say that I have a good understanding of the science of Y-haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA.

And all scientific research suggests that there are wide variations of Proto-Australoid, Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid genes among Indians of different areas.

What the book refers to is the situation where earliest human migration from Africa to the rest of the word was via the Arabian coastline and the Indian coastline some 80,000 years ago.

It does NOT say - and you are free to quote from the book if you wish - that the present Indian racial stock is the origin of human races outside Africa.

The present racial stock of India represents the various layers of ethnic movements by land and sea INTO India over the millenia.

And that does NOT prove the Aryan Invasion Theory, if that's what you fear.

I hope it clarifies doubts.

Quote:
India is basically one culture (call it Hindu/ Indic/ Bharatiya whatever)...


I am often misunderstood when I deal with this topic.

I'll take the advise of Ramana many moons ago, and desist from further discussion on this, except to say that "One culture" can be a metaphor for a rainbow.

It is "one" syncretic whole, but with many shades that share overlaps.

That is "multiculturalism" in the Indian context.

And that is the experiment Europe must learn to conduct successfully.

if that is your definition of "multiculturalism", then the equivalent of Indian multiculturalism already exists in Europe- the Catholics co-exist with the Protestants and the Calvinists and the Church of England etc etc etc... exactly similar to Vaishnavites vs Shivites vs Dwaitas vs Adwaits vs Arya Samajis vs Sanatanaists- differences but all grounded in a common bedrock and overarching framework

What India has NOT done, and where Europe is facing problems (and needs "lessons" if any), is "multiculturalism coexistence" of islam vs Christianity vs paganism or Islam vs Hinduism vs Christianity..... we cannot offer that to them either as we have not done it well..... if anything, the only lesson is that such fundamental differences in culture should not gain ciritical mass, and once that happens, geographical partition/ division becomes necessary- not exactly a lesson they would want to hear Laughing

As to your comments on the AIT, doesn't matter a whit to me other than academic interests- AIT or not is the past, and other than knowing the truth for truth's sake, it really does not affect our existence (and the Indian nation) going forward

asharma wrote:
if that is your definition of "multiculturalism", then the equivalent of Indian multiculturalism already exists in Europe- the Catholics co-exist with the Protestants and the Calvinists and the Church of England etc etc etc... exactly similar to Vaishnavites vs Shivites vs Dwaitas vs Adwaits vs Arya Samajis vs Sanatanaits- differences arising from a common bedrock


Incorrect.

Europe does have its own share of geographic multiculturalism,- that of different nation states.

But the experiment has been mostly confined to one local race, and one - let's say local ( Roman state-sponsored Catholicism and its offshoots ) religion.

Please remember that we are apparently only talking of colonial powers, and not Albania, Bosnia, Turkey or Sicily.

The experiment conducted in India were among various races ( some local, some foreign ) and of various religions ( some local, some foreign ).

The same experiments of converting racial salads to racial melting pots, and of marrying the flavours of various ethnic cultures with the local buillon are now happening on a slightly grander scale in Europe and America.

Europe has a lot to learn on how to make it successful, and not repeat Reconquistas and Inquisitions.

Quote:
What India has NOT done, and where Europe is facing problems (and needs "lessons" if any), is "multiculturalism coexistence" of islam vs Christianity vs paganism or Islam vs Hinduism vs Christianity..... we cannot offer that to them either


Doesn't Islamic culture, Zoroastrian/Parsee culture and Christian culture coexist - mostly peacefully - within the umbrella of "Indian culture" ?

Remember, we are talking of the "culture" aspect - food, clothing, literature, music - not the clashes between people with vested interests.

First, let us define what we mean by "multiculturalism". If you limit it to dress/ food, why, all the world already has shades of it (Britian and Chicken Tikka Masala!), what's so special about India?

If, however, it means co-existence of groups of people having fundamental differences in world view (eg, "my basis of existence requires me to deny some rights to people not of my group", or "I cannot work/interact with someone who does not believe that the earth is flat", "if someone tells me the The Red Sea did not part, I need to kill him", and IF such people constitute a significant portion of the populace, then the only lesson India offers is that they CANNOT coexist... division happens

Quote:
Doesn't Islamic culture, Zoroastrian/Parsee culture and Christian culture coexist - mostly peacefully - within the umbrella of "Indian culture" ?


I'd like to believe so, but unfortunately- there is ghettoization, albeit at different levels, depending upon your educational/income strata. The problems faced by Europe, are not so far off from what is being faced by several places in India.

Quote:
Europe has a lot to learn on how to make it successful, and not repeat Reconquistas and Inquisitions.


Why? Morals apart, thats the way Europe has been, and its worked for them- no Moorish revolt/insurgency in modern Spain for instance, only the PITA Basques. In the modern day, they cant do it with such clinical efficiency, but they'll find some way to repeat the process in todays charged times under the pretext of the WoT.

Quote:
I still see Muslims in India, even after Partition.

They DO coexist, and - more often than not - peacefully, don't they ?

And they DO enrich India's continuing experiment of a modern, syncretic culture, while retaining some individuality of their own.

That's the lesson India can offer.


How convenient of you to omit what I mentioned about critical mass. After partition Muslims constitute ~13% (below critical mass in my view), and already a demand for separate Mughalistan , comprising the eastern districts of UP and western ones of Bihar IIRC, has been raised... it is referenced in BR itself already.

Just for your benefit, let me repeat it again- all the lesson that India offers is that if fundamental differences exist amongst a critical mass of the populace, then these differences cannot be papered over.

There are a lot of nuances in that statement but that is the brutal reality of our past....... I don't know about the future, it may perhaps be different, but if Europe teaches us anything Laughing , it is that such differences cannot be papered over by economic prosperity
JCage wrote:
I'd like to believe so, but unfortunately- there is ghettoization, albeit at different levels, depending upon your educational/income strata. The problems faced by Europe, are not so far off from what is being faced by several places in India.


The difference is Europe ( UK excepted ) has had no intentions of imbibing the cultural inputs of its migrants, and expected the migrants to simply assimilate lock, stock and barrel while the migrants ( Muslims especially ) resist assimilating European cultural inputs and want to retain their own pristine purity.

That's not how it happened, or happens, in India.

There is no pressure ( until recently ) to "Indianize, or else...".

But there is an inescapable Indianization, and cross-cultural diffusion.

And that's the lesson India can offer.

Quote:
Why? Morals apart, thats the way Europe has been, and its worked for them- no Moorish revolt/insurgency in modern Spain for instance.


The problem is that it worked for them in an era where ethnic conflict and violence was the norm, and Europe was barbaric.

There has been no such "first contact" for centuries after the Reconquista.

Now, the immigrants pose a new headache for a different Europe, - a Europe that is less sectarian, more welcoming and has had ( until the Islamist violence) open minds about possibilities.

Provided there is no convulsions to the gut, and there is a willingness to accommodate other races and cultures ( NOT just Islamic, but Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, African, Slavic), the lesson that Europe can borrow can only come from India.

asharma wrote:
How convenient of you to omit what I mentioned about critical mass.


I omitted it, because you are hung up on political Islam.

It took Muslims 1000 years to reach critical mass in India.

When do you suppose the critical mass would be reached in Europe ?

Quote:
Just for your benefit, let me repeat it again- all the lesson that India offers is that if fundamental differences exist amongst a critical mass of the populace, then these differences cannot be papered over.


This argument of yours is fallacious.

Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka are fighting to separate, despite there being NO fundamental difference in worldview.

It all depends on perceived grievances of a section of the population.

This is not the correct thread to discuss the nuances of Partition, and so I'll desist.

asharma wrote:
As to your comments on the AIT, doesn't matter a whit to me other than academic interests- AIT or not is the past, and other than knowing the truth for truth's sake, it really does not affect our existence (and the Indian nation) going forward


It does matter in the sense that the entire premise of the JNU historians is that there is no native culture callled Indian culture. It started with the AIT (Invading Aryans bringing vedic culture into India and the assertion of the Harrappan culture being distiinct from the Aryan vedic culture, the division of the the Aryan north and the Dravidian southe...etc). From AIT to proceed to describe the myriads of other invasions into India such as Valkan describes:

Quote:
Bactrian Greeks, Parthians, Scythians, Hiung-Nus, Kuei-shuangs, Siams ( in the early times ), Arabs, Turkmen, Mongols, Afghans, Uzbeks and displaced Persians and Jews ( medieval times ).


The Aryan invasion theory is not a mere academic matter, of concern only to historians. In the colonial era the British used it to divide India along north-south, Aryan-Dravidian lines, an interpretation various south Indian politicians have taken up as the cornerstone for their political projection of Dravidian identity. The Aryan invasion theory is the basis of the Marxist critique of Indian history where caste struggle takes the place of class struggle with the so-called pre-Aryan indigenous peoples turned into the oppressed masses and the invading Aryans turned into the oppressors, the corrupt ruling elite. Christian and Islamic missionaries have used the theory to denigrate the Hindu religion as a product of barbaric invaders and promote their efforts to convert Hindus. Every sort of foreign ideology has employed it to try to deny India any real indigenous civilization so that the idea of the rule of foreign governments or ideas becomes acceptable. Even today it is not uncommon to see this theory appearng in Indian newspapers to uphold modern, generally Marxist or anti-Hindu political views. From it comes the idea that there is really no cohesive Indian identity or Hindu religion but merely a collection of the various peoples and cultures who have come to the subcontinent, generally from the outside. Therefore a reexamination of this issue is perhaps the most vital intellectual concern for India today.

E.g: Do people know who the Scythians really were, did they really invade India, what was the lasting impact, where is the evidence? How good is that evidence? Are their alternatve view? What are they? Do these alternate views make sense?

JCage wrote:
I'd like to believe so, but unfortunately- there is ghettoization, albeit at different levels, depending upon your educational/income strata. The problems faced by Europe, are not so far off from what is being faced by several places in India.


Quote:
The difference is Europe ( UK excepted ) has had no intentions of imbibing the cultural inputs of its migrants, and expected the migrants to simply assimilate lock, stock and barrel while the migrants ( Muslims especially ) resist assimilating European cultural inputs and want to retain their own pristine purity.

That's not how it happened, or happens, in India.

There is no pressure ( until recently ) to "Indianize, or else...".

But there is an inescapable Indianization, and cross-cultural diffusion.

And that's the lesson India can offer.


SV, thats not exactly correct. A lot of the pressure to "Indianize or else.." did come from groups such as the Sikhs and Marathas, the former especially, which is why they are (for eg) remembered with such hatred in the land of the pure. Indianize, in the context, referring to more even handed behaviour when coexisting with other non Muslim cultures, and no longer retaining the ability to force their way on dhimmis, to even harsher edicts which were never possible earlier (eg the Sikh edict banning cow slaughter in Kashmir).

The other issue is that prior to that, the shoe was on the other foot, since political power was in the Muslims hands, and the ulema and the nobles made full use of it for coercion.

Some educated Muslims do manage to straddle both worlds, even rarer birds like Kalam manage to rise even beyond that, but there is no doubt that there is a repetitive strain in Islam which insists that its purity be maintained when its in contact with those that dont follow exactly what it says. Its no surprise that the most virulent Islamists are usually from those regions which are in contact with other cultures- eg, the Indian subcontinent, or now even Britainistan and Europe. This is something which will cause conflict eternal.

Quote:
Why? Morals apart, thats the way Europe has been, and its worked for them- no Moorish revolt/insurgency in modern Spain for instance.


Quote:
The problem is that it worked for them in an era where ethnic conflict and violence was the norm, and Europe was barbaric.

There has been no such "first contact" for centuries after the Reconquista.

Now, the immigrants pose a new headache for a different Europe, - a Europe that is less sectarian, more welcoming and has had ( until the Islamist violence) open minds about possibilities.

Provided there is no convulsions to the gut, and there is a willingness to accommodate other races and cultures ( NOT just Islamic, but Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, African, Slavic), the lesson that Europe can borrow can only come from India.


But this is under the assumption that they want to take the civilized, moral high ground/ co-existence way out rather than the time honored tactic of survival of the fittest.

First, there is a fundamental difference between Europe and India. India's own culture- which stems from Hinduism, is inclusive and for the most peaceful- its by its very nature, status quoist, we can quibble over when it happened but it did- a Gandhi could hence relate in a religious, and social manner to a vast majority of India and push his pranaami heritage to a wider audience. But Europe/ the west has been much more in the "survival of the fittest"/"law of the jungle" line.

Take Downers comments on Australian muslims, the Dutch reaction after Van Goghs murder (and these folks were considered to be the most liberal of all!), or even the present UK Govt's several top functionaries about how UK muslims better shape up. The writing is on the wall, the average Muslim cannot hope to carve out his own idyllic shariah run enclave in Europe, the average population will react strongly. All these days, the UK and even France and many other countries, tried to adopt a true policy of multi-culturalism, what you are seeing are the chinks in the edifice, and this may well collapse into the Europe of old.

What I am pointing out is that "the Indian experience" will only work in Europe, if they choose to adopt it- if they dont, and persist with a modern day reconquista, thats that. Already immigration laws are tightening up, the Dutch are insisting that all immigrants now go through and fully agree with Dutch culture, more and more rightwing politicians are coming to power- imho, it shows which way the wind is blowing. The modern tools are different, and subtly so, but these tools will provoke more violence - eg lack of jobs/ subtle discrimination against French muslims lead to the banlieue riots, and then there are even more calls for harsher measures.

Acharya wrote:
If what Europe knows about India resembles what it claims it knows about the caste system, what exactly does Europe know about India or her culture? Not very much, I am afraid.


What exactly is meant by "Europe" here ?

People in Europe can be classified into several categories :

1) People who are not the least interested about India ( other than an occasional dine-in at a "tandoori" or "curry" restaurant ), or who are familiar with an image of India as a mystical third world place of tropical forests, tigers, elephants, beggars, squalor, dark mischievous native Hindoos that practice idolatry and eat monkey brains.

3) People who are familiar with the tourism side of India and have visited Rajasthan, Goa, Kerala and a few other "exotic" locations in the vicinity like Ceylon, Nepal and Maldives.

4) People who are familiar with the business side of India, importing mainly consumer leather goods and textiles, and exporting value-added manufacturing goods. This includes recent exposure to IT and offshored BPO services.

5) People who are vaguely familiar with the "spiritual" side of India through the agencies of ISKCON, Joseph Campbell shows, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Deepak Chopra and other such harbingers of Indian spiritual kedgeree.

6) Professional Indologists, whose business it is to conjure wild theories and gain a Ph.D on how the elephant head of Ganesha signifies the various parts of the human pudendum.

7) People like John Woodroffe, who have done excellent research on much maligned elements of Indian "culture", and left authoritative discourses for the benefit of both revivalists in India and genuine sympathisers in Europe.

The "knowledge" of one segment need not be in sync with those of the others.

Quote:
One means something like this: Indians have to learn a particular way of going-about with the world from the European culture. That is, one believes that this way of going-about is the unique contribution of the European culture, something that is absent in other cultures.


A wonderful articulation.

However, the critical element that is missing in this is the fact that where Europe succeeded uniquely - and other cultures didn't - was in presenting a coherent system of governance, law, peoples' mandate and fundamental rights - that can be adapted by various cultures, without a loss of identity.

What India learned from Europe was implementation of a local adaptation of this versatile system.

The fact that India succeeds in maintaining "unity in diversity" for over 1 billion people of various ethnic, cultural and political mindset is directly attributable to the strength of this model.

Quote:
Let us now reverse the question: what has Europe to learn from India? In all the thirty years I have spent in Europe and in all the thousands of books I have probably read, I have not come across a satisfactory answer.


It is unfortunate that he hasn't found an answer.

Europe already has, to some extent, in its attempt at "multiculturalism", based on an unforced synthesis of individuality and universality.

Not "secularism", mind you, but "multiculturalism" in the Indian mode - a unique syncretic approach.

Although the equation is somewhat being garbled - at the present juncture because of Islamist intransigence, and overall because of the vast undercurrent of racial superiority in the minds of many an otherwise-decent European - the chances are that Europe is learning and adapting the universal multicultural tendencies and values of India and her unique civilisation in its own way.

S.Valkan wrote:
Acharya wrote:
If what Europe knows about India resembles what it claims it knows about the caste system, what exactly does Europe know about India or her culture? Not very much, I am afraid.


What exactly is meant by "Europe" here ?

The Only Europeans who know Indians are the colonizing Europe. They are Britain, French, Dutch, Portuguese. They have been in India for the last 500 years. Since they are creating a European identity he has used the term Europe.


S.Valkan wrote:


Quote:
Let us now reverse the question: what has Europe to learn from India? In all the thirty years I have spent in Europe and in all the thousands of books I have probably read, I have not come across a satisfactory answer.


It is unfortunate that he hasn't found an answer.

Europe already has, to some extent, in its attempt at "multiculturalism", based on an unforced synthesis of individuality and universality.

Not "secularism", mind you, but "multiculturalism" in the Indian mode - a unique syncretic approach.


That word is BS.

Indians are racially same and hence do not have much difference. Indian language and religion has come from the same region and hence there is same root in history for a common heritage. The term diversity is a misnomer for Indians.