12-28-2007, 01:49 PM
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.
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.