01-05-2008, 11:52 PM
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.
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.