04-13-2007, 07:04 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Apr 13 2007, 03:51 AM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Apr 13 2007, 03:51 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
You have to forgive us. Many of us don't have the patience or the inclination to read the specific BR thread from which you have come over.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am known as shiv on BRF, and I was associated with the religion discussion on BRF. It would be painful for anyone to actually go through archived discussions without getting bored, so I will merely try and sum up my view.
For no particular reason other than the originally stated reasons that still hold true, religion discussions were not allowed on BRF from its inception. That was no good when the Islamism topic came up and I credit Kaushal with the foresight and determination to draw attention to it and I owe it to Kaushal for opening my eyes, although we did not necessarily see eye to eye in some issues. It is easier to see his viewpoint now and that is why I am here.
After Islamism became a well recognized threat someone started the discussion about evangelism, that was termed evanjihadism on BRF. While all the facts were pointed out, it struck me that there was no way you can truly say what is wrong with topic like evangelism unless you are able to state a Hindu viewpoint. Since a discussion on evangelism alone, without weighing it against a Hindu viewpoint seemed pointless to me I felt that a broadening of the scope of discussion was required.
I had another concern about the concurrent threads on BRF that allowed Islamism and Evanjihadism to be discussed without any explanation about why Hindu thought should not be mentioned. I will try and explain that concern as clearly as I can:
Any casual observer going through the Evanjihadism threads and Islamism threads on BRF would find plenty of criticism of those doctrines. The same casual observer going through news media and history would find exactly the opposite impression being created - with all Hindus being fundamentalist bride burning caste killing demons with no mention of what I felt was a Hindu story - or a Hindu narrative. The basic outcome that I saw of this situation was that any Hindu posting a Hindu viewpoint is automatically a fundamentalist. That impression is augmented by seeing Hindus criticizing the actions of the religions of peace and love.
History and the media are already loaded against claiming that Hindus can be up to any good. The word "peace" was claimed by Islam and "love" claimed by Christianity. Hindus cold always lay claim to words like "hate', "discrimination", "caste" etc and nobody would complain. These things of course have been fleshed out on this forum for ages.
Living in India I believe I have some insight into how Hindus are working/not working in our own country and I believe there are hundreds of thousands of "Hindu stories", of happiness, sorrow, tribulation and displacement that must be written and recorded as part of what I would call a "Hindu narrative".The Hindu narrative is automatically going to point out how Islam and Christianity spread in India and I believe it is this point on which all talk of Hindu narrative is switched off.
I have had in a sense - a change in my way of thinking after I looked at some things.
If one looks at how Hindus survived at all, given that we do not follow a proselytizing faith, I believe that survival did not come by chance or some ineffable Hindu power. Survival occurred because there were people who actively protected the faith. Since "Hindu fundamentalism" is in no way aimed at coercing anyone else, I am veering around to the belief that Hindu fundamentalism is an essential part of the faith. It is precisely that "fundamentalism' that allowed it to survive. Both Christianity and Islam actively "poach" on other faiths, and such poaching is an assault on Hindus which, I now realize, will not stop with love or asking for tolerance and respect. Assuming that was mistake on my part.
It will stop only by drawing a red line that must not be crossed - or else..
You have to forgive us. Many of us don't have the patience or the inclination to read the specific BR thread from which you have come over.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am known as shiv on BRF, and I was associated with the religion discussion on BRF. It would be painful for anyone to actually go through archived discussions without getting bored, so I will merely try and sum up my view.
For no particular reason other than the originally stated reasons that still hold true, religion discussions were not allowed on BRF from its inception. That was no good when the Islamism topic came up and I credit Kaushal with the foresight and determination to draw attention to it and I owe it to Kaushal for opening my eyes, although we did not necessarily see eye to eye in some issues. It is easier to see his viewpoint now and that is why I am here.
After Islamism became a well recognized threat someone started the discussion about evangelism, that was termed evanjihadism on BRF. While all the facts were pointed out, it struck me that there was no way you can truly say what is wrong with topic like evangelism unless you are able to state a Hindu viewpoint. Since a discussion on evangelism alone, without weighing it against a Hindu viewpoint seemed pointless to me I felt that a broadening of the scope of discussion was required.
I had another concern about the concurrent threads on BRF that allowed Islamism and Evanjihadism to be discussed without any explanation about why Hindu thought should not be mentioned. I will try and explain that concern as clearly as I can:
Any casual observer going through the Evanjihadism threads and Islamism threads on BRF would find plenty of criticism of those doctrines. The same casual observer going through news media and history would find exactly the opposite impression being created - with all Hindus being fundamentalist bride burning caste killing demons with no mention of what I felt was a Hindu story - or a Hindu narrative. The basic outcome that I saw of this situation was that any Hindu posting a Hindu viewpoint is automatically a fundamentalist. That impression is augmented by seeing Hindus criticizing the actions of the religions of peace and love.
History and the media are already loaded against claiming that Hindus can be up to any good. The word "peace" was claimed by Islam and "love" claimed by Christianity. Hindus cold always lay claim to words like "hate', "discrimination", "caste" etc and nobody would complain. These things of course have been fleshed out on this forum for ages.
Living in India I believe I have some insight into how Hindus are working/not working in our own country and I believe there are hundreds of thousands of "Hindu stories", of happiness, sorrow, tribulation and displacement that must be written and recorded as part of what I would call a "Hindu narrative".The Hindu narrative is automatically going to point out how Islam and Christianity spread in India and I believe it is this point on which all talk of Hindu narrative is switched off.
I have had in a sense - a change in my way of thinking after I looked at some things.
If one looks at how Hindus survived at all, given that we do not follow a proselytizing faith, I believe that survival did not come by chance or some ineffable Hindu power. Survival occurred because there were people who actively protected the faith. Since "Hindu fundamentalism" is in no way aimed at coercing anyone else, I am veering around to the belief that Hindu fundamentalism is an essential part of the faith. It is precisely that "fundamentalism' that allowed it to survive. Both Christianity and Islam actively "poach" on other faiths, and such poaching is an assault on Hindus which, I now realize, will not stop with love or asking for tolerance and respect. Assuming that was mistake on my part.
It will stop only by drawing a red line that must not be crossed - or else..