<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no arguing with the idea that "authentic Hindu voices" should be heard. I find it interesting that you have chosen to reduce yourself to a minority of one on the issue, because it strikes me that if you start pinning a particular narrow definition on "authentic Hindu", then one would have to be prepared for reducing the number of "authentic Hindus" in India to perhaps 200 or 300 million or less ( a frightening 50 million??) . This is juwst a statement without any substantiation. For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You misunderstand. Authentic Hindu voices are those of people who are <i>not pretending</i> to be Hindu (this then excludes christians who hide under Hindu names, and excludes psecular anti-Hindus who only say they are Hindus when they wish make some spiteful pronouncement on Hinduism, as if speaking on behalf of all Hindus). That is, authentic Hindu voices are those of everyone who thinks of themselves as Hindu even in private. This includes dhimmi Hindus even if they are passive, but not non-Hindus who merely claim to be when it suits their purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you referring to the 'minus me'? :not sure: That was merely to indicate that I don't see the use of my voice being incorporated in a version of Hinduism which regards arundhati roy, teesta seetalvad or other poseurs all the same as that of the rest of the Hindu masses including me. The poseurs don't identify themselves as Hindus in private, so I don't see why they should count as Hindus at all. Or communists who only claim to be Hindus whenever they need to secure the Hindu vote and then, when they're safe, go back to declaring that Hinduism brought the 'dark ages' to India and ban Hindu expressions.
I'd assumed that in this new telling of Hinduism non-anti-Hindus would get more of their views across, seeing as how the other side already has all the airtime in all other narrations. If not, can't see as I can be bothered to recount my experiences for this new version. Don't do nothin' for free, after all. There should be some pay-off for me (money will do as well...)
Schade. Doesn't matter. On the other hand, I could merely have misunderstood what will and will not be included in this Hindu narrative.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For example if the definition is narrow enough "authentic Hindus" can be reduced to just one - yourself. Just as you have done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Are you referring to the 'minus me'? :not sure: That was merely to indicate that I don't see the use of my voice being incorporated in a version of Hinduism which regards arundhati roy, teesta seetalvad or other poseurs all the same as that of the rest of the Hindu masses including me. The poseurs don't identify themselves as Hindus in private, so I don't see why they should count as Hindus at all. Or communists who only claim to be Hindus whenever they need to secure the Hindu vote and then, when they're safe, go back to declaring that Hinduism brought the 'dark ages' to India and ban Hindu expressions.
I'd assumed that in this new telling of Hinduism non-anti-Hindus would get more of their views across, seeing as how the other side already has all the airtime in all other narrations. If not, can't see as I can be bothered to recount my experiences for this new version. Don't do nothin' for free, after all. There should be some pay-off for me (money will do as well...)
Schade. Doesn't matter. On the other hand, I could merely have misunderstood what will and will not be included in this Hindu narrative.