Op-ed in Pioneer, 20 Sept., 2007
Note the author is anguished and his comments really are about the upper class welle ducated modernised Hindu and dont apply to the rest of the population.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Servile Hindu, timid Hindu
Second opinion: KR Phanda
The original affidavit submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India in the Supreme Court, which had inter alia asserted that Lord Ram did not exist, reflects a deeper malaise afflicting Hindus. <b>Often it is believed that due to centuries of being suppressed during the medieval period, many Hindus suffer from a servility or slavery complex. This may be a simplistic generalisation, but a complex does afflict them, which finds expression in different manners.</b>
Jewish scholar Bat Ye'or wrote a book, Islam and Dhimmitude. Even though his study is confined to the experiences in West Asia, Africa and Europe, it gives enough clues to what actually ails Hindus. <b>During much of the Mughal period, barring the reigns of emperors Akbar and Shah Jahan, Hindus were considered dhimmis (protected subjects). All of them were liable to pay jizyah as a price for protection. The dhimmi status was not only humiliating, but it also brought with it a number of complexes. To accept oppression became normal.</b>
By any benchmark of human quality, the status of the dhimmis was sub-human. <b>An average Hindu was scared; he rarely expressed his resentment. The educated and well-off Hindu, however, gave some interesting excuses for being submissive. In the process, the Hindu elite developed masochistic tendencies. They got sadistic pleasure in inflicting pain on their co-religionists.</b>
<b>Mahatma Gandhi, an undisputed leader of Hindus during the freedom struggle, did nothing to cure the inherited psychological disorder.</b> Instead, he repeatedly recommended submission. He said that if one was slapped on one cheek, instead of slapping back, the other cheek should be offered. The Communist Party of India, founded in the 1920s, sponsored the other channel of slavishness of Hindus. Its leaders acted on the commands of their bosses from Moscow. So, Hindu leaders have either not conveyed the feelings of average citizens or have misrepresented them.
<b>Ever since the Congress came back to power in 2004, it has pursued a one-point programme: Muslims first.</b> Earlier, Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had taken it for granted that Hindus would obey their whimsical commands that exhorted them to be docile. The present crop of Congress leaders is no different. Little wonder, Muslims despised Hindus "as a servile race" as mentioned in Sir William Hunter's book, The Indian Musalmans.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another trait developed during the Colonial period- Muslim & British rule was the lack of osetentatious display of wealth or prosperity by Hindus. This was because the Sultan/Ruler and his cohorts could demand whatever you possess and enforce the demand. Hence people had to be wary of showing off their wealth or else buri nazar types could get the Sultan's ear and its kaput for them. Another was the suppression of public display of happiness. I am glad that the Punjabification by way of bhangra and the ostentatious Kurta etc has spread to all parts of India. This is one way of de-dhimmification of Indian society.
Note the author is anguished and his comments really are about the upper class welle ducated modernised Hindu and dont apply to the rest of the population.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Servile Hindu, timid Hindu
Second opinion: KR Phanda
The original affidavit submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India in the Supreme Court, which had inter alia asserted that Lord Ram did not exist, reflects a deeper malaise afflicting Hindus. <b>Often it is believed that due to centuries of being suppressed during the medieval period, many Hindus suffer from a servility or slavery complex. This may be a simplistic generalisation, but a complex does afflict them, which finds expression in different manners.</b>
Jewish scholar Bat Ye'or wrote a book, Islam and Dhimmitude. Even though his study is confined to the experiences in West Asia, Africa and Europe, it gives enough clues to what actually ails Hindus. <b>During much of the Mughal period, barring the reigns of emperors Akbar and Shah Jahan, Hindus were considered dhimmis (protected subjects). All of them were liable to pay jizyah as a price for protection. The dhimmi status was not only humiliating, but it also brought with it a number of complexes. To accept oppression became normal.</b>
By any benchmark of human quality, the status of the dhimmis was sub-human. <b>An average Hindu was scared; he rarely expressed his resentment. The educated and well-off Hindu, however, gave some interesting excuses for being submissive. In the process, the Hindu elite developed masochistic tendencies. They got sadistic pleasure in inflicting pain on their co-religionists.</b>
<b>Mahatma Gandhi, an undisputed leader of Hindus during the freedom struggle, did nothing to cure the inherited psychological disorder.</b> Instead, he repeatedly recommended submission. He said that if one was slapped on one cheek, instead of slapping back, the other cheek should be offered. The Communist Party of India, founded in the 1920s, sponsored the other channel of slavishness of Hindus. Its leaders acted on the commands of their bosses from Moscow. So, Hindu leaders have either not conveyed the feelings of average citizens or have misrepresented them.
<b>Ever since the Congress came back to power in 2004, it has pursued a one-point programme: Muslims first.</b> Earlier, Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had taken it for granted that Hindus would obey their whimsical commands that exhorted them to be docile. The present crop of Congress leaders is no different. Little wonder, Muslims despised Hindus "as a servile race" as mentioned in Sir William Hunter's book, The Indian Musalmans.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another trait developed during the Colonial period- Muslim & British rule was the lack of osetentatious display of wealth or prosperity by Hindus. This was because the Sultan/Ruler and his cohorts could demand whatever you possess and enforce the demand. Hence people had to be wary of showing off their wealth or else buri nazar types could get the Sultan's ear and its kaput for them. Another was the suppression of public display of happiness. I am glad that the Punjabification by way of bhangra and the ostentatious Kurta etc has spread to all parts of India. This is one way of de-dhimmification of Indian society.