<!--QuoteBegin-Abhijit+Apr 13 2007, 04:52 AM-->QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 04:52 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to dissect the fourth issue I mentioned in my post viz.
<span style='color:red'>why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections. </span>
First let me try to list the various sections that are (IMO) opposed to a Hindu narrative.
- EJ's
- IJ's
- Commies
- Non-EJ Christian Indians (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-jihadi Indian Muslims (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-commie Hindus who believe they are secular but probably do not understand the implications of 'secularism'
- Lower caste Hindus, especially those who carry an anti-upper caste chip on their shoulders
- Business leaders
Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?
I intend to expand on this issue in a series of posts as time permits and invite others to chip in.
[right][snapback]66926[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very important question.
Why there is fierce resistence to Hindu narrative.
One of the most important thing about Hindu narrative is that it will bring back the absorbing power of the Indian soceity which will bring all the folks from other religions into its fold. This puts fear into the community leaders of the minorities.
The colonial power during the period 1900-1947 had made sure that the Hindu political center and Hindu narrative was discriminated and maligned. That process was never stopped even after independence and the elite in the congress party followed that same process of suppressing the Hindu narrative so that they could build relationship with the western political center.This dhimmitude was built in right at the independence.
Yes, Vir Savarkar, Tilak and very small number of others. Location of their living quarters in UK also made difference.
<!--QuoteBegin-ashyam+Apr 13 2007, 10:26 AM-->QUOTE(ashyam @ Apr 13 2007, 10:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If one finds out that he/she was born after his/her mother was raped, his/her sympathy will naturally go to the mother and start hating the father, ........... [right][snapback]66890[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that is why there is a father substitute built into the christian dynamic, namely secularism.
<!--QuoteBegin-Abhijit+Apr 13 2007, 04:30 AM-->QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 04:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->IMO when we discuss the Hindu narrative there are the following distinct (but related) issues that need discussions.
- Who or what is a Hindu: This includes the definition of what makes people Hindu and how they can transmit the essence of this membership to at least their offspring. This is a personal issue for me too. I have to explain this to my 10-yr old growing up in US.
- How did the Hindu narrative survive despite a thousand years of active and many times brutal suppression and what lessons we can draw from this survival to perpetuate the survival in today's world and to make it stronger.
- What becomes part of this narrative - I think Shiv has answered it succinctly.
- Why is there a political opposition to the Hindu narrative - from leftists, the brainwashed and the apprehensive Christians and Muslims. This also includes what we can do to circumvent the opposition.
I posted on BR that I am despondent about the possibility of reconciliation ever taking place between Hindus and the other assorted sections mentioned above. It seems that my pessimism is not misplaced.
[right][snapback]66924[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you gone to this thread about Hindu identity
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....topic=1056
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->that is why there is a father substitute built into the christian dynamic, namely secularism. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hello,
I am here from BRF too (was known there are samuel). Glad to see many others here. I look forward to contributing and meeting others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma+Apr 13 2007, 07:21 AM-->QUOTE(Sumann Bharadwaja Sarma @ Apr 13 2007, 07:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hello,
    I am here from BRF too (was known there are samuel). Glad to see many others here. I look forward to contributing and meeting others.
[right][snapback]66942[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to IF.
We need the same number of posts what you have in BRF.
Hi Abhijit,
Would it also be possible to get list of people actively constructing the Hindu narrative in our times?
I tend to think of the narrative as my story-- just what am I about in relation to Bharath and Hinduism. It starts out simply as things about my childhood, my family, and how they came to be. It then brings in my ancestors and how they came to be, our village, the dialect and how all that came to be. It catalogs regular and peculiar customs of our community and what we've endured, how we screwed up, and where we shined. At some point all that mingles with your story and the next, becoming our narrative. From such kathopÄgyÄna may emerge a modern ArthaÅÄstra that serves as the compass of our destiny.
Our narrative has become so private that I find strange lyrics in what I thought was our song. I find myself gobbed with so many layers of distant world-views that I am yet to begin the first line of the first scentence of the first book of the first volume after having gone a good length of my life.
That is the reason I ask for list of people or types, and not in the least meaning it to be provocative.
Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Abhijit+Apr 13 2007, 12:52 PM-->QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 12:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to dissect the fourth issue I mentioned in my post viz. why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections. First let me try to list the various sections that are (IMO) opposed to a Hindu narrative.
- EJ's
- IJ's
- Commies
- Non-EJ Christian Indians (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-jihadi Indian Muslims (at least a section of them - probably a large one)
- Non-commie Hindus who believe they are secular but probably do not understand the implications of 'secularism'
- Lower caste Hindus, especially those who carry an anti-upper caste chip on their shoulders
- Business leaders
Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?
I intend to expand on this issue in a series of posts as time permits and invite others to chip in.
[right][snapback]66926[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 13 2007, 09:24 AM-->QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 13 2007, 09:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Hindu is a person who undertands that he is part of creation and all of creation is one with him. <b>He understands that God is everywhere and in every form. </b>To guide him he has a rich hertitage of knowledge in the form of the Vedas and Upanishads. His code of life is guided by the principles of the ideal just and wise human being as described in the Hindu epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above sounds reasonable except for one point that is often overlooked by most modern Hindus. Hindus really did not have God. They had entities like Ishvara, brahman, Atman, jIvAtaman, devas, dharma etc.
Several modern hindus translate Ishvara and in some cases brahman as God, but these are indequate expressions of the Hindu terms. It should be kept in mind that in some important hindu systems there is no Ishvara either (they are atheistic if Ishvara were translated as God). One of the most important issues is that most Hindu systems explicitly reject an extra-universe creator.
why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections?
- Hindu thoughts aids and flourishes decentralizations. Hence, the first principle from the christ, mohammadean and other angles were to make sure Indian consitution guarantes that would never happen. They were successful.
- Hindu actions promotes naturalism, and needs total discipline, to understand and accept. This has an inverse relationship with adminstrative and control regiment of social restructing. For example, Hindu thoughts would not help in a common rule, i.e., civil code for all, since the decentralized thought does not help in such controls.
- Hindu theories would make other over powering religions of the world, go uncontrollable. People would start to live in a self-realized world, and hence disobey national thoughts.. work against govts, become spies, and fund self goals and aspirations.
It is not opposition from individual freedom, but a collective responsibility that we all need to share and take care. The narratives, should lead to that., and how can those be married with constitutions, legal issues, regulations, infrastructure, civil society, blah.. we have problems everywhere in India, where progression is denied by we are unable to take a collective decision fast. we keep blaming it on the politician, govt setup, yadi yada.. but fail to realize we are part and parcel to it.
If national integration and security is hampered by hindu narratives, then where are we to lead this? I guess, the interest here is to bring up all the narratives, for a purpose. what is that? how it aids? science and math equations, etc.. that is acceptable for common living standards.
globalization have made hindu dharma week.. holes have crept in.. cause, hindus themselves as said, have failed to realize what is common belief among them, that is narrated, and can be held high.
!?
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Apr 13 2007, 09:31 PM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Apr 13 2007, 09:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-sengotuvel+Apr 13 2007, 09:24 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sengotuvel @ Apr 13 2007, 09:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Hindu is a person who undertands that he is part of creation and all of creation is one with him. <b>He understands that God is everywhere and in every form. </b>To guide him he has a rich hertitage of knowledge in the form of the Vedas and Upanishads. His code of life is guided by the principles of the ideal just and wise human being as described in the Hindu epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above sounds reasonable except for one point that is often overlooked by most modern Hindus. Hindus really did not have God. They had entities like Ishvara, brahman, Atman, jIvAtaman, devas, dharma etc.
Several modern hindus translate Ishvara and in some cases brahman as God, but these are indequate expressions of the Hindu terms. It should be kept in mind that in some important hindu systems there is no Ishvara either (they are atheistic if Ishvara were translated as God). One of the most important issues is that most Hindu systems explicitly reject an extra-universe creator.
[right][snapback]66951[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A query to Gurus on this forum: is it true that mention of Gods and Godesses like Shiva, Laxmi, Ganesh and others is found only in Puranas and there is no mention of them in Vedas and Upanishads?
Also, in Hinduism are God and Parmatama(Param Aatmaa) different? We used to hear a story in childhood that a hermit prayed for years on end and Shiva appeared before him. The hermit asked Shiva 'who are you'? so Shiva replied 'I am God'. At this point the hermit asked Shiva that if he is God to whom did he himself pray sitting in the Himalayas? So Shiva replied 'I pray to Parmatmaa'. So the hermit replied 'I then want to see Parmatmaa'.
The hermit prayed for some more years and finally the hermit heard a voice from the sky 'you want to see me' So the hermit asked 'Are you Paramatma'?. The reply was 'yes'. So when the hermit expressed the desire to see Paramatmaa he again heard the same voice from the sky 'In which form do you want to see me as I have no form'. So the hermit expresed his desire to see Paramatmaa in such and such form so Paramatmaa gave him 'darshan' in the form the hermit had requested Paramatmaa.
Of course, one Hindu School of thought also has conception of "God" as "Satyam Jnanam Anantam" ( Existence Awareness Limitlessness Absolute ).
I have a simpler, geopolitical definition of Hindu. It doesn't serve the purpose of this thread fully because of the narrative aspect.
A Hindu is somebody that has an ancestry in India and someone whom a jihadi would have no compunction killing or converting or EJ would have no compunction proselytizing. This makes all indic religions Hindu - whether they currently feel part of it or not (undoubtedly they were Hindus in some distant past).
Samuel<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Would it also be possible to get list of people actively constructing the Hindu narrative in our times? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Shiv mentioned, the narrative should be a broad-based effort.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I tend to think of the narrative as my story-- just what am I about in relation to Bharath and Hinduism. It starts out simply as things about my childhood, my family, and how they came to be. It then brings in my ancestors and how they came to be, our village, the dialect and how all that came to be. It catalogs regular and peculiar customs of our community and what we've endured, how we screwed up, and where we shined. At some point all that mingles with your story and the next, becoming our narrative. From such kathopÄgyÄna may emerge a modern ArthaÅÄstra that serves as the compass of our destiny. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely.
While growing up we often heard our elders say 'Hinduism, more than a religion, is a way of life'.
Always wondered whether there is a particular way in which Hindus were expected to conduct their lives? If yes, what is this particular 'way of life'?
I ask this becoz the standard answer most children get from their parents is 'Respect your elders and teachers, be kind to others, respect all faiths etc. But always wondred whether this way of life is in fact described in detail in either our puranas and/or upanishads? If it is, could someone please explain what exactly is this particular 'way of life'?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because Hindu themselves are weak and always tried to please others. None can deny, what is yours. You need guts and skill.
In school history books, they talk about Muslim butcher with glory, Akbar, Aurangzeb, Gaznavi, Gori, Not a single book discusses Haqikat Rai or other heroes. Why Hindus don't demand adding Hindus heroes in history books?
Why Hindus accept narrative written by foreigners and even better is written by some Indian? e.g K.Elst etc. Every Indian site refers to them not to Hindus writers.
Why they are more acceptable even half of the time they are junk or cut n paste?
<!--QuoteBegin-Abhijit+Apr 13 2007, 05:42 PM-->QUOTE(Abhijit @ Apr 13 2007, 05:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a simpler, geopolitical definition of Hindu. It doesn't serve the purpose of this thread fully because of the narrative aspect.
A Hindu is somebody that has an ancestry in India and someone whom a jihadi would have no compunction killing or converting or EJ would have no compunction proselytizing. This makes all indic religions Hindu - whether they currently feel part of it or not (undoubtedly they were Hindus in some distant past).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hi Abhijit, yes we don't really see eye to eye here. In the sense that, yes surely the vast majority of indic people now part of some other organized religion were Hindus before they were coopted, coerced, or changed through other means. Being inclusive in the way you suggest is rather generous indeed and is a historical fact. What I cannot see is how it would have any meaning if this isn't what they propound too.
There is a sort of dynamic that forms here. The descendants of converts have a cultural connection to India, but not a religious connection to Hinduism. They don't really know how to deal with this contradiction and many choose to simply delete their Hindu past and just start a new book. Now things get complicated. They need to assert this identity and maybe this becomes a rallying point for all sorts of divisions. Of course, prompted all along by the evangelists and sucked into a worm-hole by the jihadists. May be they need rescuing maybe they don't.
To me, there is no need to appeal to their Hindu past. If we can produce a narrative and sing it joyously, protect from the loss of our inheritance by drawing a line here and now, ensure that religion is intellectually rigorous in keeping truth on its side, savvy enough to adapt with the times, and effective enough to bring its subscribers the benefits they seek, we would succeed in large measure. Maybe those that deny their history now will come back to the fold, maybe they won't. We would however be doing what it takes to sustain us.
I agree with you that perhaps that discussion on defining a Hindu is probably not for this thread. Perhaps a definition will naturally emerge from our narrative.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Apr 13 2007, 10:59 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 13 2007, 10:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because Hindu themselves are weak and always tried to please others. None can deny, what is yours. You need guts and skill.
In school history books, they talk about every single Muslim butcher with glory, Akbar, Aurangzeb, Gaznavi, Gori, Not a single book discusses Haqikat Rai or other Hindu heroes. Why Hindus don't demand adding Hindus heroes in history books?
[right][snapback]66965[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think most Hindus now have started demanding that history books reflect the actual History and moreover history that would make every Hindu feel proud of his/her past and culture. But the problem is history taught in School is often written and mostly managed by Commie thugs lead by the likes of Romila Thapar. Any attempts to change history that reflects Hindus in positive light is met with stiff resistance by this Indian leftist lobby.
It was started by Nural Hassan, when Indira Govt was supported by commies.
Politcs of History thread
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Apr 13 2007, 05:59 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 13 2007, 05:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->why is there a fierce opposition to a Hindu narrative by various sections?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because Hindu themselves are weak and always tried to please others. None can deny, what is yours. You need guts and skill.
In school history books, they talk about Muslim butcher with glory, Akbar, Aurangzeb, Gaznavi, Gori, Not a single book discusses Haqikat Rai or other heroes. Why Hindus don't demand adding Hindus heroes in history books?
Why Hindus accept narrative written by foreigners and even better is written by some Indian? e.g K.Elst etc. Every Indian site refers to them not to Hindus writers.
Why they are more acceptable even half of the time they are junk or cut n paste?
[right][snapback]66965[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hi Mudy,
good points. a) Yes, we really do need to have our own heroes to suck up to.
And b) we really really must elaborate and never let anyone forget the massive holocaust proagated by Jehangir, Aurangzeb etc.
Are there any memories from people surviving the mughal holocaust in our towns and villages that we can catalog?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a simpler, geopolitical definition of Hindu. It doesn't serve the purpose of this thread fully because of the narrative aspect. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what about people in Srilanka, Bali, Nepal and so on, we need to get away from these geographical definitions, also why insist that someone is Hindu when they don't want to be called Hindu but exclude self declared Hindus just because they are not Indian.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Apr 13 2007, 03:16 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Apr 13 2007, 03:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a simpler, geopolitical definition of Hindu. It doesn't serve the purpose of this thread fully because of the narrative aspect. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what about people in Srilanka, Bali, Nepal and so on, we need to get away from these geographical definitions, also why insist that someone is Hindu when they don't want to be called Hindu but exclude self declared Hindus just because they are not Indian.
[right][snapback]66971[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People in Srilanka, Bali, Nepal are Hindus. And I said people with ancestral relations with India - that includes all Hindus who are not Indians.
The reason for a geopolitical definition is that the 'other side' is going to consider them Hindus. This includes Sikh, Jain, Budhhists. The fact that Sikhs, Jains and Budhhists (with ancestral/current Indian links) do not consider themselves Hindus is for them to ponder. Their narrative is also part of the Hindu narrative - are you going to exclude the great struggles of the Sikh Gurus from the Hindu narrative?
|
