<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b> If the BJP is indifferent to Hindu angst and anger, it will be seen by Hindus
as being no different from the 'secular' political class. But if it actively involves
itself in the redressal process, it will rile liberal Hindu sensitivities. </b>
<i>{I really would like to know who is and what makes up a "liberal hindu"}
</i> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A liberal hindu is the one who has the following symptoms. (I am not including passive hindus of any hue in this). The common thread to all is their aversion to Hindutva, RSS, VHP, etc etc (whatever they think it means)
o A hindu in name only and wants to be left alone to practice her "beliefs" driven activities and afraid/scared of others constraining her activities should she get vocal
o A hindu in name only and does not really want to practice anything - basically an accident (of birth into Hindu family) but shapes/understand the politics in her head fashioned after west's (Total disregard for India's own history, culture etc etc)
o A hindu by practice but really does not have a clue about identity politics, and also "faith" driven agendas all around her and totally unaware of the implications of 4M axis
o A hindu either in name only or by practice also, but really afflicted with "Log Kya Kahenge" disease - log being white man and basically needing affirmations and pat on the backs
o A hindu either in name only or by practice (not out of choice) , who just gets annoyed/irritated at the word Hinduism as she really feels its really backward/regressive and does not want to be associated with anything Hinduism
o A hindu who wants to marry more than one, or ___ (fill in the blank) and finds it extremely inconvenient to justify any of these actions
o A hindu who thinks White man brought civilization to India on Horses thus knows better and in fact British invented Hinduism along with bringing the trains, english and stopping all evil practices <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
o A hindu (of any of the above), who thinks Hindus' suffering, human right abuses should always take back seat compared to others' (for whatever reason).
o .....
The thread, if it has any merit in starting one, is to identify, discuss, and enhance our understanding of our liberal hindus. So gentle readers, who is a liberal hindu?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Paper Presented at a Conference at the university of Chicago âIndia : Implementing Plularism and Democracyâ on November 11 - 13, 2005. Forthcoming in a volume edited by <b>Martha Naussbaum</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's call this Uni of Chicago's definition of Liberal Hindu.
06-02-2009, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2009, 02:39 AM by dhu.)
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Jun 2 2009, 02:18 AM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Jun 2 2009, 02:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Dilemma of a Liberal Hindu</b>
[right][snapback]98184[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It looks like he thinks that Hinduism has survived due to tolerance of the British. Entire martial tradition has been relegated as "communalism".
It is problematic to take a Western concept - liberal - and associate with another non-Indic concept - Hindu.
A Hindu can have both the Western Liberal and Conservative streams of thoughts. Let us not get trapped into the Western framework of defining and identifying everything as being ONLY liberal or ONLY conservative.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 06:11 AM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 06:11 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is problematic to take a Western concept - liberal - and associate with another non-Indic concept - Hindu.
A Hindu can have both the Western Liberal and Conservative streams of thoughts. Let us not get trapped into the Western framework of defining and identifying everything as being ONLY liberal or ONLY conservative.
[right][snapback]98197[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence the thread, Swamy. G.
Who are these liberal hindus in India that every talking head in India keeps pointing at in attributing to Hindutva's failure. It is also possible that "liberal hindus" segment in India is getting (or being engineered to be) more responsive to western (non indic) sensibilities and sensitivities at the cost of our very survival.
Even here in the west, there is a sizable segment of population that is NOT just conservative or liberal - social liberals/economic conservatives, libertarians, etc etc do not fall into those categories.
Indeed the term liberal Hindu is product of mlechCha social engineering. Sometime back one of our members had pointed out the west wants the image of a puerile Hindu who is incapable of defending himself militarily. The shAstra-s are clear that the power of the dharma is by weapons and army. The form of dharma is elaborated in the great epic as one holding a bow, arrow, sword, rod, mace lasso, hook and other weapons. As ordained by medhAtithi the commentator of manu when mlechCha-s and turuShka-s occupy the AryabhUmI all varNa-s have to militarily throughout these invaders and re-establish dharma. The concept of the liberal Hindu is a subversive act to push forth this image of the neuter Hindu as an acceptable one in place of the idols of the dharma such as bhIma and arjuna.
If someone really had to box and label me, it would have to be as Liberal - from a Western sense. But I support several conservative view points in the USA.
It is lovely feeling to come back home - in a spiritual and cultural sense. In the sense after seeing that Capitalism/Socialism; Liberalism/Conservatism ithyadi all having their own flaws it is a rewarding experience to feel how valuable dharmam has always been and will be.
But we know DharmO Rakshati Rakshitah. We have to make Dharmam hip, cool and likeable for the modern youth. Right now being dharmic could portray one being in the 3rd century BC.
I do not know yet how to make dharmam hip; but we have to do it. We have to tip the meme create an epidemic that will value and cherish Dharmam - because dharmam encompasses liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism and ithayadi.
A liberal Hindu belongs to the urban middle class who does not have the hand to mouth existence. He/She has some English education, a bit tech savvy. No fan of Hindu Dharma but big fan of secularism. Has urban elite consciousness and thinks of rural India as an alien world of the deep past that has to be changed to fit the commercial world of use and abandon. A liberal Hindu is a non-Hindu in practice and anti-Hindu in attitude. He seldom visits place of worship and have contempt for Hindu Saadhus. He thinks all religions are same or that Christianity is a bit superior so he would quote from the bible. He does not think that conversion is to be opposed. He would be either a mute spectator to the attacks on Hindu saadhus or would uphold such attacks spewing venom on the saadhus and hold their institutions as archaic. He will say that the law should be applied against the Hindus but would either ignore corruption or participate in it with zest. He buys the view that Hindu is a hotbed of casteism and superstitions. Intercaste and inter-religious marriages are the way to go for him. Existentialism is his philosophy.
He wouldn't think for a moment that Sonia Maino is uneducated and an alien robbing Indians. For him she is a demi-goddess and he drools at her!
And so on and so forth in these lines.
Swamyji you wouldn't fit the description. So stop calling yourself a liberal.
06-03-2009, 07:41 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2009, 11:23 AM by Husky.)
There is Liberal (as in Liberalism, the ideology) and there is liberal, the regular word (as in liberal-minded). Comparable to "Rationalists" and "Humanists" - predefined words, ideologies, which imply inclusion and exclusion in the group based on specifications - versus being just rational and humane (the regular terms).
"What is a liberal Hindu"
New term? Or the same as a secular Indian?
The meaning of 'psecular Indian' in summary (net effect):
- Gangreen.
- Cannibal's accomplice (willing or unwitting - I'm disinterested as to motivation/lack thereof).
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->make dharmam <b>hip</b>
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is unsound. Why do you care about 'hipness'. People should be won over to do the right thing by being convinced it is the right thing, rather than thinking it's some kind of fashion statement (is that what you mean with hip? can't be...) so that they then resort to silly behaviour again when the trend is over. What's the use?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Right now being dharmic could portray one being in the 3rd century BC. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->BC, 'before christ'?
You mean BCE? What are you comparing with? It's relative after all. (For instance, 5th century CE in free Bharatam is FAR better than 5th century christoterrorised Europe.)
As if our present centuries with their christoislamic terrorism are anything to rave about.
Just a contrast: Rome was literate, but by 5th/6th century CE christianism had turned its usurped terrain illiterate by systematically destroying literacy (see from Joseph McCabe). So it was far more barbaric in that later christian time than in the earlier Roman time. (And for an indication of liberty of life and literature, this comedy was written 4th/5th century BCE.)
Even until some centuries ago, Hindu society was far more liberal than it is now. For instance, suicide was not banned and in certain circumstances was easily recognised and understood as being part of an individual's life/choice. Now christoislamic butchery of Hindus is okay (variously called 'secularism', 'minorityism' or 'syncretic civilisation') but a Hindu woman or Jaina or Bauddha monk killing themselves out of their own choice is Absolutely Forbidden. Forbidden by christo law imposed in Dharmic nation - an imposition enabled by the ignorant secular who criminally misuses its 'right' to vote by voting to minimise and deny others' rights. Hindus in Bharatam are living in an increasingly christian theocracy now.
And yes, if all else were equal, then the 3rd century BCE or whenever does sound good when considering there was no christoislamism, hence no such terrorism. There were no lies of the terrorisms either.
There were invaders and villains of sorts and hardships, but those things are still there now in addition to unspeakably and infinitely worse things introduced by the christoclass mindvirus. And there's the bleakness of knowing there are yet worse things to come. The human mind and the human spirit are not allowed to be free now.
Secularism is facilitating the imposition of this tyrannical prison that tramples all humanity. I have not seen a nation shake off the christoislamic prison once it gets a proper grip.
I'd give anything to be free. For humanity to be <i>liberated</i> from the christoislamic terrorist meme. Instead of the Orwellian use of liberal, this is a word belonging to all Natural Traditionalists - when considered in this sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jun 2 2009, 08:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->because dharmam encompasses liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism and ithayadi.
[right][snapback]98220[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What.
One of the first of adharmas is to mislead people into thinking that 'anything' (including adharma) is Dharma.
Dharma has a very specific meaning in the Dharmic traditions. In Bauddha Dharma, for instance, Dhamma is the way exemplified by the Buddha, the right paths and actions. In Hindu tradition it is also a particular, well-defined code of conduct and sets requirements on people, different expectations on how different communities are supposed to behave (e.g. Kshatriyas) and when they fail in their duty, they Fail society and humanity. For Dharmics, it's the way to live. And its most fundamental principles hold for all times - not to be changed on a whim or because it suits the time.
It is NOT, NEVER communism, capitalism, or secularism and 'whatever'.
Yet it is also not relentless nor is it forceful. People choose to adhere because they agree it is right. Or, they choose not to follow it. Of course there are always consequences, as there are to all natural laws: a Dharmic society will shun any when they unforgivably misbehave, when they behave adharmically. And that is the right of Dharmic society - to protect itself from a detrimental presence - just as it is the prerogative of the individual to choose to live in accordance or in discord with Dharma.
You can look into any Dharmic (or similar - say Shinto, Taoist, Confucian) Asian society - before the poison of christowesternisation was injected - and see how it regulated, maintained and preserved itself. Look at traditional Native American society. American liberalism is obtained by purchasing amnesia of what the christian west did to the Native Americans. Yes, it is most <i>generously</i> liberal: Supposed open-mindedness after a mass genocide. What could be more exemplary.
(And before Swamy G feels slighted again: no I did not mean you are that. For that you'd need to suffer from the same convenient, feigned amnesia as America does.)
06-03-2009, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2009, 08:12 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
This term makes no sense at all in the Indian context because the terms as used in the West mean different things & can't just be stuck on some Indian group arbitrarily.
Even in the West "liberal" means different things, the term originally denoted libertarians/classical liberals (Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard) before it was hijacked by commies/socialists like Bill Maher (though the idiot calls himself libertarian, he is nothing of the sort) who started calling themselves liberal.
This is just another meaningless term that has been propagated by the Indian media with no proper idea of what it's supposed to mean in the Indian context.
06-03-2009, 08:24 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2009, 08:37 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jun 3 2009, 08:10 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jun 3 2009, 08:10 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even in the West "liberal" means different things, the term originally denoted libertarians/classical liberals (Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard) before it was hijacked by commies/socialists like Bill Maher (though the idiot calls himself libertarian, he is nothing of the sort) who started calling themselves liberal.
[right][snapback]98266[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But then that's just the usual communist tactic: to steal strategic words in order to use it for themselves. Like their talking about "The People" while massacring the said people. Or like the communist party in Nepal calling itself 'democratic' since they know it will win instant sympathy from the west (and from any Nepalese who's heard of the benefits of 'democracy'), especially as an offset against what's called the "Hindu monarchy" of Nepal (which sets off sirens of 'Totalitarianism!' in the minds of the post-consciously-christian west).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This term makes no sense at all in the Indian context<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What christowestern term <i>does</i> make sense in the Indian context? (In a funny way, when taken literally, even the term atheist doesn't mean the same from the Hindu position: theism is belief in theos, the Greek word for christian gawd - this is IIRC; but check with those who know. In the literal sense, that makes Hindus uniformly atheist then.)
Psecular Indians are copycattists. They like to belong to the west in some way since they are made to imagine it is progressive and their own world is regressive - they're alienated from their own society by fictions about themselves and about the west. As they can only belong to the west ideologically, one hears self-titled albums like "I'm a Freethinking Rationalistic, Humanistic, Secular, Liberal/Conservative, Progressive, Loose and Forward (wo)man."
The only instance from recent memory which had across-the-board Right unity was the conundrum over NCERT textbooks ââ¬â the so-called ââ¬Ësaffronisationââ¬â¢ debate of the early 2000s. It was sparked off by an innocuous government decision to play a tape of the Saraswati Vandana at an education ministersââ¬â¢ conference held in October 1998, something quite usual with state functions. When the so-called ââ¬Ësecularââ¬â¢ political formation created a ruckus, their move backfired ââ¬â because people not ordinarily connected with the RSS-BJP asserted the right of Indians to show public respect to a national tradition. Over the next two years, the Left-intellectual establishment took its worst hammering since its foolish 1962 position. Not only did the Vajpayee government succeed in ejecting the foul ââ¬Ëhistoryââ¬â¢ books planted by Leninists, it also succeeded in introducing its own, accurate pedagogy.
The unique juxtaposition today of economic and national security miseries offers the Indian Right another opportunity to rally. The Right should shed a lot of its baggage, and be prepared to take on a new one ââ¬â the cause of the Indian poor.
We have to stop using the Western terms of Left and Right, Liberals and Conservatives itiyadi. If we peek into ourselves we will see shades of all these. No point in getting caught up into that.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
