It is precisely because there is so much of tremendous value in "Hindu Science" that there should be much less tolerance for the claptrap.
What I mean is that there are way too many ppl, far too lazy to do any disciplined searching and thinking, spouting nonsense, and then claiming that if the Ashoka Pillar and the Vedic civilization existed, then what they are claiming is also true.
The result of this sort of undisciplined, lazy "science" being spouted, is that fellows like St. Farmer and Herr Witzel are able to pass themselves off as people who are doing "objective scientific research" when they spout THEIR propaganda.
One stupid statement repeated unthinkingly in the wrong place, costs us 10,000 hours of fighting on the internet. Experience from the recent California jollies.
*************************
For the rest, let me p1ss off anyone whom I have not in the past couple of months, and ask shiv why what he is posting is new - I mean at IF.
While BRF was pretty "out there" many years ago (just realized that 1999 was seven years ago!) I would submit that a series of dismal <i>[/B]"this is so bcoz we mighty ADMINS decided so"[B]</i> declarations and utterly irrational thread-locks and thread-deletions has destroyed most of the enterprising and enthusiastic initiatives there since about 2001. In the process, that great civilization has essentially been destroyed, without bringing back anyone who was supposedly driven off by the less-than-pure discussions there.
I remember one time when one Admin (who shall remain unnamed because most here would know exactly who I am talking about) sent me an email declaring that I should "explain myself" since the sense that I was posting did not sync with his superstitions. One of the more entertaining "explaining" I have ever done.
Many things are discussed far better on IF, and I have my own views on the "Oooo! Go discuss that at some lesser forum like IF!" hoity-toitiness of some of the BRF folks.
To a extent I can see what Narayanan says about true Indian science versus claptrap.
There are many Hindu rituals and practices that go unrecognised and unsung, but have a very sound scientific basis. I have often wondered how the conclusions were arrived at without using the "scientific method" that one gets used to in modern science.
In the early 80s I was surprised to find toilet tissue in UK hospital toilets that had the printed words "Now wash your hands please". This seemed a joke because washing one's hands after crapping is the first thing you are taught in a Hindu household.
Of course there are medical papers that now say that unwashed hands transmit bacteria from YOUR crap to whatever you touch and are transmitted to the hands of others who touch those objects (such as door handles). That is why you are taught to touch your ass with your left hand and to handle clean stuff with your sight hand and by doing that you minimize chances of spread of bateria. The "left hand vs right hand" concept is used in hospitals as well as part of aseptic technique.
As a boy in a brahmin household I and my cousins used to irritate our grandmother who would have a bath and get herself into a state called "Mady" in Kannada. That was a state of cleanliness that was essential both for prayer and for just plain coking in the kitchen. What is never ever made widely known as part of a Hindu narrative is that this technique is almost exactly similar to the sterile/aseptic no-touch techniques used by surgeons in operating theaters.
The concept of "jhoota" i.e not touching your lips or tougue to a spoon or ladle and then dippping it back into a vat that contains food for general use is again a fundamental point is aseptic technique to avoid bacterial contamination.
The idea of removing your shoes and washing your hands and feet before you enter a home or temple has an exact parallel in intensive care units all over the world. You shed you shoes for different footwear, and spray your hands with an antiseptic.
In fact the concept of cleanliness has been carried further in indian households, but is being ignored or forgoten. Toilets in India have always been separate from teh place where you have a bath so that the chances of carrying bacteria from your toilet to a clean area are minimzed. But combined toilets/baths are teh norm in newere houses in India. Will someone please tell architects why they were separate?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If a child, going to a convent school in India, comes back to it's parents and asks the parent - Why am I a Hindu? What is a Hindu? - can the parent actually give a simple definition that a child can understand.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here is where some thinking needs to be added to the "traditional narrative" to avoid parroting nonsense that destroys what some of us work so hard to build up.
I was recently at an event infested with medical doctors. I was terrified that if I ate a samosa my doc would hit me over the head with a punch ladle.
Several doctors were introduced to me with the same certificate:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> This is Dr. XXXX. He is a (cardiologist/gynecologist/...whateverologist) and a millionaire. XXXXXX is also a good Hindu<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One such worthy millionaire MD expounded on exactly the question above.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The school teacher told my son how great Christianity was.... He came home and asked me why I was a Hindu. I told him: Son, be proud that you are a Hindu. Every Tom D1ck and Harry can become a Christian or a Muslim, but you have to be BORN a Hindu. They cannot become Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see! So the Hare Krishna devotees cannot be accepted as Hindus.
Other worthies (coming with their expertise through the Indian expertise) have declared that anyone born beyond the holy shores of India cannot be a Hindu - in fact several temples have been refusing admittance to "foreigners" (translation: someone born outside India) on the ground that they cannot be Hindus.
In my view, any "narrative" worth narrating, should very very clearly specify what is wrong with such superstitions. A way of belief that is valid for the "14 universes" and "all living and inanimate beings" cannot very well be limited to those who imagine themselves to be special by virtue of biological or geographical or political accident.
Let me start by saying a 'namaste' to all my brothers and sisters on this forum.
It is also a humbling experience to share the platform with such stalwarts like sengotuvel('Shiv') on this forum. Shiv, I didn't get a chance to say this earlier but your post 'Hindu Tolerance' was one of the best I have ever read that summed up the angst of millions of Hindus like me. I can safely say that you made millions of nationalistic Indians proud by starting 'Religion thread' on some other forum and we all are proud of you.
I look forward to contributing to various topics on India-forum and also want to thank the forum admins of this thread by allowing me to become a member of this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin-eswarpr+Apr 13 2007, 06:15 PM-->QUOTE(eswarpr @ Apr 13 2007, 06:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that is the excerise that a Hindu, or a group of Hindus should take part in first - as in defining a Hindu narrative.
< snip >
I am a lurker in BRF and have been following the whole saga of the said thread, and I thought I would do a simple excercise in my mind. Putting aside the question as to whether a single Hindu narrative is required or not, since that needs to be discussed first and a concensus gotten, if there is required a single Hindu narrative, how would we define a Hindu - I mean can we actually find the "bindhu" from which all the various threads of Hindu thought came into existence, and define it in a simple sentence.
understand.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No No
It is easier than that and there is no need to waste any time.
Anything deemed Hindu is part of the narrative. Start with what is close to you.
Please look at "Hindu narrative" from the lens of the plane crash site analogy I have used above and in fact I will give you another analogy.
I stated that at a plane crash site every scar, fragment and shred is noted, coded, described and documented. The "whole picture" is bult up later. The otehtr analogy is an ancient archeological site that is suddenly found. You don;t define what you want to find first. You just look at everything and pinpoint its position and shape and size and colur and later build up the picture.
Hindus have a natural feel for what is Hindu but we come into conflict with authors (Marxists, non Hindus) whopick up the fragments that suit them to write OUR history and OUR narrative. That is wrong.
We pick up everything and document it as part of our narrative and we know in our hearts that there is more good in there than the dirt that is thrown at Hindus.
Welcome Alok Sahib. Your last post addressed to Dhimmis on some other site was the best post I have read from the morning. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now also having people like S. Valkan here would be the icing on the cake.
ok, I will invite Valkan, but he has just gotten comfortable on BRF, so he'd probably wish to stay there ...
as for my take on Dhimmis, I can't read what followed because my IP has been blocked ... it is no big loss ... this forum seems to have an appropriate emoticon for the BRF "bubble" ...
<!--QuoteBegin-narayanan+Apr 13 2007, 06:32 PM-->QUOTE(narayanan @ Apr 13 2007, 06:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I see! So the Hare Krishna devotees cannot be accepted as Hindus.
Other worthies (coming with their expertise through the Indian expertise) have declared that anyone born beyond the holy shores of India cannot be a Hindu - in fact several temples have been refusing admittance to "foreigners" (translation: someone born outside India) on the ground that they cannot be Hindus.
In my view, any "narrative" worth narrating, should very very clearly specify what is wrong with such superstitions. A way of belief that is valid for the "14 universes" and "all living and inanimate beings" cannot very well be limited to those who imagine themselves to be special by virtue of biological or geographical or political accident.
[right][snapback]66907[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
N,
It is a disturbing trend surely. That seemingly educated and intelligent go into some defensive gear for a simple question like "Who is a Hindu?" is saddening - or maybe that is what social engineering does to a whole generation. Reversing is obviously going to take some time.
Eventhough, I understand what shiv is trying point out - as in let us not try to make a new one, instead encompass what each Hindu narrative holds and make that THE narrative - I am not sure how we can combine a seemingly impossible amount of these narratives (700 million of them, since each Hindu holds a personal copy of the Hindu framework, customized to his requirements, in his mind). Hence, my thought that, we need to find a single strand - a point of reference - which says in a simple sentence what a Hindu is.
Let's focus on the topic of thread and try to understand (or help someone else understand) what the whole discussion is about.
This is definitely NOT the thread (or the forum for that matter) to discuss members of other forums or the policies of other forums or what happened elsewhere. For one, it's unfair to current forum members of IF who haven't been in loop on most happenings around the cyberworld. And it's unfair to members at other places who aren't here to defend their statements or clarify their stand. Let's respect it and move on.
<i><b>Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. </b></i>
<i>-Eleanor Roosevelt </i>
<!--QuoteBegin-eswarpr+Apr 13 2007, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(eswarpr @ Apr 13 2007, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hence, my thought that, we need to find a single strand - a point of reference - which says in a simple sentence what a Hindu is.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had posted this earlier on BRF
If Islam=Peace
and Christianity=love
Hinduism= ??
It was suggested that Hinduism = Freedom of choice
The definition of Hindu can be taken forward on that.
A Hindu is a person who undertands that he is part of creation and all of creation is one with him. He understands that God is everywhere and in every form. 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.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Apr 12 2007, 05:26 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Apr 12 2007, 05:26 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding the subversion of a traditional society by the crusaders of peace and love:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"They were both driven as much by grudges and grievances as by true belief, and intimate family politics mattered as much as the wars and conspiracies in which they were engaged."link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]66893[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
January/February/March, 2006
BOOK REVIEWS
What if Rome's Pagan Religion Had Prevailed?
An persuasive book explores the repercussions of Christianity's ascendency in ancient times
By Tara Katir, Kapaa, Hawaii
God against the gods: the history of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism is the latest from the pen of Jonathan Kirsch, author, journalist and attorney. In this book, Kirsch details the earliest historical conflicts of monotheism and polytheism as they occurred in ancient Europe, North Africa and the Middle East up to the death of Emperor Julian on June 26, 362 ce. His contention is that from its first historical appearance in ancient Egypt, monotheism has been an intolerant belief system. Monotheism's intolerance created conflicts then, and it continues to create conflicts that plague us today. Westerners who take pride in their monotheistic belief's bringing "civilization " to those of polytheistic customs may find Kirsch's analysis sobering and disconcerting.
Over thousands of years, recounts Kirsch, human cultures have worshiped a host of diverse Gods and Goddesses. This polytheistic worship of the Divine, while not totally benign, historically did not create conflict between neighboring peoples. As Symmachus, a pagan governor of the fourth century ce declared, "What does it matter by which wisdom each of us arrives at truth?" (See his entire speech in defense of paganism at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-46.htm.) With this flexible posture toward worship of the Divine, little conflict would arise between worshipers of different Gods and Goddesses. Kirsch asserts, "The core value of paganism was religious tolerance--a man or woman was at liberty to offer worship to whatever God or Goddess seemed most likely to grant a prayerful request, with or without the assistance of priests and priestesses." However, in a small geographical area of the Western world an event occurred which presaged a change in humans' personal relationship to the Divine. This development would set in motion what was to become a devastating polarization of enormous proportions--all in the name of divine worship.
In the fourteenth century bce, a young Egyptian pharaoh, Amenhotep IV, through the power of his absolute rule, commanded the Egyptians to worship but one God. This revolutionary move to restrict worship of the Divine to one God would set the stage for what was to become a 3,000 year bloody and acrimonious conflict over how human beings worshiped. "Like Moses [who lived a century later], who is shown in the Christian Bible to condemn the worship of a golden bull and other graven images, Amenhotep rejected all the traditional icons of paganism and chose a simple geometric shape to symbolize the God Aton." Amenhotep repudiated all the Gods and Goddesses in favor of a single God. No idols were fashioned in Aton's image because his was a form that could not be imagined; rather Aton was symbolized by a circle of gold. Amenhotep closed all temples to other deities and had their ritual worship suppressed. Statues were shattered and their names and images literally chiseled off existing monuments. While his radical religious practices were short-lived, the ultraist paradigm shift he initiated would be practiced in the extreme by a legion of believers in this new monotheistic worship.
Monotheism, in its exclusive devotion to the worship of one God, has inspired a ferocity and fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism, says Kirsch. He explains, "At the heart of polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there are many Gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single God exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true God. The conflict between these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the Gods. It is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over the last thirty centuries, and is a war that is still being fought today."
In our world today, Islamic tradition is easily targeted as the origin of religious terrorism or religious fanaticism. Kirsch points out, that, to the contrary, "It begins in the pages of the Bible, and the very first examples of holy war and martyrdom are found in Jewish and Christian history. The opening skirmishes in the war of God against the Gods took place in distant biblical antiquity, when Yahweh is shown to decree a holy war against anyone who refuses to acknowledge Him as the one and only God worthy of worship." Biblical myth turned to recorded history with the Maccabeean warfare waged against the pagan Syrian king and later, when the Zealots fought against the pagan emperor of Rome.
Kirsch gives readers the derivation of the word pagan, which helps us understand how truly acrimonious this warfare was in the past and remains today. Derived from the Latin paganus, pagan originally meant someone who was a country bumpkin, or a village dweller. The Roman military used pagan to denote a civilian as distinguished from a soldier ready to fight. Kirsch explains, "The Christian rigorists regarded themselves as soldiers, ready to march forth as crusaders in a holy war, and they characterized anyone who refused to take up arms in the service of the Only True God as a civilian, a slacker, a paganus."
Kirsch also provides readers with the historical usage definition of the word atheist. "Ironically, the word atheist was first used by pagans to describe Christians because they denied the very existence of the Gods and Goddesses whom the pagans so revered. What to Christians was as an act of conscience, the pagan saw as an act of disloyalty and disrespect. All that was required of them was some simple demonstration of their civic virtue."
This rigorism--extreme strictness in enforcing religious belief and practice--was not always expressed through self-discipline or self-affliction. Kirsch explains that rigorism is possible only when men or women become so convinced of their version of truth that it becomes a matter of life or death. "Turning inward, rigorism may inspire a true believer to punish himself by holding back a bowel movement or feeding himself on raw vegetables [examples from hermits of early Christianity]. Turned outward, however, rigorism may inspire the same man or woman to punish others who fail to embrace the religious beliefs that he or she finds so compelling. Rigorism in one's beliefs and practices can readily turn into the kind of zealotry that expresses itself in unambiguous acts of terrorism. The very first use of the word zeal in the Bible is used to describe God's approval of an act of murder, one Israelite murdering another Israelite and his Midianite lover."
In the modern world, rigorism or religious terrorism, inexplicably has been carried out by monotheists against other monotheists--all followers of the Abrahamic religious traditions, Muslims, Jews and Christians. "The worst excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition were inflicted by Christians on Jews and Muslims, all of whom claimed to believe in the same God. But the first casualties in the war of God against the Gods were found among those tolerant polytheists whom we are taught to call pagans." Rigorists today are found a plenty--Christian fundamentalists who murder physicians who perform abortions, Islamic suicide bombers who murder innocent people in public places, Afghani Taliban extremists who blasted apart the 1,600-year-old Bamiyan Buddhist statues, Catholic and Protestant extremists in Northern Ireland bombing one another--to name only a few.
Kirsch focuses on the reign of Emperor Julian, the last polytheistic emperor of Rome. Historically called "The Apostate " because of his conversion from Christianity to Paganism, Julian issued a tolerance edict in 362 decreeing the reopening of pagan temples and the restitution of temple properties. This was in stark contrast to his predecessor, Constantine I, who legalized Christianity and suppressed paganism. In the end, monotheism's final triumph at the death of Emperor Julian in battle with a Christian army was not so much a spiritual defeat of polytheism, but rather the political success of monotheism. Kirsch states, "They were both driven as much by grudges and grievances as by true belief, and intimate family politics mattered as much as the wars and conspiracies in which they were engaged." Julian's life was ended by a spear thrust two years into the pagan counterrevolution of his reign. Kirsch and other historians have speculated what our world would be like today if Julian had lived and succeeded in "bringing the spirit of respect and tolerance back into Roman government and thus back into the roots of Western civilization, and even more tantalizing to consider how different our benighted world might have been if he had succeeded."
Once in control, Christianity spread across Europe with a vengeance. Kirsch writes of Christian monks who, in the third century ce, "Urged on by the most militant of the bishops, took it upon themselves to search for and destroy any expression of paganism that they could find. They delighted in pulling down altars, smashing statuary and ruining shrines and temples. They set upon any unfortunate man or woman whom they suspected of engaging in pagan rituals of worship."
At the end of Kirsch's book, I was compelled to conclude that little had been accomplished during this 3,000-year conflict of monotheism versus polytheism, which often segued into political gain. And nothing had been gained by the creative and grim techniques of torture, warfare and missionary zeal--usually masquerading as educational opportunity and social aid--to effect change in those whose worship of the Divine was somehow unacceptable. The monotheistic origins of this proclivity Kirsch outlines; yet what readers may ponder is the appalling ferociousness of the killing--all in the name of God. Ending with a chronology of events, a list of major historical figures, bibliographic notes for each chapter and an extensive biography, the book invites readers to research for themselves monotheism's virulent struggle for supremacy over polytheism.
Jonathan Kirsch, God against the Gods--the History of the War between Monotheism and Polytheism, Penguin Putnam Group Publisher, 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014; US$25.95; 336 pages.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindu Elites â UK educated
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Apr 13 2007, 05:56 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 13 2007, 05:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindu Elites â UK educated
[right][snapback]66927[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mudy, some UK educated, yes but there are also Hindus like me who have practically done all their higher education in UK and yet not only are fiercely proud to be a Hindu but would be in the forefront in any discussion/action regarding Hindu narrative.
04-13-2007, 10:39 PM (This post was last modified: 04-13-2007, 10:41 PM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->- Non-commie Hindus who believe they are secular but probably do not understand the implications of 'secularism'<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then there is a sub-class within this category, not quite UK-educated elites, but thoroughly sold to anti-Hindu agenda or psec agenda. Example - VP Singh, Arjun Singh, CB Naidu etc. I dont agree that they dont know the implications of secularism. They just have a different view point about it, or personal agendas, ambitions, motivations.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Apr 13 2007, 08:56 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Apr 13 2007, 08:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is that an exhaustive list or did I miss any big section?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindu Elites â UK educated
[right][snapback]66927[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was planning to add Hindu elites as a subsection of non-commie 'seculars'. Let me try to list all the subsections of this section. In terms of impact and real damage to the Hindu narrative, this is the most important section. But it is also the section that holds out the greatest promise and hence it is the section that is being assiduously courted by the rest of the sections. Many of the rest of the sections are pretty much out of bounds and can be considered implacable enemies of the Hindu narrative.
The non-commie purportedly secular Hindus consist of the following subsections:
- As Mudy pointed out, Hindu elites: Educated abroad or in domestic institutions that wish they were abroad such as Stephens, Xavier, Doon school and similar establishments in various cities.
- Convent-educated middle class folk
- large number of Hindus who detest BJP/SS/VHP for reasons that are varied
In addition to these subsections who actively oppose a Hindu narrative, there is a much larger section of Hindus who have simply not given any thought to the concept of Hindu narrative. They are certainly not actively opposed to it but they haven't considered it an imperative. They are not commies. They may or may not vote BJP or its allied parties and are somewhat wedded to the inertia of being labeled a secular. They do not foresee a major threat to the Hindu Dharma due to an absence of a narrative and hence reluctant to trip the applecart - especially if they see the anguish it causes to their Christian/Muslim friends.
Why do these subsections oppose the narrative and why do the latter section not feel the imperative need for the narrative.
Standard disclaimers apply. Not every member of the subsections mentioned above actually opposes the narrative - we have Alok to prove it <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu Elites - UK Educated<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me clarify, those who were rich before partition and were able to send kids to UK, <b>good number came back hating anything Hindu</b>. At home they practice Hindu ritual when its suits them.
e.g. Sons and Princes of Princely estates of India, whether it is Arminder Singh or Natwar Singh or V.P. Singh or Arjun Singh. For religious purpose, they are very specific about Priest who perform puja, his family and Gotras, which they call royal tradition, but in public they stand against caste system and encourage hatred toward Hindu rituals etc. Natwar Singh son eloped Muslim and he kicked them out of his home and mysteriously his daughter-in-law died, his son was back in fold. They marry within own caste and class but in public they display different posture. Arjun Singh, V.P. Singh is another example.
Naipaul in his book 'Area of Darkness' calls them the -Welloff Modern Indian (WMI). He has a character called Bunty who has the facade of Modernism but has the Hindu core that gives him his superiority complex when dealing with the West.
Mudy has given examples of that.
The DIE is sub-sect of the WMI. They are the drivers of the 'secular' process.
BTW Mudy all who went to UK before Partition were not like that. Some of them got exposed to the Modern world and were confident in their narrative and adopted only that was not availaible and retained their Hinduism. These were a minsucle portion.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> 
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->