The Untruth of an Indian Majority

Re: # 79

Masanamuthu,

Thanks for your post. Let me tell you that I appreciate the civilised manner in which you convey your opinions, albeit much different from my own. Perhaps a lot of other interactors have much they can learn from you.

Let me ask you this..

Granted that they all share the same ``holy stories`` and ``holy pilgrimage spots`` Just because Hindus all consider Haridwar or Tirupati holy... does that bind them closer together over and above their ethnic differences?

Also.. I`d really appreciate your respected views on #78

Best.

Ref. My example on a Tamil Hindu and a Tamil Muslim sharing more in common than a Tamil Hindu and a Punjabi Hindu... for example.

Because you have repeated this twice, I have to show you other scenarios. It is true that people living in the same region and speaking the same language have more in common than with people of a different region though following the same religion. But that`s where the commonalities end. That`s when ``gods/ stories and holy places`` kick in. While for a Hindu irrespective of the region, the holy places for pilgrimage lie in Kashi / Haridwar / Rameswaram, for a Muslim it is Arabia. Religions are basically what bunch of stories you believe in..

Inspite of speaking the same language and living in the same region, Tamil Muslims in Srilanka think they are different than the Tamil Hindus/Christians who fight against the Sinhala govt.. They get ``arabised`` and claim they are different. You have to learn more about this ``arab`` cult..

Just wanted to solicit your opinions on the following:

What do people think about a potential two/three/four-party Presidential form of government in India? Do you think it can rid us of communal strife by eliminating the dependence of political parties on ``religionism`` and regionalism? Thus, can a veritable separation of ``politics and church`` be achieved?

Viewpoint of Pukis, Muslims, Congress and communists (Rakesh Mani & company) =
Hindus are supposed to beg for peace all the time.
Hindus should run away from demanding their rights.
Hindus should act like older brother and `give` all the time....

Try telling them, that we want to live in peace (Holy fcuk- that is the reason we became
secular !), but no arguement works. They are convined that Hindus must remain
subservient - if they exist at all !

For us - there is only 1 way left. If we go down; make sure every paedophile follower
goes down with us. 0 left. I hope the Americans and Israelis can finish off the rest. ( They
are not doing a bad job, by the way :).

This article is nothing more than authors wishful thinking. He would like India/Hindu to be of certain way i.e. divided on its regional (not ETHNIC (please dont try to emulate american model)) and communal character. Its not because of any hatred but he feels he discovered ``Ethnic differences among Hindus`` which were completely unknown to others.
No politician or journalist has used the term ``Ethnicity`` for their views and suddenly we find this author talking about ethnicity. People do tend to identify themselves as Gujarati, Tamils, Maharastrians or Assamese but this is because of a bigger assumption that mostly everyone would be Hindus.

Re: # 74

It`s a shame we`re burdened with pathetic communalist bigots like yourself. Maybe you should try to read and respond to articles and comments with an open mind and not an open pie-hole instead.

But I guess... you`re entitled to your opinion... I shall not stoop to your level sir.

#73 rakeshmani
[quote]
Errrr... you mean movements like the one in Gujarat? Or like in Bombay?
[quote]

No, I mean stuff like astha TV channel, swami ramdev, RK Mission, BAPS, and on and on. Only a person who completely cut off from reality thinks that gujarati violence is the only
manifestation of hindu identity in the last 50 years.

But, heh, you dont need to understand any reality to pontificate on ``hindus`` do you?


[quote]
But as I`ve said, oneness of ethnicity is weightier than oneness of religion.
[quote]

Who gives a sh*t what you have said?? On what basis are you making these judgements?

I have asked you for some analysis of `hindus`` during the last 50 years and you have come up with zero.

Anyway, good luck with your comments. You havent been able to answer a single question so far to back them up. They are based on your personal opinions vs. any study of india or hindus. So they have as much value as anyone elses personal thoughts (almost zero).

“Arguably, people in India identify more with ethnicity than religion – although the deluded fundamentalist elements will have you believe otherwise. You might often notice Indians banding together based more on their geographic affinities than anything else.``

The bankruptcy of the political process and thought in India shows up when a valid commentary by the author is being hijacked to promote communalism.

There is nothing arguable about it. It is a fact not only in India but in Pakistan too that people identify more with ethnicity than religion. The suppression of one ethnicity in Pakistan led to changes in the geography and to counter the political and secular demands of the other ethnicities such as the Sindhi, Baloch and the Pathan, the religious fundamentalism was unleashed in Pakistan.

The army countered the political demands such as the recognition of languages, provincial autonomy and representative governments thru fair elections and non interferences of the army in the civilian affairs, by creating an alliance with the religious fundamentalist in Pakistan. Since then the liberal and secular forces in Pakistan had to fight with the religious fundamentalism instead of fighting for the political rights. The army strategy worked but it had its drawbacks and generally Pakistan is paying a heavy price for not promoting the political dialog and working with different ethnicities in Pakistan.

Basically, religious fundamentalism in Pakistan was used to suppress legitimate political and democratic demands. The religious fundamentalism in India too is unleashed for the similar reasons. The religious fundamentalists in India are actually attempting to emulate the Pakistani fundamentalist model without fully grasping its shortcomings.

The debate really is: what defines Indian Nationalism? Is it the secular model which would eventually have to allow all minorities equal rights in jobs, education and social life or the Religious model that ensures that a certain group enjoys all the benefits.

Just pay attention to people who oppose the quota system and equal representation to OBC and the religious minorities…They invariably support the Hindutva ideology.

Making religion as the force to define a nation would eventually create a Pakistan like situation in India too where religion would be used to suppress legitimate political rights.

If the last twenty five years in Pakistan are any guide, it is obvious that the use of religion as defining a nation would lead to one disaster after another. Pakistan slowly is moving away after learning some bitter lessons but India is ready follow a fractured path…

Good luck…

Re: # 70

``Is there a single place in your article that references the impact of modern hindu movements, especially in terms of educated hindus???``

Errrr... you mean movements like the one in Gujarat? Or like in Bombay?

``The TV show ``Ramayana`` was one such mega-event. Does this not have a profound impact on hindu ``identity``? Arent all the TV channels with hindu gurus, ubiquituous presence of various institutions (RK mission, BAPS) have a LARGE impact on urban hindus?``

Perhaps. But as I`ve said, oneness of ethnicity is weightier than oneness of religion.
Ref. My example on a Tamil Hindu and a Tamil Muslim sharing more in common than a Tamil Hindu and a Punjabi Hindu... for example.

``This may have been true 1000 years ago; it may be still true in small remote villages. It is NOT true with educated hindus, opinionmakers, politically savvy people.``

Like yourself?

``But these distinctions are way beyond you, right?``

Of course. You`re the only one here who knows what he`s talking.

Re: # 69

Stuka,

``Could you explain to this ``deluded fundamentalist`` the raison d`etre for the massacres in the Punjab when people of the same ethnic stock fell upon each other with a savagery rarely seen in South Aisa or elsewhere.``

Illiteracy and educated narrow-mindedness... in my opinion, are the most dangerous threats to communal harmony in India among other things.

``The point you make, that people identify with ethnicity, is valid. That does not add or take away from the fact that people also identify with each other based on religion simply because individuals have multiple layers of identity``

Absolutely! Ethnicity, religion, language, economic situation... and I`m sure countless other levels of identity as well.

``You are being a typical Hindu imperialist of the Gandhi variety when you take an assumption that may, at a stretch, be true for Hindus (strong identification with caste and ethnicity over a homogenous Hindu identity) and apply it to all religions. If your thesis is true, would you care to explain the existence of ``All India`` Christian and Muslim organizations, as well as Hindu ones. now as well as those that existed before partition?``

I`m not denying that Indians identify with each other on some level based on religion. Indeed, we both seem to agree that Indians have multiple levels of identity. However, it is my belief that more often that not, the identification with ethnicity is stronger than the identification with religion.

Hence, my example of a Tamil Hindu and a Tamil Muslim sharing more in common than a Tamil Hindu and a Punjabi Hindu.

Few points that I agree with Rakesh is that India is a diverse country and that one can be religious and secular (per interact #65). Everything else is Hogwash.
Can Rakesh provide a link to a news article where BJP wanted India to be legally called Hindu country i.e. make an amendment to constitution like Indira did to add Secular to it.
Also, point me to speech by Modi where he is deriding Indian Muslims. Please dont tell me about ``Mushraaf Miya`` as miya is a term for muslims used by gujarati.
I would also like to know how the gujarat riots were different from riots that happened in India under congress rule. I dont thing there were ever an episode like godhra happening before.
Whatever the difference be in the rituals and practice between Hindu in Kerala or Mizoram (where somehow very few hindus are left) or Gujarat, they still believe in ``Truth is One but People call it by different Names``.

#65

Birdbrain Mani writes:

[quote]
Aha... pray sir, why don`t you englighten us? Surely, you`re the only one who`s heard of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda & Gandhi.
[quote]

YOU WROTE THE ARTICLE !!! Do you understand anything at all??? If you write an article that claims to make all kinds of judgements about the ``hindus``, it is YOUR responsibility to understand the history of the hindus. Your article shows NO such knowledge.

Is there a single place in your article that references the impact of modern hindu movements, especially in terms of educated hindus??? The TV show ``Ramayana`` was
one such mega-event. Does this not have a profound impact on hindu ``identity``? Arent all the TV channels with hindu gurus, ubiquituous presence of various institutions (RK mission, BAPS) have a LARGE impact on urban hindus?


Why should you understand any of this; you are happy with silly opinions masquerading as fact:

[quote]
Perhaps you haven`t had the chance to go across India and the World meeting Indians of all different ethnicities... take my word for it, the religious practices of a Hindu in say, Kerala and in Mizoram are pretty darned different and they share only the most rudimentary similarities. Tradition is shaped more through the custom imbibed through their geographic location.
[quote]

This may have been true 1000 years ago; it may be still true in small remote villages. It is NOT true with educated hindus, opinionmakers, politically savvy people.

But these distinctions are way beyond you, right?

``Arguably, people in India identify more with ethnicity than religion – although the deluded fundamentalist elements will have you believe otherwise``

Mr. Mani

Could you explain to this ``deluded fundamentalist`` the raison d`etre for the massacres in the Punjab when people of the same ethnic stock fell upon each other with a savagery rarely seen in South Aisa or elsewhere. The point you make, that people identify with ethnicity, is valid. That does not add or take away from the fact that people also identify with each other based on religion simply because individuals have multiple layers of identity. You are being a typical Hindu imperialist of the Gandhi variety when you take an assumption that may, at a stretch, be true for Hindus (strong identification with caste and ethnicity over a homogenous Hindu identity) and apply it to all religions. If your thesis is true, would you care to explain the existence of ``All India`` Christian and Muslim organizations, as well as Hindu ones. now as well as those that existed before partition?

Re: # 64

``hindus dont belong to a semitic civilization, so they have no right to a group identity. What kind if sick logic is this?``

Open your button eyes and read what I`ve said.. They have every right to a group identity, but it`s just that this isn`t naturally strong. Historically (and believe me.. I`ve read enough history) the Semitic faiths have had a stronger sense of collective identity than Hindus.

``Not surprisingly it also includes phrases like: ``illiterate Hindutva activist in fascist-controlled gujarat``. I guess this twit thinks his job is to issue certificates to different goverments. Actually gujarati literacy is quite high and much better than the socialist heaven of bengal. Most hindutva-inclined people I have met are actually quite educated.``

Well then.. that`s a pity isn`t it. For all the purported literacy and education, they succumb to Mr Modi`s diatribe. They watch as innocent minorities are killed. And then sit on their arses when the government and the police justify their role in the bloodbath.

``The real question is WHY educated hindus have become more inclined to focus on their identity as hindus. But to ask such a question requires some real thought, far beyond this guy. Where does the ``shared perception of hinduism`` come from, Mr. Birdbrain Mani? Do you have ANY idea of indian history starting with british rule?? Have you heard of Ram Mohun Roy, Vivekananda, Gandhi, various hindu reform movements?
``

Aha... pray sir, why don`t you englighten us? Surely, you`re the only one who`s heard of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda & Gandhi.


``After all we know that every hindu worships the ``Manusmriti`` text as their special scripture, right? End of story, no need for further thought.``

Tell you what.. go around India today meeting Hindus from various states and observing their religious rituals and prayers. I doubt you`re cognizant of what you`re saying. Try speaking to the laymen about the Upanishads and the Laws of Manu. Most will be absolutely clueless as to what you`re harping about.

Perhaps you haven`t had the chance to go across India and the World meeting Indians of all different ethnicities... take my word for it, the religious practices of a Hindu in say, Kerala and in Mizoram are pretty darned different and they share only the most rudimentary similarities. Tradition is shaped more through the custom imbibed through their geographic location.

No surprises at the islamist pooja of left-wing crackpots like Rakesh Mani. Let us not forget that Shri Hamid Gul`s favorite indian is Arundhati Roy. A similar fascination exists in pakistan for Noam Chomsky. What these pathetic losers dont understand is that the existence of critics in open societies is a compliment only to the host society. But then perfect democracy arrived 1400 years ago, in Mecca, right? Only the kaffirs need critics and analysts.

Meanwhile, here is the sad truth about minorities in neighboring countries. No dount Urstruly will ``explain`` why this is koranically correct and appropriate.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C22%5Cstory_22-4-2006_pg13_8

Amidst mantras, Lahore witnesses first traditional Hindu wedding *after 18 years*


The last traditional Hindu marriage was held about 18 years ago at the Neela Gumbad Mandir, between Jogindar and Mohlay. Mohlay’s brother, Pandit Bhagat Lal of the Neela Gumbad Mandir, said things had not been as hard for the Hindu community during the two wars with India, as they were after the Babri Masjid incident. He said several Hindus gave in to social pressure and converted to Islam or Christianity for better lives, which was why the community’s size had been decreasing. However, he said religion was everyone’s personal matter and marriages between people of different religions promoted unity. He said Hindus had never been stopped from following their religion and hoped that things would improve for Pakistani minorities, resulting in Pakistan’s unity and prosperity.

Re: # 56

``What a clown?``

Errr... people in glass houses shouldn`t throw stones sir.

``Rakesh Mani prove how Gujarat is a fascist state?``

How about you taking a close look at the political party that rules Gujarat? Or perhaps their hateful leader who preaches hate? How about the violence unleashed, and then justified, on that state`s minorities?

Open your goddamn eyes will you buddy..

``And in case you cant (which you can never) have the moral courage to call urself a thief, cheat, liar and humbug.``

Where did this rubbish come from? Learning to talk like your leader in Gujarat are you?

``P.P.S The Majority of Bharatvasis are Hindus. Shri Bharat Varsha is a Hindu Rashtra today technically tommorow legally.``

Let`s see you try buddy...