I’ve always loved comic books–actually, any illustrated book. It seems insane that you wouldn’t. Why wouldn’t you want words and pictures to work together, in harmony? But many people don’t. They think the pictures are a shortcut, that the words cheapen the images. This post is clearly not for them. I believe in shortcuts, as starting points to learning. When I was 10, I found a book of “collected stories of Shakespeare.” I didn’t know who Shakespeare was, but the book–illustrated, of course–introduced me to his wondrous, unlimited imagination. That kind of fascination does not die easily. For me, it taking and eventually teaching classes in Shakespeare, and rushing to every Shakespearean adaptation, no matter how bizarre (Ethan Hawke’s Hamlet springs to mind as does Pacino’s Looking for Richard). If it hadn’t been for that initial taste, in bite size 10-year old pieces, I might be one of those unfortunates who glaze over every time the Bard is mentioned.
So, back to comic books. I’m an avowed X-Men fan, and was weaned on Wonder Woman, but my first comic book love was and still is Amar Chitra Katha. Wait–is that eye-rolling I see? I hope not.
Amar Chitra Katha was my “short cut” into Indian culture. I was lucky; my parents always had Indian friends who they saw often, who had children I who I went to school with, and tried to surround us with the culture that they had grown up with. As soon as I learned to read, my father did two things: bought me a nice “Ex-Libris” leather bookmark, and the entire Amar Chitra Katha comic book series, bound with red paper covers.
Bear in mind that I grew up with parents who strictly limited my weekly library book allowance to 5 (and no magazines), and you will understand, as I did then, the significance of this purchase. By some quirk, I started with the second 10 books first–Chanyaka through Vikramaditya. But I quickly read every one.
For those of you who do not know, Amar Chitra Katha is a venerable old Indian comic book series that tells the tales of Indian myths, history and religious stories. There has been much recent criticism of the comics; here is a typical link.
This article throws a lot of heat at AKC’s way, some deserved. Racist? Of course–lots about the caste system in ancient Hindu culture. Sexist? Ditto. Badly written? Well, it was pretty pompous–I made the mistake of “taking a vow of silence” on the playground one day that ended somewhat badly for me. And I know that many people minded having to look up words like “dharma” or “asura” but I was fine with it. (of course, if you’ve read my Nerd/Geek entry, you’d know why).
I did not learn many bad lessons from Amar Chitra Katha. I was perplexed by how many people had blue skin. But mostly, I learned that my culture was beautiful, that it was old and important, that its values were very complex. I went easily from stories of Guru Gobind Singh to Buddha to Valmiki to Noor Jahan, unaware that I was supposed choose one over the other. That was the one thing that Amar Chitra lacked–animosity. I read stories, but I didn’t really grasp how many old angers divided the cultures I read about. And I still have a weak timeline of Indian history.
The AKC comics are not perfect, but what children’s literature is? It’s all exaggeration and fantasy, run through with threads of violence and death. It’s always about the beautiful conquering the ugly–but also about the clever conquering the stupid, and the lazy. My collection of AKC sparked a sense of identity in myself. I loved my MTV and played with Barbies, but this, this ancient, magical India, was part of me too.
As a non-practicing Hindu, I would hate, absolutely hate, an Amar Chitra Katha that didn’t allow all religions to tell their stories in comic book form, that allowed me to understand why Sikhs wear turbans and why Hindu sages once starved themselves, what the practice of syamvara is. The stories will never be fully accurate–they are just like my book of “Shakespeare stories” but the planted a seed of interest in Indian history that hasn’t gone away. With Amar Chitra Katha, I could incorporate my eight-year old interpretations of Buddhist teachings (that Siddharta was so good!)with Vedic ones (go Rama! go Krishna!), to investigate what traditions (polygamy, child marriage, widow burning) are no longer central to the culture. I want my children to have the same opportunity that I did to act out both the stories of Akbar the Clever and the Mahabharata. I’ve heard rumors that these comic books are or have been edited by the Hindu nationalist party–I sincerely hope not. I’ve never believed in silencing minority voices.
That said, I wouldn’t mind updated, glossy versions of the old AKC comics, a few more stories about clever apsaras or sage’s daughters who outwitted demons disguised as foxes. A few more warrior maidens like Noor Jahan rather than martyrs like Padmini, and I’d be ready to stock my library for future generations of lawyerwriters.
But all the excitement I feel is nothing compared to what I’d feel if someone did a really good adaptation of a Mahabharata–top of the line special effects, great storytelling, top writing. I haven’t seen it yet. Because I love the story, I have suffered through years of plastic-looking battle scenes, melodramatic line-reading and blandly smiling Krishnas. If movies like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon can revolutionize action sequences, the least we can do is get the folks behind Xena the Warrior Princess to get us a convincing Ghatokacha, or at least Ravana with heads that don’t look like a row of masks. And can we get battle scenes that consist more that than men in cardboard armor fighting clanging swords in front a smoke machine to the sounds of pots and pans clanging? Please? Someone, look up Saving Private Ryan or even Gladiator for a good war sequence. What’s wrong with keeping the comic-book sensibility, the great visuals that AKC popped into my head, alive! If they can do it with Spiderman, they can do it with Abhimanyu.
After all, what more can I expect from the X-Men? I don’t have high hopes for the movie, which is coming out this Friday, and which I will probably see anyway. I believe this fixation will last about as long as the opening credits. First of all, as I have said before, no Gambit. What, was Josh Lucas too waterlogged from Poseidon? Second, lesser director. It’s a tough thing to go from Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects) to Brett Ratner (Rush Hour). The latter is a competent action director; the former is a storyteller. Third: I just KNOW they’re going to blow the whole Dark Phoenix storyline.
If I get bored during the movie, I’ll work on casting my fantasy Mahabharata in my head. Unfortunately, I really don’t know too many Bollywood actors, which makes keeping the fantasy cast brown and proud very hard. Will we have to plug in key roles using….white actors? Maybe even…the token African-American? The scandal! The riots! The ritual suicides waiting to happen!
Just remember: anything is better than Salman Khan.
….can spoorlam be far behind?
everytime i speak to my aunt in india i ask about my trunk, neatly packed with my mothball-protected ACK collection, carefully and lovingly hoarded over years. the thrill of rushing to the store soon after receiving my just released precious monthly allowance of rs. 30 and blowing it all on ACKs, Archies and five-star chocolate bars. those were the days.
CHANAKYA…dumbarse!
what was the need for that?
Yes, ACK were wonderful windows into the many-coloured world of Indian mythology and history, though I must say I have always been embarrassed to acknowledge that they were a legit source of knowledge or information once I grew up. Too campy and melodramatic and without any intention of being satiric. I brought a few back for the daughters of my Indian-American friend–the Jataka tales–and she said they scared them and were too grim!!!
Re: condemning child marriage. I agree that we must understand customs in their context and history, but I strongly disagree that we should not pass judgement on other people’s customs. Pray, why not? Isn’t that what we do as thinking people all the time? It’s one thing to say slavery might have been economically and ideologically justified by some people in its time, and another to say it was ethically a good idea. It was not, and we do have to judge from our point of view in the present. What was not considered racist or sexist at one time is considered so now even if you follow the logic of that particular social organization. How do we constitute a community if not by agreeing to a definition of ‘basic human rights’ and ‘underage sex’. This kind of relativism also leads to the approach that anything goes so long as it can be described as cultural or a ‘custom.’ Dangerour road, that. Finally, if everyone is entitled to their opinion, why should I not judge from my perspective and understanding? That damnedly expensive ivory tower has to be worth something!
Ah, my treasured ACK collection. I have well over 30 books I think. What I have noticed particulary, but the author has failed to mention, is the abundance of scantily clad women in the books. Yes. Women who wear nothing but a cloth tied around their breasts and one around their waist, with a dupatta occasionally. It’s an interesting phenomenon when juxtaposed against the umpteenth attempt in India to force college girls to wear only a salwar and kameez, because a simple t-shirt plus trousers is deemed to be too seductive and revealing.
Er, actually, no, MoorNam, the correct statement for Neeraja — and for many others (I, for one, could have made almost the same statement in describing my own spirituality, and I’m not alone even among people I know well) — is the statement that she made. Unless, of course, you’ve managed to implant an NSA-style bug in her skull and have evidence that she’s lying to us. You want to speak for yourself, go ahead, but you don’t have the authority to define the authentic meaning of Hinduism — something that doesn’t even exist — for every Hindu.
Unless, of course, you run afoul of the Parivar orthdoxy. In which case you may get death threats.
This is too sweepingly ridiculous to waste time and energy on — cue to SpoorLam for an appropriate response.
AK writes: >>you don’t have the authority to define the authentic meaning of Hinduism
Never tried to. I made a factual statement – if you can contradict it, do so.
Considering that you find Spoor’s responses “appropriate”, I would probably put you in the same loony bin as him.
M. Nam
Only a Hindu can say that without fear and unflinchingly! We are the tolerant best!
Hail Mogambo!
Are you denying it’s possible? ISI and Arundhati Roy have been planting these things in Hindu minds for decades.
Your anti-national arrogance has been noted.
I have added your name to the long list of Hindu grievance.
When I’ve finished battling the brainwashing of Californian kindergarten kids with anti Hindu propaganda, I shall make plans for pinko commie like you.
Hail Spelling Bee Victories!
Hail Mogambo!
You made a statement that someone’s description of their own conception of Hinduism is “incorrect,” and that your own rewriting of that description is the “correct” statement. That’s not even remotely a “factual” statement — it’s opinion about whether someone else’s statement is “authentically” or “correctly” Hindu. And it’s your own opinion, not the only legitimate one. The only contradiction necessary here is an acknowledgment that other opinions exist, and that you can make no legitimate claim to define what’s correct or legitimately Hindu in this context. Since you can’t.
You then proceeded to make sweeping statements about what Muslims or Buddhists could or could not say — and again, that may be your own interpretation about what some Muslims or Buddhists might say, but it’s not a defensible “factual” statement about what all Muslims or Buddhists actually believe — like Hinduism and any other religion to which many people adhere, Islam and Buddhism have many, many different subtraditions within them that that have contended with and often disagreed with each other about many things. I know plenty of Muslims and Buddhists who have very open, syncretic views of their own faith and spirituality that respect and draw from other spiritual traditions. There’s your contradiction right there.
MoorNam:
This is the supposedly “factual statement”:
What you asserted is not a fact, but an opinion. There is a difference.
This charge is so baseless and stupid, that it does not merit a response.
Ever notice that when you’re around, SpoorLam is always a few steps behind you to back you up? What does that say about your comments…hmmm.. maybe I should put you in the same loony bin as him/her!!
shifty look
Are you Wendy Doniger in disguise?
Tolerate Mogambo!
SpoorLam:
Oh shit…how’d you guess?
AK/CAD,
Now you’re talking…
All right. I would love to see a couple of links in cyberspace where a a person who calls himself/herself as Muslim/Buddhist has admitted that he/she has been “equally moved by tenets in Hinduism Taosim Christianity etc etc”. If you do, I will definitely retract my statement and take my nonsense to that website.
Please note emphasis on the word “equally”.
M. Nam
well its good to hear from another comic book fan. I am not looking forward to Xmen either. While I admire the message behind the story, I agree that Ratner may not be able to pull it off. But I must say I am really looking forward to Superman. The thing is I dont think people will give it a fair share, which sucks because Superman is probably the the closest embodiment of the Indian American life. He has to be three different people to fit in with society. I dont know about you guys but being an indian american I think I have the same difficulties. There is the “indian-me” (Superman) that obeys my parents and understands my culture and my duties to it. there is the “american-me” (clark kent at work) that goes out drinks and encounters blantantly racist remarks and simple bigotry with little or no arguement because people think that just because you are in the same area as them you arent bothered by the crap they say. And lastly there is the “indian-american me” (real clark kent)the real me who only my closest friends know and who I am the most happy and relaxed being. Actually I take it back, its not just an indian thing its an immigrant thing. I think thats why I am looking forward to superman and I like the character so much.
Sorry for going off on such a tangent I know this was about Amar Chitra Katha. I just wanted to speak my mind which is so hard to do nowadays without someone slamming you for not agreeing with them.
You have laid down the law! Nobody will dare contradict you in case you carry out your threat and PseudoSecular Mutiny becomes a barren wasteland without the ointment of your knowledge and erudition and soul. For only you know and can map the dimensions of the Hindu soul!
With this threat, they shall cringe, and Abrahamics have been defeated once more.
Death to Pakistan!
Hail MogamboNam!
Well, perhaps someone should try to meet some Muslims and Buddhists in person. 🙂 But I think that if you spent some time searching in cyberspace for people holding the kinds of views I describe — with an eye towards knocking down your own hypothesis, rather than disproving someone else’s — you probably could find people holding these beliefs. (Your emphasis on “equally” is a bit unclear to me — it’s not so clear to me that you’ve identified something that distinguishes Hindus from anyone else.)
But you could start by reading some of Asra Nomani’s thoughtful and eloquent words, which describe her own spiritual explorations as a Muslim and the ways in which she was inspired — as a Muslim — by what the Dalai Lama said during an audience she had with him in India. And there are others if you want to see them — and of course if you don’t want to see them, you won’t.
AK:
You are right, of course, to underline the diversity of Hindu traditions (as well as those of other religions), but an acknowledgement of the heterogeneity of any particular religious tradition that does not take variance into account is incomplete. Which is to say, both the ‘mean’ and the ‘standard deviation’ need to be kept in mind when discussing the diversity of religious traditions.
AK:
In Hinduism (the tradition I know best), I would argue that the Acharayas of the classical Hindu traditions do not think that all beliefs about what is ‘dharmic’ and ‘adharmic’ amount to mere opinion (i.e. equally legitimate, as you seem to be implicitly arguing here; do correct me if I’ve drawn the wrong inference here). Indeed, the Hindu tradition to which MoorNam subscribes is of relatively ‘recent’ vintage, and does not consitute the ‘center of gravity’ of classical Hindu tradition. All of the Acharayas (whether Dvaitin, Advaitin, or Visistadvaitin) insisted that their tradition was the only one that possessed the full truth about Bhagavan, Vedas, Puranas etc.
One need only look at the spirited debates and commentaries on other traditions (e.g., the Vadaratnavali of Visnudasacarya, a closely reasoned Dvaitin polemic against Advaita). The closest classical position to MoorNam is that of Advaita Vedanta, but even they claim that while other traditions may contain a measure of truth only Advaita is without error.
I don’t wish to argue that the validity of any particular Hindu tradition correlates with its antiquity. Rather, I would like to highlight the centrality of argument and debate in Hindusim about what is and is not dharmic (or what is and is not ‘proper Hindu’ practice).
In other words, AK, judging the propriety of other Hindus’ practices is quite central to the tradition, and not the sole province of the lunatic Hindutva brigade. Indeed, I would argue that the restoration of the classical tradition of debate would help to counter the Hindutva tide (but that’s an argument for another day).
Regards, Kumar
Kumar —
Thanks for the thoughtful response. What you say is well taken, and perhaps we ultimately agree on much — although I do think that notwithstanding the need to account for central tendency, there is greater variance within Hinduism than MoorLam’s comment seems to allow.
What I took most issue with in MoorLam’s comment was his contention that a short sentence by Neeraja (or anyone else) about the nature of their own faith and spirituality as a Hindu could be so quickly and easily dismissed by someone else as “incorrect.” That’s just condescending. It also denies the right and ability of people to define and redefine the traditions they inherit for themselves (though I take it that might in part be what you are arguing against?). I should think, by contrast, that taking seriously your claim that it is central to Hinduism to engage in “argument and debate . . . about what is and is not dharmic” probably would have required a different kind of response — especially when it’s in response to such a short, summary sentence, questions seeking to clarify what she meant, rather than snippy, condescending assertions, probably would have been appropriate. I guess I prefer dialogue over argument, at least in the first instance.
But I also don’t think that she said anything that is particularly shocking or out of the Hindu mainstream — particularly when you move away the level of what organized, institutionalized religion might codify as doctrine to the level of how Hindu traditions (and many others) are lived and experienced by people on a day-to-day basis. Which, after all, very much did seem to be the premise of her comment in the first place.
All best, AK
The customs of when the life expectancy was of the order of 30 years, are not relevant today. If people back then behaved as appropriate to the circumstances back then, there is no need to be ashamed of them. Clearly they were survivors, that is why we are here today.
The fundamental fact we have to come to terms with some time or the other is with our mortality.
Among the many strategies of coping, two are worth mentioning. One is a religious, creedal belief, e.g., like Christianity. The other is to understand that one is part of an “eternal” tradition.
We are children of the Mahabharata. If we tell or retell the tale, and pass it on to one more generation, then that is the practice of our tradition, and we have satisfied our responsibilities. There is nothing to believe or to practice beyond this.
AK:
I also think MoorNam’s remarks about Neeraja were posted too hastily–your reading of MoorNam’s remarks is hardly uncharitable (whatever he intended). However, I was prompted to post by the implications of some remarks you made in response to MoorNam, as I wrote earlier.
I don’t deny that Hindus constantly engage in ‘redefinition’. I might even go to the extent of arguing that such ‘redefinition’ may be a religious obligation (however, if you press me on that particular point, I might retreat).
Rather, what I wish to argue is the importance of taking the classical tradition(s) (both its substantive as well as its methodological concerns) into account when proceeding with such redefinition. Let me simply reiterate that the cost of the current Hindu disengagement with the classical tradition is too high, allowing charlatans to proliferate.
In the Indian philosophical tradition (whether Buddhist, Jain or Hindu), dialogue and argument can be one and the same. After all, a basic distinction is between ‘argument for the sake of oneself’ (svamarthanumana) and ‘argument for the sake of others’ (parmarthanumana).
No, I wasn’t shocked by her statement either. Her opinion is common enough among Hindus, but the mere fact that Neeraja’s opinions are shared by many Hindus can’t be the last word on the matter, can it? I should think, in line with your preference for dialogue (in your sense), it should be the beginning of a (hopefully) fruitful dialogue (or debate from my p.o.v.). By the way, I am not suggesting that the Internets are best way to engage in such dialogue (let alone MoorNam’s take on Neeraja’s comment).
Arun:
Yeah, this statement does resonate with me. But to retell the fifth Veda, one also needs Vedangas. In other words, Mimamsa in the larger sense (read, very loosely, as ‘theology’) can’t be avoided.
Regards, Kumar
Just wanted to add my 2 paisa on child marriage and related stuff.
Most people who go so ballitic about child marriages ignore couple of things which Dhivya pointed out explicitly and kind of hinted at another.
You are using 21st century standards to judge a practice that was common to most of the world prior to the 20th century. And women’s emancipation and choice of marriage didn’t happen until very recently until in most cultures.
Most people didn’t survive beyond 35 until the last century, atleast in India. So they better get married early and have kids and raise them before they die. So they didn’t have the time to have the fancy/schmancy stuff of waiting for the right person and true love to blossom. And if you wait till past 20 to marry, you may never see your offspring growing up.
100 years ago in mostly agrarian India, even men didn’t have much opportunity to do things they wanted. So for most men and women, the life was predetermined. Take a hypothetical situation: What if Neeraja’s parents had been in India? Would she had the same opportunities what she had now? Would her thinking be the same? Lot of you guys are looking with tinted glasses – just the tint being a different hue influenced by where you grew ip, what you have been taught, who you socialize with, by the culture you live in etc.
“You are using 21st century standards to judge a practice that was common to most of the world prior to the 20th century. And women’s emancipation and choice of marriage didn’t happen until very recently until in most cultures.”
So what? You always use present standards and values to judge the past. All history is written from the perspective of the present, for instance, even if you are writing about a past age. You don’t have to condemn it, sure, but you have every right to reject it for the present. My grandma got married at 13 and then stayed with her parents till 18. There’s also research which shows that when the British raised the age of consent for women, it didn’t necessarily protect them, but made matters worse. Then the husband could legally take his underage wife home, while custom protected her in her parents home until she attained puberty under the earlier dispensation. Having said that, however, it’s absurd to champion the values of the past as either available or viable in the present.
those people who critisize child -marriage generally dont take the reasons why they were happening . there was no certainity in life those times . average life expectancy was 30 yrs even in 1947 . state needed young people for wars . when will people can have opportunity to fall in love and have marriage at 20 /30/40 . even M. Gandhi was married at 12/13 and his wife was 9 yrs old . akbar become king of india at 14 . he has to fight wars , how can he fall in love . child mortality rate was too high . you have to produce large number of children so that some of them can survive.
another factor is that if a girl is 9/10 yrs old she can adapt to the family as her personality and views about world is not developed . but at 20-30 there is very small chances of girl changing her ways , and that creates conflict .
i m not supporting child marriage , but there were a lot of reasons why they were happening . also nowadays , child marriage happens very rarely and that also mostly in parts of rajasthan . by educating people about the ill-effects of early marriage on girls (both physically and emotionally) , we can reduce it / eliminate it.
but saying that they have no choice is wrong to a large extent . because they never had a choice . if they are goining to get married by arrannged marriage , they have very limited choice . but even in love marriage u r not having a choice . the idea of romantic love looks good and feels great , but nobody can ridicule the idea of arranged marriage just because in most of the countries love marriages are the way to go .
marriage was developed as an institution to provide safety to the female sex so that they can propagate genes to next generation . it was never meant to be attached with idea of love .
Hindutvavadi:
Um, people are using 21st century standards because we are LIVING in the 21st century. Furthermore, if everyone thought that we should judge social and economic standards according to it’s supposed temporal context (that is, when these social practices were born and gained enough momentum to become a widespread practice) there would never be any change. This view is very static and reactionary.
2 and #3 as explainations for your argument in #1 are irrevelant to the discussion because #1 is a faulty pretense to begin with.
mastervk:
.
(!)
I think the one thing to remember is that child marriage happened in Europe too, and also the U.S. Marie Antoinette was married when she was 14 and Louis XVI was 15. Development and egalitarian education -> later marriage. Marriage is central to any culture.
Just saw that there is another ‘Kumar’ who has commented on this post. So, I hereby change my ID to Kumar N 🙂
But yes, thoroughly enjoyed the other ‘Kumar’s comments and the debate with AK.
“What is most wonderful? Day after day countless creatures are going to the abode of Yama, yet those that remain behind believe themselves to be immortal” -Mahabharata, Vana Parva CCCXI
That certainly isn’t what I meant to imply. And as I had anticipated, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that you have written — I’m not completely sure what you have in mind specifically when you refer to the current disengagement with classical Hindu traditions, and the costs of that disengagement, but at some point I look forward to hearing more.
AK/CAD,
Is Google slowing you down? Did you try Yahoo? Or is it that among millions of web sites, you did not find a single non-Hindu who was “equally moved by tenets in other religions”?
Regarding Asra, what part of the word “equally” was confusing to you?
Of course, many liberal non-Hindus do dabble in other religions to see what they can gain out of them. However, will they admit that those other religions have had an equal impact on their life? Not a chance!
Did you not know that Asra has received/continues to receive death threats for merely speaking out her liberal views. This actually substantiates what I wrote: “A muslim who says that …. is either lying or going to die very soon. ” Not sure if are with me or against me. No wait, strike that out.
Nobody will threaten Neeraja for her statement. (I think the only death threats she will receive will be from men whom she refused to go out with and from women whose boyfriends she went out with !!) What Neeraja has done is commendable: She has gone out of her comfort zone and explored other paths and formed her own religious identity. That is the goal of Hinduism (and only Hinduism). Vivekananda once said that the purpose of Hinduism is to have as many religions in the world as there are human beings.
The mistake I think that many ABD’s make is that their depth of Hinduism does not go beyond ACK and visits to the temple with family. However, they explore Buddhism, Taoism etc in complete detail. Moreover, the school system, the media and the general public opinion in America is that Buddhism is an improvement over caste/cow/curry Hinduism. With these influences, it’s normal that ABD’s become ABCD’s. If only they pick up books on Vedas/Upanishads, if only they read about how Hindu philosophers debated and won against others, then they would increase their depth of Hinduism and find a lot more respect for it. Then they will drop “equally” from their statements.
M. Nam
PS: On a side note, did you know that when the first Amar Chitra Katha (Krishna) was published, Krishna Menon (ironically) led Kerala communists to protest against it because they felt that Hindu comic book culture will swamp the minorities. Pai (the publisher) went all the way to Nehru, who assured him that it would not be banned.
We must rise and march to the new dawn of consciousness! We shall never stop marching until the ultimate greatness and tolerance and supremacy of our greatness is known by all! California State Education Board! MF Husain! Wendy Doniger! Anjana Chaterjee! Romila Thapar!
They shall shit themselves with fear at the brilliance of our Hindu civilisation! All you self-hating self-abasing so-called Hindus, understand the illimitable depths of the Universe can only be understood by wearing khakhi shorts.
Hindus are the best. If you don’t acknowledge this, you know nothing. My name is SpoorLam and the Abrahamics shall bow to my tolerance, which is so much more tolerant of all other kinds of tolerances.
Hail Mogambo!
Here’s a fine article on the subject.
“The loss of intellectual vigor in contemporary Hinduism is a matter of deep concern and the causes are many and complex,” Dr.Anantanand Rambachan; St.Olaf College, MN.
These so-called modern Hindus with their 21st Century standards. Don’t they know Vedic civilisation was, is, and shall always be perfect?
Living in the midst of Abrahamics has corrupted them. Next they’ll be telling us to judge shitting on untouchables by ‘so called’ 21st Century standards. They don’t realise we have always been the most tolerant. Unless you disagree that we are the most tolerant, in which case you are not to be tolerated.
I’m adding this to the long list of grievances of Hindus. Hindus are weeping at our rape. Weeping all over the world.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a congratulatory e-mail to write to our brothers in England, where the latest act of heroics has taken place.
Organisers have wound up MF HusainÂ’s exhibition in London after saffron vandals destroyed two of his paintings on show.
Last Saturday, the vandals threw paint on two paintings, Durga and Draupadi, at the Asia House art gallery in central London. The gallery soon closed its doors.
Hinduism has been saved!
We are the most tolerant!
MF Husain has been destroyed!
Hail Mogambo!
Whoa, calm yourself down. I don’t need Google to establish this proposition for myself, since I actually know and engage outside of cyberspace, in person, with non-Hindus who are (yes, equally) moved by tenets of religions other than their own. And since I’ve got other things to do with my time, doing online research for you isn’t a priority for me. I’m well aware that Asra Nomani has received death threats, and if your implication is that there aren’t Hindus who do the same or worse against other Hindus for being moderate/liberal, then you are obviously mistaken about that.
As for your more personally-oriented comments, they seem neither relevant nor appropriate. Please lay off those kinds of comments, for they really bring down the level of this discussion.
neeraja-
i thought it was a stroke of genius to parallel the blind king Dhritharashtra to Nehru (his subsequent foreign policy regarding China at the advent of the Indo-Sino War can best be described as a blind man’s fumblings). There is some debate as to how effective a leader he was of the free India, much like how effective a ruler Dhritharasthra was and how much his ineffectual control produced Duryodhan (Indira Gandhi..). Bheeshmacharya as Gandhi (such an irreverant look at that brilliant old strategist!) is hilarious..I could write reams and reams on this (i love, love, love this topic) but i won’t take up much more space, especially since the tide of comments have gone a completely different route..
AK,
Apologies for the off-the-cuff remarks.
I said A is True. You said A is False. Isn’t the onus on you to prove me wrong? Anecdotal evidence can hardly be construed as proof.
Yes – that is my implication. Hindus do not give death threats to other Hindus who venture out for other spiritual experiences. If you think I am mistaken, then please prove me wrong.
M. Nam
You could start here — it may not precisely be for “venture out for other spiritual experiences,” but it is for not adhereing to the Parivar orthodoxy more generally. And there are plenty of other examples if you care to see them.
Re: Hindus and death threats. See below.
http://www.hinduunity.org/hitlist.html
Re: ACK
This post inspired me too do something I’ve been meaning to for a while. I contacted the publisher and bought the entire set of comics ever published.
Hari you commie pinko Abrahamic.
Hail Hindu Unity!
Death to Asia House Art Gallery London
Hail Mogambo etc etc etc
Allright,
This is getting to be tiring. Not to mention off topic.
Deepa Mehta/Hussain protests have nothing to do with Hindus seeking additional spiritual experiences. These are political threats made by goons who have an axe to grind. Please don’t mix apples and watermelons.
M. Nam
Moornam: I know quite a few American Muslims who are into Buddhism. I think your larger point about the average Hindu being more open to other faiths as compared to Christians or Muslims might very well be valid but your insistence that no Muslim could take equal inspiration from Buddhism is taking it too far.
SpoorLam, your comments are annoying and unfunny.
I don’t have much context about MoorNam’s other posts on this board but in this specific thread, I do think what he points out merits some consideration.
Many of my Hindu ABD friends spout the defensive ‘I’m a non-practising Hindu, I explore and extract values from all religions equally’ stance and attempt to distance themselves from Hindu roots.
What’s wrong with saying ‘I am a Hindu’ and qualify that, if necessary, with, ‘I don’t practise/believe all rituals but my religion affords me that flexibility’.
“As a non-practicing Hindu…”
You must be cool!
“…to investigate what traditions (polygamy, child marriage, widow burning) are no longer central to the culture.”
I guess you have the pulpit and bug bug all you want…
I didn’t realize Sepia Mutiny took the Hindu bashing mantle from the dead Rev. Billy Graham.
I am sure this is an anti-secular comment and ought to be deleted by the secular arbitrators.
MoorNam you have the patience of Job.
As for the repeated references to the “Parivar orthodoxy” – this is just wishful thinking. The Sangh is comprised of Hindu nationalists not the Hindu orthodoxy (whatever that means). See Savarkar’s reams of pages on how Hinduism was an asinine religion that “held Hindus back” from being powerful etc. Bal Thackeray is a self-confessed atheist; I highly doubt he’s ever read an Upanishad…Modi never talks “religion” (other than as an thnicity…). These are political leaders and have little influence on the Hindu imagination as it relates to Hindu philosophy and theology.
They are PseudoSecular Mutiny infiltrated with demonic spirit of Wendy Doniger. They plot the destruction of us with anti-national opinions.
But I am deadly serious!
Hail Mombasa etc etc
There were rumors that Raj Kumar Santoshi (a fantastic Bollywood director for the uninitiated) was to make a hindi-movie trilogy on the Mahabharata. The casting was undecided except for Ash as Draupadi (of course).
My picks for a Bollywood (100% bollywood, none of that new arty-sharty nonsense) cast of my favorite characters in the Mahabharata:
Krishna – Aamir Khan (though I wish he were taller) Draupadi – Mallika Sherawat (No I’m not kidding; she has the fire to make a fine Draupadi. Ash is too pretty) Arjun – Abhishek Bachchan Karna – Shah Rukh Khan Yudhishtra – Ajay Devgan Duryodhana – Sanjay Dutt Bhima – Sunny Deol Dronacharya – Om Puri? (undecided) Gandhari – Shabana Azmi Bheeshma – Amitabh Bachchan
CAD (# 61) and Chandi (# 54)
What part of Neeraja comments “traditions (polygamy, child marriage, widow burning) are no longer central to the culture.”, you don’t get. I was commenting on the article. Not on present day evaluation of any current practices above.
When the average lifespan is well short of 40, the culture and life is different than when the average lifespan is above 70. If you can’t undertand this, then no further need to discuss.
This following is a general comment – not related to CAD or Chandi
Regarding the traditions listed above let us consider some numbers:
widow burning or Sati – I would be surprised if you can show any cases in prsent day India amounting to more than a handful a year
child marriage – this may be at the most less than a million a year in India. It is practiced mostly in Rajasthan, MP, Uttar Pradesh etc and rarely in Southern states. But even in the states that it is practiced it is not part of Hindu culture. It is also praciced among muslims and probably more as a percentage of the population
polygamy – It may be at the most in the thousands in India if you exclude Muslims who are legally allowed to do.
Remember you should compare these numbers against a billion people and then you would realize in every case it is a miniscule percentage. They are not the central core of Hinduism, but the Biblewallahs and the western practitioners of South Asian studies would like to make it so, so they can preach how much better they are.
MoorNam:
If this is the way that you formulate your arguments and back them up, then frankly, it’s pathetic. Furthermore, taking websites as a grain of truth is disingenuous. There are lots of whackos who post things that they would never say in person. I personally don’t need to search for off the wall comments written by people I do not even know to validate and justify my opinions. This is like basing your entire argument exclusively on SpoorLam’s comments when one speaks of Hindus.
No wonder most of your comments are simplistic and “A=B=C”. Maybe you need to start getting out of cyberspace and have actual interpersonal contact with real people. If you’re going to use support for your propositions, I suggest that you stop relying exclusively on Yahoo, the Google search engine, and those million of websites and pick up a book, or talk to people, etc.
It’s interesting that on SM, so many 1-gers have a bone of contention to pick with 2-gers. Indian politics? You couldn’t possibly know because you weren’t born and raised in India. You call yourself “Indian” even though you were born in raised in America? It’s because you’re confused. You’re critical of Hinduism? It’s because you’re a ABD. You don’t agree with my opinions? It’s because you’re an ABD. Yet, there are hardly any comments deriding 1-gers. Perhaps because people realize that it’s both inaccurate and unfair to dismiss what one is saying by simply resorting to the whole 1-ger vs 2-ger division. This is too convenient for those who are too lazy to actually engage in a thoughtful discussion. For those of you who lump, classify, label, and denigrate American Born Desis, this shit is getting tiring, to put it mildly. It’s time you all started discussing topics more in depth, instead of painting broad brushes over the entire Indian American community, especially over the sector that’s 2-ger.
MoorNam
Another thing: I personally know at least 5 Pakistanis who have studied Buddhism, hold it in high regard, and views its principles with reverence, even to the point of practicing it. There is also a notable Pakistani poet who remarked, “I admire the Prophet Mohammed, but my true inspiration is Buddha” (sorry, I can’t remember his name– I didn’t get if off of Google,though, I read it in a book!)
Notwithstanding and putting aside my observation, can I ask Everyone something? Why does it fundamentally matter whether Muslims embrace Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism? In other words, what’s the point of this debate? I’m very interested to know people’s thoughts on this.