Someone on my GChat list had an intriguing link included in their status message. I saw “inauguration”, and since that historic event is still very much on my mind, I clicked it. I was led to the Boston Globe’s website, to a feature called “The Big Picture: News Stories in Photographs“.
Yesterday was a historic day. On January 20th, 2009, Barack H. Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America – the first African-American ever to hold the office of U.S. Commander-in-Chief. The event was witnessed by well over one million attendees in chilly Washington D.C., and by many millions more through coverage on television and the Internet. Collected here are photographs of the event, the participants, and some of the witnesses around the world. (48 photos total)
Picture number 38 caught my attention, setting my browndar off before I could even read the caption underneath it (which I’ve quoted, well, underneath it):
Pakistani Christian children hold portraits of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama during a prayers ceremony for global peace in Islamabad, Pakistan on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2009. (AP Photo) [Globe]
At first glance, I didn’t notice the word “Christian”. I just saw “Pakistani children”. I thought I’d just post the picture plus a quick blurb about where I found it, and isn’t it sweet, etc. But for obvious reasons, I started surfing around, and a rambling post was born.Over the past five years, I’ve made numerous references to my family’s faith and Christianity as it exists in Kerala, but Christianity exists in every South Asian country (admittedly in miniscule numbers, in some of those nations). The first non-Indian brown Christian I ever met was my ruthless Montessori pre-school teacher in San Francisco. She was Sri Lankan and my parents strongly encouraged her to get old-school naddan on me, if I were naughty enough. That meant that if some little white kid did something wrong, they were gently scolded. If I did something wrong, I got hissed at and pinched. My parents were overjoyed that they were really getting their money’s worth.
It would be 14 years until I met another Desi who was Christian; at Davis I discovered that someone wasn’t just using an anglicized nickname. “Wait, that guy’s actually named ____??”
“Yeah. He’s Christian.”
me: Baroo?
“Not like you. He said he’s Pakistani.”
me: wow.
“Yeah. Now there are two of you…and three hundred of us!”
I still don’t know all that much beyond a vague, depressing sense that it’s rather dangerous to be a Christian (or a Hindu) in Pakistan, due to the brilliantly just Blasphemy laws, which require nothing more than the insinuation of disrespect towards Islam, to ruin someone’s life:
Ten years ago today, Bishop John Joseph, Catholic bishop of Faisalabad in Pakistan, shot himself dead on the steps of the Sahiwal district court in protest at the abuse of the country’s blasphemy laws. Ten years on, little has changed in Pakistan.
The blasphemy laws impact everyone, regardless of religion – and the tragedy is that almost every case is completely fabricated. When the laws were first introduced, they were used primarily as a tool by extremists to target religious minorities – Christians, Hindus and others. These days, however, Muslims have got wise to the potential for using the blasphemy law against each other to settle personal scores.
The reason is simple. The blasphemy law requires no evidence other than an accusation made by one person against another.
There is no proof of intent, and an inadequate definition of blasphemy. When it comes to court the accuser does not even have to substantiate the charge. If the judge asks what the accused actually said, the accuser can refuse to elaborate, on the basis that by repeating the alleged statement they themselves would be blaspheming. [Guardian]
See? Brilliant!
This made me wonder about the Christians in Pakistan; we all know that Sikhs and Hindus had been there before partition, but I’d never heard much about the history of Christianity in that country. I have a deplorably lazy habit of assuming that the answers to such questions tend to involve colonizers and missionary types. Let’s see if I get lucky:
The exact introduction of Christianity to the South Asia is a debatable topic, with the Syrian Christian community in Kerala, South India being recorded as the earliest. Missionaries accompanied colonizing forces from Portugal, France and Great Britain, but in north western Ancient India, today’s Pakistan, Christianity was mainly brought by the British rulers of India in the later 18th and 19th century. This is evidenced in cities established by the British, such as the port city of Karachi, where the majestic St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Pakistan’s largest church stands, and the churches in the city of Rawalpindi, where the British established a major military cantonment. [wiki]
Had no idea about any of this:
Christians in Punjab and Sindh had been quite active post 1945 in their support for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League. Even before the final phase of the movement, leading Indian Christians like Pothan Joseph had rendered valuable services as journalists and propagandists of the Muslim League. Jinnah had repeatedly promised all citizens of Pakistan complete equality of citizenship, but this promise was not kept by his successors….In the mass population exchanges that occurred between Pakistan and India upon independence due to conflict between Muslims and followers of Indian religions, most Hindus and nearly all Sikhs fled the country, but the Christians remained. [wiki]
I have a million reasons for wishing my Father were still alive, but the one which is relevant to this post has to do with Jinnah, specifically the declamatory 15-minute rant he used to launch in to upon hearing his name. When I was younger I thought it was odd that my Dad, who was born in 1937, was so much older than everyone else’s parents. Now I wish I had written it all down.
I wanted to find out more about the ceremony for global peace in Islamabad at which that picture was taken, but all I found were a few more photographs of the event and no news story. Oh, well. It’s poignant how the inauguration of our latest President has affected not just this nation, but the world. South Asians for Obama, indeed. 🙂
“Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found it.” – Charles Dickens
Do you even know what is happening and what happened before that in Orissa? Will you care to know? If missionaries were not indulging in what they were doing this wouldn’t be happening in the first place. That is why Charles Dickens said what he said. Do you even know how the social fabric was getting torn apart with missionaries’ social and religious engineering there? Read these 3 parts and get back to me. Christian Conversions and Attack on Hindu Swami in Orissa
No other country treats minorities better than India does. If Islamic terrorism and Evangelical terrorism is eliminated from India the country will get back to normal automatically. As long as these forces exist and government fails to control these elements Indians will react as humans do. Evangelical Tourists visiting India and commenting here in defense of missionary activities need to read all the following below before making inane statements. -1 is not the same as -1000000 just because both are –
Mahatma Gandhi on Conversion CHRISTIAN AGGRESSION BUSH and CIA plans and activities to convert India The Conversion War and Religious Freedom
and
VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
204 · Kiran P said
Let me translate what you mean for you: “If those missionaries didn’t come to into Orissa, we wouldn’t have to burn all those INNOCENT peoples houses down!”
linzi,
What do you think about this?
Christian Terrorism in Northeast India
And here are missionary sites promoting secession from India and abetting armed struggle
Crusade aims to revive ‘Nagaland for Christ’ Free Nagalim http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-10/a4_03_10.html
See how those trends are getting to Orissa where the missionaries are demanding split in Orissa too.
As an American tourister I don’t expect you to be concerned about India’s union and national interests! But I do. My request is don’t tell 10% of the story conveniently fitting the missionary agenda while suppressing the rest 90% which will shed the truth.
I think the problem here is that you are speaking in circles, with no sensible argument…. It’s just going to keep going like this:
You: India is a HINDU nation, and if the minorities get bigger, than we will lose our culture and identity. India is under attack by the ‘disease’ of Islam and Christians.
Me: but all the different kinds of religions in India are a distinct part of the history and cultures of India!
You: No they are all either part of Hinduism or evil evil outsiders (i.e. Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians)
Me: But what about the people that aren’t Hindu and don’t fit into those two categories?
You: Umm……. umm…. but… Forced conversion is bad and is ruining India and destroying Indian lives! We treat our minorities better than the entire world!
Me: What about when you discriminate against them?
You: Then it is the Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians fault. If they weren’t here we would all have a peace parade, be Hindus, and hug each other everyday!
Don’t translate anything for me and neither will I for you. Those tricks don’t work any more. We are sick and tired of your propoganda and PR crap. We know your tricks of the trade
Did you read my links?
My request is don’t tell 10% of the story conveniently fitting the missionary agenda while suppressing the rest 90% which will shed the truth.
Kiran, I haven’t had time to follow everything in this discussion. I love what you said above though.
Though my question to you is – do you think that Hindus who feel they are oppressed through their religion shouldn’t convert to another religion?
in orissa ppl were in hunger n poverty…misionaries came n gave them shelter then BJP made AADIVAASY KALYAAN SANSTHA …..missionaries shd be thanked as they gave a sense of self respect to them
Here are the major faults in your lines. You will figure them once you come out of missionary mindset. Of course, you need to spend some time and energy to educate yourself. Just touring won’t do.
You: India is a HINDU nation, and if the minorities get bigger, than we will lose our culture and identity. India is under attack by the ‘disease’ of Islam and Christians.
Me: but all the different kinds of religions in India are a distinct part of the history and cultures of India!
You: No they are all either part of Hinduism or evil evil outsiders (i.e. Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians)
Me: But what about the people that aren’t Hindu and don’t fit into those two categories?
You: Umm……. umm…. but… Forced conversion is bad and is ruining India and destroying Indian lives! We treat our minorities better than the entire world!
Me: What about when you discriminate against them?
You: Then it is the Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians fault. If they weren’t here we would all have a peace parade, be Hindus, and hug each other everyday!
dear kiran for ur kind information tribles were never Hindu they were a whole different community i think u need to read G.S. ghuriye’s Writings thanks
PS
What a moot question? Of course, everyone in this world is free to switch religions on their volition.
well u say that we treat the minorities best in the wrld….. hmmm…. what about gujrat 2000.. ayodhya 1992….and jamia nagar encounter..
211 · Kiran P said
Luckily, I’m not a tourist, thanks. Don’t pretend to know me or who I am. Your assumption that I must be some silly tourist with no knowledge of India just proves to me that you categorize me using the same faulty logic you use to understand India. You claim it is all a “missionary agenda” and assume I am a missionary, just because I don’t espouse your views. I am not a missionary, in fact, I think forced conversion is evil and vile and every human being should have their own right to worship as they see fit. But if you use ‘forced conversion’ to place all the blame on the people who may or may not even being changing religion by force, you are doing humanity a grave injustice. Not everyone who converts to Christianity in India is forced.
Your problem is that you want to see everything in one way, and that way justifies your own belief system that also happens to protect your interests above all other. If you are unwilling to open your eyes and see beyond your narrow definitions of India, Indian Culture, and Religion, than what can I do?
vivek,
You are wrong! Divide and rule has been the policy of British and now the missionaries. Read on.
Whether Adivasis are Hindus or not has always been a question of great controversy. The Niyogi Commission’s Report of the Christian Missionaries Enquiry Committee MP, Nagpur, 1956 (Vol I, Part I, Chapter I) states, “The Missionaries have throughout claimed that they are not Hindus. A continuous attempt has been made by these organisations to foster a sense of separateness amongst the Tribes from the rest of the Hindus. Speaking about the separation of the aborigines from the mass of the Indian population Gandhiji remarked: ‘We were strangers to this sort of classification — animists — aborigines, etc, but we have learnt it from the English rulers.’ To the question put by Dr Chesterman whether Gandhiji’s objection applied to areas like the Kond hills where the aboriginal races were animists, the unhesitating reply was, ‘Yes, it does apply, because I know that in spite of being described as animists these tribes have from times immemorial been absorbed in Hinduism. They are, like the indigenous medicine, of the soil, and their roots lie deep there’.” (I wonder what our Gandhivadis have to say now.)
Whatever the Adivasis may have been originally, there’s no doubt that they were gradually absorbed into the Hindu fold — just like the pagans of Saudi Arabia and northern Africa were into Islam, but only many, many centuries earlier. So does that give Hindus poaching rights over Arabs…? The Niyogi Report states, “Where a tribe has insensibly been converted into a caste, it preserved its original name and customs, but modified its animistic practices more and more in the direction of orthodox Hinduism. Numerous examples of this process are to be found all over India and it has been at work for centuries.”
Besides, what’s the difference between Hindu forms of worship and the Adivasis’ “animism” anyway? Don’t Hindus worship trees on Vat Savitri, snakes on Nag Panchami, and cows everyday? In 1891, J A Baines, the Census Commissioner, considered as futile the distinction between tribals who were “Hinduised” and those that followed a tribal form of religion because, “every stratum of Indian society is more or less saturated with Animistic Conceptions but little raised above those which predominate in the early state of religious development.”
Please read here http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Conversion.htm
What a moot question? Of course, everyone in this world is free to switch religions on their volition.
It wasn’t moot to me; I couldn’t tell in this argument, if you were arguing that Hindus who switch religions are being manipulated. It doesn’t seem you mean to say that – I’m sure some people are manipulated and some aren’t; I’m just trying to figure out the argument against b/c your points seem completely valid.
Hope you know what preceded them. What happened after is bad and I condemn them. Hope you have the civility to agree on this.
Your shallow comments coupled with lack of Indic knowledge and dynamics indicate so. Thanks.
219 · Kiran P said
Well, I suppose that’s a good way for your to belittle others points of views. I can’t possibly know anything about India. So I guess then the only way I could know about India is if I was born with the knowledge written in my BLOOD?
Wrong! You consistently and conveniently seem to ignore my responses and replying in a tourist mindset. There is no value addition in such interactions. Respond to posts #204 and #206 and then get back to me.
that’s it. had been trying to follow this debate. But, can’t take any more of this pompous, condescending, righteous badgering. It’s not an argument or debate, just a lecture. It was a lost case from the beginning – my inferior, shallow, ‘missionary’ brain of kiran p’s superior amazing indic knowledge. She/he has seen the light – am i glad to be still in the dark.
dammit – there is a reason for the preview button’s existence
revised
that’s it. had been trying to follow this debate. But, can’t take any more of this pompous, condescending, righteous badgering. It’s not an argument or debate, just a lecture. It was a lost case from the beginning – my inferior, shallow, ‘missionary’ brain against kiran p’s superior amazing indic knowledge. She/he has seen the light – am i glad to be still in the dark.
So a “tourister” (That’s not a word, by the way) mindset is someone that disagrees with you?
And btw, as I already said (in response to your links and whatnot (let us entertain them for a moment, though all your links conviently seem to go to sites that push Hinduism as an agenda)) Communalism is bad (Oh wait, I did say this before!). If Fundamentalist Christian Terrorists are killing innocent people (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, ANYONE) it’s bad. I am just saying, it is not so black and white as you make it out to be.
Your basic argument is that India is A.) Hindus B.) Fundamentalists and those who are forced to convert.
This entire argument undermines all the diverse populations that exist throughout India, that are not part of the fundamentalists. That also ignored the fact that there are Hindu fundamentalists in India as well, and the violence in India occurs on the part of fundamentalists (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc) against innocent people trying to go about their lives.. so if we really want to talk about the problem in India.. it is fundamentalism, not religious plurality.
And I get an inkling of where your own religious beliefs may lie.
207 · LinZi said
LinZi, i think you two are talking past each other too. Kiran is using Savarkar’s definition of “Hinduism” that is anyone who regards India as their spiritual homeland (so Indian Muslims and Christians qualify as long as they don’t owe their first allegiance to anyone or thing outside of India.) You are interpreting Hindu to mean followers of the Sanatana Dharma which isn’t what he is saying.
You’re also interpreting his stance of no organized conversion agendas to mean no conversions at all and that is also not what he has been saying. He has been complaining about right wing evangelists coming out and taking advantage of the poor to actively try and Christianize India.
I didn’t say minorities aren’t discriminated. JayZ said that. I just wanted you to acknowledge the other side of the coin in the story you linked.
The problem, however, is that any time someone complains about non-Hindu fundamentalism we get the PC brigade jumping down our throats. So the discourse isn’t exactly balanced.
225 · NV said
NV, thanks for trying to bring the debate back to, well, a debate rather than an attack on assumed credentials. The definition I am using of who would call themselves a Hindu is based on self-identification. I would allow people to define their own religion to me, not tell them who they are. If we are going to say a Hindu is anyone who regards India as their spiritual homeland, then should we not include all Buddhists worldwide as Hindus, seeing as how Buddhism’s spiritual homeland is India as well? My argument has been that Kiran P’s definition system doesn’t make any reasonable sense, and undermines the religious diversity in India and tries to paint as many people possible as “Hindu” to advance his agenda.
It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?. Is India such a horrible place ? Maybe we should all become like other countries then.
@LinZi: No problem. Kiran P’s only doesn’t make sense if you assume he’s using your definition. Most people who self-identify as Hindu do it out of convenience. “Hinduism” (in the Sanatana Dharma sense) is diverse enough to encompass many many religions if you wanted to divvy it up into sects the way that Abrahamic religions do. So it’s just easier to say “I am a Hindu” than to try and explain exactly which Gods you regularly pray to, which temples you frequent, what kind of puja you do in the morning, which bhajans you sing, and what your personal/family’s religious philosophy is.
As for Buddhists, yes they count provided they regard India as their spiritual home. But Buddhism is very diverse as well, so they could alternatively look to Tibet, China, Japan, or any of the SouthEast Asian Buddhist traditions. Ditto for Christians. We have Eastern Orthodox churches in India with long traditions and deep roots in Indian civilization. Islam has also Indianized to a significant degree (and probably would have Indianized further had the Mughal mullahocracy not installed Aurunguzeb on the throne instead of Dara Shikoh).
So the idea of equating Indian = Hindu isn’t to say all Indians should follow one dharma. The idea is to say that Indians should try to keep their spiritual roots to India. I really don’t care if all of Kerala joins the Malankara church because the Malankara church doesn’t make it a religious commandment to eradicate non-Christian religions from the face of the Earth the way the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches tend to.
228 · zee said
Zee, I have nothing against Hindus. My argument is, and has always been that, each religion should have a right to worship. If people chose to convert, then so be it. That is their right, and why should Hindus feel threatened by that?
The problem is fundamentalism. Forced conversion, intimidation, destruction of religious building, riots, bombings, etc are all carried out by fundamentalists in the name of their religion on a whole, while the vast majority the people following that religion would not espouse those views. Fundamentalists put a bad name on religions that effect the normal people who are part of that religion. Fundamentalists exist in ALL religions worldwide, and just as they exist in Islam, they also exist in Hinduism. My argument has always been a response to others generalizations, not my views on any religion.
It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?. Is India such a horrible place ? Maybe we should all become like other countries then.
I don’t think this is an argument about Hindus being evil…it seems more as NV says that two people with valid points are talking past each other. I do think there’s a lot of
I think India’s record in comparison to other regions of the world, including most Muslim countries, is 100 times better. This sort of dialogue that happens in SM wouldn’t be tolerated in other parts of the world, and it is in India. India has a relatively free press, and it shows a confidence with it’s culture to have these rights; and freedom of religion where mosques and mandirs can be built and worshipped in; unfortunately such religious pluralism isn’t evident in many other parts of the world.
The thing is if you are going to criticize some problems in India, don’t be a troll and ignore it’s record compared to other cultures or countries. Don’t act like misogynist practices by some Indians, are supported by our laws, whereas in other countries misogynist practices are part of their laws. Don’t be a troll and not acknowledge the very fact that religious pluralism is part of our culture and our laws, freedom of speech is part of our culture and our laws, which it isn’t in most other parts of the world.
Happy Republic Day!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7850848.stm
229 · NV said
I certainly agree with you that fundamentalist Christians who want to convert the world are completely horrible. But at the same time, isn’t is strange to say that “The idea is to say that Indians should try to keep their spiritual roots to India.”
Honestly, do we have a right to limit people, to say, you can worship, but only so long as it keeps its spiritual roots in one place? That seems like limiting peoples rights to me. That was where my argument stood in the beginning: If someone in India, willingly and openly, decided to convert from a religion with spiritual roots in India, to one with spiritual roots elsewhere, is that not their choice?
209 · PS said
Of course. Kiran is perfectly understanding of other religions. People can convert to any religion they want as long as Kiran decides that it’s ok. That’s all he wants from them – that they ask for permission before leaving. Is that so hard? Is that too much to ask from the poor saps who have the temerity to live in a country where, as NV has said, the values they bring are only incidental (of course, I am sure his statement is far more nuanced but what can I say, this kind of simplification is, what’s that word again, a disease.)
Even that’s OK as long as they don’t demand Christian homelands vivisected from Indian territory. Read post #206. We have lost enough.
It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?.
Last time I checked, India’s Prime minister (one who occupies the most powerful constitutional post) belongs to a minority, and a couple of years back, the chief of army staff and the chief of air force belonged to a minority religion, and there are quite a few state chief ministers, judges and high officials who belong to the minority communities. I see a lot of new mosques / churches come up every time I visit India in the last 10 years. And the population of the minorities increased from around 10% in 1951 to around 20% now.
So the short answer is no.
That’s all he wants from them – that they ask for permission before leaving. Is that so hard? Is that too much to ask from the poor saps
As an Indian and a Hindu, I’ve never heard of this attitude, but I’m not immersed in these issues. I do know that for many regions of the world, particularly with theocracies, changing your religion can result in death; people who feel oppressed by their religions or are inspired by another religion have no outlet; and indeed exposure to other religions is censored….so I hope India and our laws never become like that and hopefully the Hindu fundamentalists who think like that will be a minority and not control the country, like many other countries are controlled.
And no I don’t the BJP was able to pursue religious persecution and religous oppression with complete free reign b/c of the politics of a parliamentary democracy (and I’m glad with my limited knowledge of Indian politics that they were voted out)…say unlike Saudi or Iran,former Yugo, Iraq or Turkey and their Kurdish population, Rwanda, and many other African countries that have had populations exposed to genocide. I never want India to get to a point that any religious group feels they have to leave the country to live or avoid genocide, like Kurds, Jews in many countries, Shias, Shiites, Zorastrians, Hindus in many countries, etc.
The idea of keeping spiritual roots in India is to say that they should maintain a mutual respect for other religious traditions rather than actively trying to undermine them. This requirement is the bare minimum we would need to have a harmonious society in India.
As for converting to establish spiritual roots elsewhere, it is really hard for me to imagine that this could ever happen in large enough numbers to matter in a real world (rather than a theoretical sense). Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one? I don’t doubt it would happen sometimes, but in order for it to happen at any appreciable scale there would need to be something else going on. Either financial inducement or the more subtle imposition of “false consciousness.”
Have you ever read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf? She’s a feminist and in it she argues that norms enforced by Western culture (i.e. White Male patriarchy) pressure women to strive for an ideal of beauty that is simply unobtainable for the majority of women. Essentially her argument is that by judging women according to standards that are irrelevant or alien to them culture and society work to mold their behavior and attitudes to conform to the whims and will of a patriarchy rather than to make the women themselves happy or fulfilled. I think Wolf’s argument makes the mistake of assuming malice where ignorance will do, but the idea that cultural norms can impose a sense of insecurity and self-loathing in people is spot-on and part of my point is being drawn from that.
Basically the alien norms and biases of Western or Western educated people are being imposed on Indians and Hindus (defined broadly). In many cases these norms are being willfully propagated by people with an agenda (Marxists, corrupt politicians who want to exploit patronage networks, missionaries) in such a way as to constantly put them on the back-foot and burden them under the weight of their own insecurities. Once again, they don’t necessarily need to propagate these ideas because they consciously want to undermine Indian traditions, but they are educated and raised to think a certain way and it will be hard for them to break out of that cognitive box. It is only under these circumstances (that I previously termed as “false consciousness” that I can see people would be willing to spurn their own culture and traditions. But as you can see, allowing that to continue is not exactly healthy. Not for the individuals being made insecure and defensive and not for the society as a whole that has to suffer from the discord that comes with people who are encouraged to draw lines and distinctions between each other.
234 · Kiran P said
So you feel that, to keep the country together, it is better not to allow religious freedom, just in case more people ever feel like succeeding from India?
let me analyse some of linzi’s statements:
They are not here for a moment nor for entertainment. This is for humanity to ponder over eternity on the terrible nature of evangelization against people’s will destroying countless cultures, traditions, diversity and values.
Do you expect people won’t be labelled as fundamentalists once they react to Islamic and Christian fundamentalists?
Have you bothered to ask in each case how and how much? This is what I mean by asking: Just because -1 and -1,000,000 are negative numbers does not mean they exactly same! How can we arrive at a solution if you cannot define the problem.
It’s fundamentalism created due to religious exclusivity that’s engineered by Islamic and Missinary radicals in the name of monoethistic God demanding exclusivity to only their respective God and trashing everything else.
237 · NV said
Exactly! As long as everybody stays “Hindu”, there won’t be any reason to draw lines or distinctions. And if they’re not “Hindu”, they should just keep quiet and not try and pretend like they have an equal share. After all, Indian civilization magically and entirely appeared in its final and immutable form in the 11th century and anything that deviates from that is part of the immiseration that has been imposed on India for the past millenium. It is essential that everybody just realizes this, and realizes that Indian culture will just disappear – poof, gone! – if these minorities start acting up. And let me not even get started about that MTV that Clinton and Bush sent into India with their CIA.
238 · LinZi said
Look, how well it has worked for Pakistan! Theocracies are great!
That’s a tough ethical question and I don’t have an easy answer. You might be okay with the idea of Mormons trying to establish Utah as a separate Mormon nation within America, but there are a whole lot of Americans who would not be. The fact that the separate Mormon nation is very likely to trample all over the religious rights of non-Mormons makes it even less palatable.
See the highlighted part, please don’t play with words when it’s reality out there! It’s not a ‘just in case’ fleeting can_you_ignore_it_for_a_moment thing!
Read post #206, you will find answers! The idea is to keep the country together with religious freedom but not allow the breakup of the country by allowing the redefinition of ‘religious freedom’
Just because cultures evolve doesn’t mean people have to stick their heads in the sand and have no say whatsoever in which direction culture is going to evolve in.
Also, Hindu (defined broadly) has already been established as including Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. So your rant is moot.
244 · NV said
It’s not a rant! I am agreeing with you!
BTW, I like how the Hindu definition shrinks and broadens. Amazing! It’s like you’re looking in one of those magic mirrors!
237 · NV said
This statement holds a lot of assumptions! Why does anyone, ever, change religion? How come so many people left Buddhism in India? How did Christianity spread through Europe? How did so many people become Jains and Sikhs historically? They didn’t just materialize out of the ground, someone had to convert. Sometimes things are spread through coercion, yes, but guess what, not always! Many people around the world choose an ‘alien’ religion all the time, merely because they see something in it that draws them… Maybe it fulfills a need, maybe it appeals to their view of the world. America is still made up of people who chose to leave thier own culture to be a part of an ‘alien’ one.
Is that so hard to fathom that people sometimes use their reason, intellect, and person preferences and that may led them to something ‘alien’?
245 · stand up said
It’s a VERY magical mirror, I daresay! 🙂
Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one?
I think almost all of those who comment/blog (or their parents) have willingly spurned the land of their culture and came to live in a foreign and alien land and culture. It is because people think they would have a better life. I guess it is the same reason that people voluntarily convert to another religion.
That happens when ignorant westerners try to put a square peg in a round hole, when they try to define Himduism as one of the “ism”s ignoring the ‘way of life’ aspect and stripping the Indic roots of muslims, christians and others who are native to India. This is also one of the reasons why this dialog also goes nowhere!
Regarding Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and other Indic religions I’ve already explained that the lines between them were never hard and fast the way they have been in Europe and the Middle East.
Very bloodily. First Roman conquerors imposed their Roman Gods on non-Romans, and then they forcibly converted them from the Roman religion to Christianity under Constantine. And then they progressively went about converting the heathen, sometimes by honest discussion, but mostly by financial inducement (the Bishop of Rome was a rich man) or military expansion.
That it might happen in large enough numbers to make a difference demographically? Yes. Keep in mind, if both religions are equal on their merits then holding all other things the same the amount of conversion should happen equally in both directions. Yet in the Indian case it generally doesn’t. So unless you want to argue that Hinduism (defined narrowly or broadly) is inherently inferior that’s a good sign that something else must be up.
249 · Kiran P said
I have yet to meet an Indian Muslim or Christian in India EVER ONCE define themselves as a Hindu. Anyone?
248 · Ponniyin Selvan said
Really? Did you miss this thread? http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005599.html#more