On July 16, Swamy, the leader of the Janata Party in India, contributed a shining example of vitriolic filth to DNA India:
Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India “an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”. All other countries conquered by Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule. That is jarring for the fanatics…
The first lesson to be learnt from the recent history of Islamic terrorism against India and for tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus…
We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. The Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan (DNA India).
So to recap, despite the overwhelming diversity that defines Hinduism, and despite the glaring social inequities that find their roots in the religion, Hindus in India need to privilege their religious identity above everything else because the Muslims around them are being infected by the suicide bomb bug. Did I miss anything?
As nasty as it is, Swamy’s diatribe doesn’t stray very far from the body of work that defines rightwing Hindu nationalism. That last paragraph I quoted pretty much paraphrases M.S. Golwalkar from his 1939 book, We or Our Nationhood Defined:
The foreign races in Hindusthan [India] must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must loose (sic) their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment — not even citizen’s rights. There is, at least, should be, no other course for them to adopt.
Swamy is a long-time faculty member of the economics department at Harvard (he got his PhD there in the 60s), and he is teaching there this summer. Two Harvard students have started an online petition demanding that the university cut its ties with Subramanian Swamy. It currently has 223 signatures. An article in the Harvard Crimson published today contains more details about the story.
Considering that a growing number of Hindus are atheists, I reckon the word “Hindu” will eventually just refer to a non-Muslim Indian (including religious hindus, atheists, christian and sikh Indians).
“Considering that a growing number of Hindus are atheists, I reckon the word “Hindu” will eventually just refer to a non-Muslim Indian (including religious hindus, atheists, christian and sikh Indians).”
Hinduism is much more about culture these days then it is about religion so that is not surprising.
Subramanian Swamy makes a lot of sense. There are certainly Moslems who possess the mentality he describes; the only question is how many. Probably the majority of Moslems in India itself do not have such perceptions and motivations. But even a minority of 1%( let alone 10 or 20%) could cause major damage with terrorism. Then there is Pakistan where the numbers are much higher, and the support higher still.
As far as the the word “Hindu” goes, whatever its etymological origins, the word has more or less come to stay, and is legitimate. A good working definition is anyone who reveres Vishnu or Shiva, or any of their various forms. We should not be hung up on the word, when astute commentators like Swamy raise important matters, as in this article.
What is incorrect about the statement, “All other countries conquered by Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule.”?
VS: If you avoid commenting on my posts, you’ll save us both a lot of time.
History is a weird thing. Your history might say that you are a Jain. Yet, for a second just think what the history of your great great great grandfather said. Was he a Jain too? Or was he a Muslim?? Or was he of a religion which doesn’t even exist today??
Yes, India has been a target of terrorist attacks, thousands have lost their lives. And probably we haven’t yet seen the last of such attacks. But to use this as an excuse to get votes and to mislead people, should be seen as a crime equal to the crimes of those who mislead Ajmal Kasab. Mister S.S is a man of huge stature, President of a National Party, 5 time Member of Parliament and above all a teacher – a professor. For him to promote such ghastly thoughts in the minds of his followers is an act equal to the highest punishment.
However, Mister S.S also asks this startling question to all of us, to those who voted him to the Parliament, not just once but five times!!
Are we really that stupid!!!
http://www.21fools.com/aaj-ke-samachar/politics/495-an-open-letter-to-mister-subramanian-swamy
Man, Harvard quality is tanking left and right.
When I lived in Kuwait (right across from not one but two mosques! bonus!), there were fanatical Muslims who professed what Swamy states in the first paragraph you quote. That we Hindus were pagan filth who were going to hell and that all of India would one day see the divine light, nonsense blah blah. The rest of what Swamy writes is bonkers because a) it IS complete crap and b) even if you were trying to save X in the face of onslaught by Y, this is totally not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. He just killed his own cause. If proselytism ain’t sexy, neither is fundamentalism.
Subramanian Swamy is a Brahmin from the south of India, and they have anti-Muslim views. Brahmins within India have also created their own narrative of Indian history in which they are the cultural maintainers and spiritual patriarchs, and at a subconscious level, they seem to want people to worship them. In South India, the situation is even more extreme. There is a lot of racism/casteism in South India, and Subramanian Swamy is a proponent of this. He actually advocated against the All Caste Becomes Priest Act, which would have allowed any caste to become Hindu priests at mandirs. In his state of Tamil Nadu, the Brahmins there do not identify as being Tamil, but instead, they identify as being “Tamil Brahmin”, because they feel intellectually, culturally, and racially superior to the Dalits of that place. They advocate a saffronisation to Indian culture, and one facet of this is the “anti-greening” of the Subcontinent with their Islamic distrust, which historically have reduced the power/pertinence of the Brahmin.
Islam is a beautiful religion, and I believe that ex-cricketer Imran Khan said it best when he said that “Islam has given millions of men in South Asia a dignity…In Islam, we worship one god – not a god of materialism or titles.” Now, Imran Khan is indeed a playboy, but he got this one right. It’s the lack of dignity and the perpetual humiliation perpetrated by other Indians which caused many people of South Asia to run into the arms of other faiths. Over 40% of South Asians are not Hindus any more.
Finally, we had a conversation with a S.Indian brahmin, and his narrative was that “Sikhs saved Hinduism from Islam”.
He also stated that “Malayalam is NOT a Dravidian language, but Tamil is” and also, “nobody can convert to Hinduism – you’re only born into it.”
Hopefully, this will change in usa.
bostpn-mahesh, Subramanian Swamy is very liberal in his personal life and behaviour, with non-Hindu relatives. He’s certainly against anti-Brahmin discrimination, but not a supremacist. Theologically, he is far more liberal and inclusive than Moslems and Christians are. You have a fixed, static view of Hinduism, which is reminiscent of missionary/evangelical guidebooks. You must have heard of the reform movements within Hinduism- Arya Samaj, Hare Krishna, Vedanta Society, Ramakrishna mission, the modern mandirs in North America, Europe and India itself.
boston_mahesh,
Seriously, as a South Indian Brahmin, I have never heard the kind of crap you attribute to us. So how do you explain the right wing turn In Western Europe. Did south Indian brahmins have something to do that too? Is an Iyer, Iyengar or a Niyogi Brahmin from Andhra responsible for the farce that Peter King , the congressman from Long Island, has perpetrated on us here.
Funny that a Harvard faculty member can’t be bothered to recall that pesky little thing called the constitution of India. Wasn’t there some mention of …”We, the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist SECULAR democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens.. liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship…and to promote among them all FRATERNITY …†?
boston_mahesh, if you want to rewrite your comment to incorporate words like “some,” or “a few I’ve spoken to,” or “such-and-such specifically named person,” or better yet, refer to actually documented and researched material instead of resorting to anecdotal evidence, that’s fine. But really, the generalizing is too much.
vivek, someone used to post very anti-Pakistan comments using your first name. I thought it was you. why are you deleting comments now? Do you want to become the next razib khan?
Wasn’t me, sorry to disappoint you.
I’m moderating comments because I actually have time!
I wasn’t “disappointed”. I always consider yourself to be a person from the left so the comments left behind by “Vivek” shocked me. Glad you corrected this.
Swamy’s views are his own as are his prescriptions. Nevertheless, the tendency for the uneducated and ignorant extreme left both here (welcome to the discussion maitri) and in India to establish a ridiculous false equivalence remains particularly jarring.
Whatever the gerontological society in India may say in their advanced alzheimer’s, conservative and center-right want a pluralist and secular india. The contention is that india today does not practice true secularism, which is why history is not objectively treated and given a marxist slant and there is no uniform civil code (the heart and soul of secularism).
Swamy’s points about ancestry are rooted in concerns about how there is an unwillingness for (some) members of the indian muslim community to acknowledge their historical rootedness in indian and hindu civilization. In fact, there is an immediate search for arab genes, and arabian culture becomes a centerpiece of many who take to fundamentalism (see Asiya Andrabi of the nominally kashmiri dukhtaran e millat). Indeed, medieval india, and if the marriage market is any indication, even modern south asia, has an islamic casteism based on ancestry (see ashraf and ajlaf). This view on foreign orientation obviously does not characterize all or most (see APJ Abdul Kalam and MJ Akbar), but has been espoused by those who take up radical views. If you are miseducated in history, it is easy to justify the route to violence. Swamy is no wordsmith (or even intellectually consistent), but this fact about history is relevant. This is why ghori and ghazni references are replete in IM, LeT, and ISI literature and the treaty of hudaibiyah cited by, jarringly, even a supreme court justice in the recent babri decision.
Let me be clear: India is and must remain a plural society, free for all faiths and nationalities. And violence of all colors and creeds must be condemned.
However, ideologies that seek to subvert and destroy indian culture and hindu roots must and will be contested intellectually and the state cannot abdicate from this responsibility (as the present government has–see digvijay and his disgusting “osamji” and batla house remarks”. There is a clear historical precedent for this dating back to the caliphate’s numerous attempts to invade–which were eventually (even in Sindh) defeated. The fact that the turks eventually succeeded makes india a prime target, like spain. That is what motivates the pack of jackals that target innocents. They use grievance to recruit, but their objectives are historical empire and the destruction of the hindu identity.
The notion that hindu fundamentalists are on par with others is laughable since even the most condemnably violent ones are acting in defense not on offense–there are no hindu claims to south east asia for example despite the chola empire and the “akhand bharat” red herrings proffered by dubiously educated british bloggers are even more laughable considering the history of the last 60 some odd years. Islamic fundamentalists explicitly aim to fly the green flag in delhi (see the shahi imam syed bukhari of delhi and hafeez syed of the let). Hindu fundamentalists aim to safeguard and protect a way of life, civilization, country and people all while protecting the rights of minorities and the oppressed. This is a tradition which, in an unbroken fashion, dates back to ancient rajas and seen in the great gurus of the sikh tradition who saved kashmiri pandits from mughal depradation and suffered for it (resulting in their militarization).
In response to the collective stupidities of prema et al: Like any religion and civilizational tradition, Hinduism and hindu history is not perfect. While there are a few who may sadly whitewash untouchability, I explicitly recognize that it did and does exist and must be ended/rectified as should be obvious to all. Gandhiji was a hindu and openly called for and acted in the furtherance of ending untouchability. You will note, oh ignorant prema, that he also vehemently decried conversion and was a follower of the hindu tradition. Human beings should not be treated as outcastes. That said, the notion that untouchability is on par with chattel slavery as was practiced in the middle east and the western world is ridiculous. Hinduism did not practice chattel slavery. So for those with agendas against hindus, take that into account. Untouchables were segregated (sadly) from society and denied basic rights–not treated as property, thereby denying their very humanity. Casteism does indeed exist and is indeed most problematic in the upper castes because that is where it originates. I don’t care what swamy and whatever pusillianimously haughty and ignorant tamil brahmins you know of think, the priesthood should be open to all castes for the simple reason that Yudhisthira himself said that a brahmin is determined by conduct. Your caste is determined by conduct. Hindu society, like other societies (See feudalism), was structured in such a way so as to ensure that a kingdom had knowledge of both the practical and divine, external security and just law and order, commercial and agricultural prosperity, and an artisan and labor force (see priests, nobles, merchants, and artisan/agriculturalists in other societies).The difference is this ossified, either early on or in the middle ages, which is why there were fewer and fewer stories of dalits (valmiki) becoming brahmins–if any. Regardless, casteism exists and must be combated, just as it was and is in other societies.
The battle to combat this continues today, but the religion has taken steps to rectify this. What can be said about hinduism was that unlike other faiths, it did not make heresy capitally punishable (see insurrection and assorted sultanates) and indeed, its very nature is what allowed for the diversity of creeds and philosophies. (a fact which is conveniently and falsely espoused by marxist/leftist historians to deny the existence any hindu identity at all through asinine theories like strategic essentialism). It is this tolerance of other faiths and ideas that has historically set it apart, and indeed, motivates the hindu majority’s embrace of secularism.
Secularism must absolutely safeguarded. But for ye men and women of conscience and assorted human rightswallahs, forget not the principle of equal protection under the law. That is the core of secularism and is not in practice in India today, as evidenced by the absence of a UCC, the existence of religious subsidies, and the singling out of hindu temples for public management–and therefore–ministerial misappropriation. For those of you who want to see the “saffron agenda” disappear, a good start would be to put a genuinely secular agenda into place. That alone would undercut all the “crazies” you oh so love to revile.
Finally, a note on historical negationism: I don’t argue for a right wing history any more than I want a left wing history. Murli Manohar Joshi’s attempt to update textbooks was hamfisted and sad for its means and result but an appropriate end nevertheless. India, like the west, like china, like iran, is a civilization, and should have a history that properly educates people not only about success but about failures (and also ensures we don’t have idiots slapping on the fair and lovely and thinking that they are now european). This means recognizing the nature and cause of religious violence in the middle ages because it helps us understand what motivates crazies in pakistan and saudi arabia. This way we don’t have idiotic explanations about how babri started all the problems, when thousands of temples were destroyed before and after partition on the opposite side of the radcliffe line. It conveniently ignores and negates realities like the mopplah massacre in 1922 and the deganga riots of 2010 and the extirpation of hindus in pakistan and the genocide in bangladesh (see arthur blood telegram oh feverishly bigoted prema).These are realities which cannot be gainsayed, but must inform any debate. It is only through HONEST dialogue between moderates of all religions that we can have the secular and plural India that people want.
So as one talentless auteur wrote in indecent haste in the aftermath of 26/11, “CONTEXT, CONTEXT”–only I would counter, understand the whole context, not just what is convenient for you and the ideology you chose out of fashionability and pc’ness rather than undertanding and inquiry.
Quick question, are only Harvard staff/faculty/students etc urged to sign the petition?
No, there’s a category for other where we unworthies can sign.
Hindus are always the first to help others while stepping on their own.
I urge you to get the facts on the deteriorating rights of Hindus in India.
There are plenty of muslim and christian professors on college campuses that have fundamentalist views and are vocal about them. They are protected by their freedom of speech and are heavily supported by their religious groups. Yet here we are trying to ” shut the Hindu up”. The universalist jargon only aids other religions in denigrating Hinduism.
It’s time to wake up and stop stepping upon your own before you become so obsolete that your voice will never be heard.
I wonder who started this petition anyway and what they have to gain by it?
no question, swamy is way out of line. His article is basically a call for majoritarian rule, based on the construction of a uniform hindu identity (alarmingly identical to some aspects of paki or saudi islam). I dont see the word democracy, citizenship, education or anything like that in his article. So it is very troubling indeed.
I think the real question is: why do ideologues like Swamy exist and get play in papers and so on? A big part of it has to do with the lack of honesty when discussing islam in india. Nowhere will you see intellectual responses to the islamist poet Iqbal (intellectual forebear of pakistan) who believed in supremacy of muslims over all others. Nor do we hear much discussion of Maudidi (leading islamist figure from North India). The Congress Party has a long history of pandering to islamists under the rubric of “secular” democracy. India was the first country in the world to ban Rushdie’s Satanic Verses; the congress party went so far as to pass a constitutional amendment that banned the payment of alimony to muslim women in the 80s (Shah Bano case) because this was not supported by Sharia!
On the other hand, you will see much more discussion and analysis of hindu majoritarian Sarvarkar or the people who founded the RSS. These people are generally condemned by secular hindus but without a corresponding condemnation of extremely troubling trends in islam, especially since the 70s. So many people find this imbalance troubling – extremist hindus are to be condemned but extremist islam and aggressive christianity are to be tolerated.
Here is a sample of some recent controversy – wherein certain indian muslim organizations are supporting a campaign of violence against ahmedi muslims – with no response from the state or secular intellectuals
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?277774
This imbalance gives space to people like Swamy and others even cruder and more blunt in their statements and actions. There needs to be a broader discussion that condemns all forms of islamist/hindutva/christianist ideology and focuses on bringing to life the rights and forms of citizenship described in the indian constitution.
How the hell can a Hindu fanatic/supremacist be this venomous, delusional and sanctimonious all at the same time:
satyarjit wry:
1)” Nevertheless, the tendency for the uneducated and ignorant extreme left both here (welcome to the discussion maitri) and in India to establish a ridiculous false equivalence remains particularly jarring”
2)”Swamy’s points about ancestry are rooted in concerns about how there is an unwillingness for (some) members of the indian muslim community to acknowledge their historical rootedness in indian and hindu civilization”.
3)”The notion that hindu fundamentalists are on par with others is laughable since even the most condemnably violent ones are acting in defense not on offense–there are no hindu claims to south east asia for example despite the chola empire and the “akhand bharat” red herrings proffered by dubiously educated british bloggers are even more laughable considering the history of the last 60 some odd years. Islamic fundamentalists explicitly aim to fly the green flag in delhi (see the shahi imam syed bukhari of delhi and hafeez syed of the let). Hindu fundamentalists aim to safeguard and protect a way of life, civilization, country and people all while protecting the rights of minorities and the oppressed. This is a tradition which, in an unbroken fashion, dates back to ancient rajas and seen in the great gurus of the sikh tradition who saved kashmiri pandits from mughal depradation and suffered for it (resulting in their militarization).”
I am telling people again and again: Hindu fanatics like Satwarjit wry is much more dangerous than gun-toting terrorists out there. They espoused “pluralism”, “secularism”, “democracy” and “historical grief” to soften their fanaticism.
based on what? not a single attempt to base your assertions in fact. I can label you too:
“OMG, what a terrorist defending, genocide-denying, religious extremist loving, leftist. “Serfdom” is more dangerous than terrorists since he/she/it attempts to propagandize and label instead of engaging in honest discussion because they have no intellectual basis for their contentions. What a fanatic!”.
hmm, that was easy–no wonder trolls like you do it all the time…
It is hard to believe that someone who earned a PhD from Harvard and is invited to teach there can be so ignorant of history. And so irrational. How can you have dhimmis under Muslim rule if you have 100% conversion to Islam??!
Has this delirious whackjob never heard of the millions of Jews and Christians who have lived for centuries under Muslim rule in Egypt, Iran, Turkey, the Maghreb, the Balkans, Iberia, etc? This kind of ignorant and irrational BS passes for knowledge and wisdom in massively illiterate India, but Harvard has to maintain higher standards than that.
And India after centuries of this “brutal Islamic rule” that left the majority of Indians unconverted, was also supposedly one of the richest regions of the world under that brutal rule according to Hindu fanatics. Rational thinking isn’t exactly the forte of these hate mongering fools is it?
Secularim’s weakness is that it clubs large minorities with microscopic ones. The Muslims are a large minority. In Kashmir, they are in fact the majority. Whenever they have a grievance, they are able to raise the threat of secession. Pakistan is able to give them support. The Indian army always has to be there.
Other countries haven’t fare well with large minorities. Even though European countries profess to be secular, Jews will not return from Israel in large numbers. Even in Muslim countries, there are tensions when Shias become a large minority within a Sunni majority.
This is the basic problem of secularism: it clubs large minorities with microscopic ones
Isn’t it ironic that people are calling the university to cut ties with a man who basically said things that are codified in Islam and Christianity, both as expansionist, imperialist, and exclusivist religions obsessively dedicated to converting people to their ideology? (usually under intimidation and force…)
I wonder why these self-anointed havaldars of ‘liberalism’ and ‘tolerance’ don’t judge Islam and Christianity with the same level of scrutiny as they do Hinduism…
But, but the Hindu fanatics contemptuously insist that desi Muslims (and christians) are overwhelmingly the descendants of low caste and outcaste hindus. So isn’t it perverse to then demand that they “acknowledge with pride” the lowly caste origins of their ancestors?
“But, but the Hindu fanatics contemptuously insist that desi Muslims (and christians) are overwhelmingly the descendants of low caste and outcaste hindus. So isn’t it perverse to then demand that they “acknowledge with pride” the lowly caste origins of their ancestors?”
well said Gypsy.
Satyajit Wry, you’ve said your bit. I ask you to refrain from commenting further on this post or any of my future posts.
Vivek,
initially i was fine with leaving your post alone, but the attempt to conflate swamy’s ill-composed piece and inconsistent opinions with the views of all center right and conservatives in the indian political spectrum led to my remarks.
it’s your blog and you will do what you will to make ill-informed posts on current events that you didn’t take the time to study properly (the nukistan post being case and point)–that is your prerogative. however, if i see information that is incorrect or misleading, i am under no obligation to honor requests that have overtones banning and deletion (as other bloggers here have done) and will continue to comment civilly. i have exercised my right to post responsibly. if you and your fellow bloggers had taken the time to moderate trolls instead of civil commenters (generally with more conservative views) then people like myself and others would not have to defend ourselves against driveby remarks.
i understand that everyone has busy lives and can’t always moderate. but the fact that you and others routinely choose to ban civil conservative commentators undercuts your request. this blog came up with the anonymous comment solution for that reason–and i have continued to remain anonymous. yet here you are telling me not only not to post on this but any of your future ill-informed posts–that demonstrates your motivation.
i have no intention of taking over threads–frankly even commenting here is a waste of my time. but i also know that this blog is relied on by a number of south asian americans for news about the subcontinent. rather than providing an objective snapshot or posting as you will but allowing a civil exchange of ideas (which i have done here in the past), you insist on skewing the viewpoints to the left and intimidating those who point out facts. you let these troll proliferate so that more conservative views that point out inconvenient facts do not skewer your flimsy arguments. we are more than happy to observe all standards of civility–but that requires moderators to address the roots of discord and not the responses to rudeness.
i have seen no attempt at intellectual counterargument to my original comment here–that alone speaks volumes about how you and others see the need to muzzle dissent through such threats. you have said your bit–i will continue to say mine no matter how many times you and your fellow bloggers decide to ban (which has been done numerous times to me and other civil posters like ponniyin, yoga fire, etc) or delete.
i have no intention of threadjacking and would have happily observed a request to avoid further comment on this particular thread for the simple reason that it is about swamy and not all conservative hindus. i like the service this overall site provides, but if you take the time to discuss political issues, recognize that there are civil and legitimate views well within the spectrum of pluralism and secularism that vehemently disagree with yours.
i will continue to do this responsibly by doing what i can to post civilly when permitted by other commenters. for those who profess to believe in free speech, you have an amusing approach to the marketplace of ideas. you profess to believe in equality, but it is clear that in your scheme, some are more equal than others…
Small nitpick – Swamy is the president of the Janata Party, not the Janata Dal.
I’m not sure what his agenda is here – might even be to give the government a pass on the corruption campaign, ironically started by him – but he is a very smart man. Anyone who can get in and out of Parliament giving Indira Gandhi’s forces the slip and go about publicizing Rahul Gandhi’s arrest in Boston has something up his sleeve.
Apologies! Corrected.
Subramanian Swamy is a loose cannon, a con man with a twisted agenda. He cannot be trusted on any ideological front.
For example, he was very close to Rajiv Gandhi, and had this to say about Sonia Gandhi.. Nowadays, he says this.
Similarly, he once postured like Digvijay Singh does now, as a secular champion of minorities
With the wind blowing in a different direction, he comes up with the above tripe.
It would an exercise in futility to analyse the motives and merits/demerits of his useless article, more so to consider it an example of the views and ideology of the right of the center Indian politics.
I think he is just doing a Spoor Lam on the nationalists.
Reason I am puzzled is because India’s government doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of defending people and material that speaks against a religion. Notoriety like Nasreen, Hussain or Rushdie is fine and all, but why does Swamy care to set himself up so? I am worried he’s setting out bait to create a precedent.
Lupus, people are allowed to have a change of heart, aren’t they? Swamy may have awaken, finally, to the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, Pan-Islamism and Islamist terror. Long after others have been aware of the danger.
Ah, the venom frothing from the self hating secularists is entertaining but deeply disturbing. I only wish the ALL such idiotic rants get equal vitriol from all of you. Fat chance though. A similar statement by a fundamentalist christian or muslim will only get half apologetic pseudo analysis. The stark difference in reaction will only strengthen the hands of Swamy sympathizers.
I realize that this blog has now been overtaken by Congress-like mouthpieces. @Vivek, if you just want hear from commentors who hold your own point of view, why blog?
Show me an op-ed in an Indian newspaper you’d like me to get riled up about.
What’s the matter? Slow day in the office? How many comments more before this thread is closed?
Vivek, oru kelvi. What exactly troubles you about Swamy’s article. In the meanwhile all commentators are invited to read rejoinders from Swamy’s daughter Geetanjali on the Crimson blog. The lefty types, I can assure you, are not having a good time debating Geetanjali.
Vivek, what have you read by and of Golwalkar?
To the secularists here, Baalu and his collaborators have shown beyond doubt that secularism in the Indian context is a very poorly understood idea and has been utterly ineffective.
To all the right-wingers here, be warned, this thread will be locked before you start making sense to us. We are leftist and if you don’t like our comments or banning methods then go start your own blog. We are still dealing with being outsiders in high-school and are desperately trying to prove how American we really are. We keep posting about desi gays, desi domestic violence, desi pop-stars and tv stars, please….please…accept us….that is all we ask.
Slowish, thanks for asking.
What troubles me: the most glaringly obvious: “Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus.”
Come on man, wtf!? That’s just an outrageous and irresponsible statement, and it has no basis whatsoever. And then to use that spurious argument to make the demand that Muslims in India acknowledge their Hindu heritage? What business – legal or otherwise – does anyone have making such a demand of anyone else? What exactly is the meaning of citizenship, and how can someone argue for a uniform civil code (which, by the way, I support – depending on who’s invited to write it) when they subject their fellow citizens to a test like that based on their religion?
The outpouring of Hindutvadi bile here is just astonishing. I’m an American Buddhist and would probably be considered an adherent of the Dharmic religions, but I feel more kinship with Rumi and Moinuddin Chishti than I do with the self-appointed representatives of “Hinduism” here. The Hindutvadis seem to stand for hatred and greed (lusting after political power); they are antithetical to the best impulses of the Dharmic religions.
did you make a single argument or rather just make fallacies of association and ad hominem attacks?
what’s with all the labeling on this blog? people just label people “hindutvadis” and “pseudosecularists” and then don’t make any real logical arguments; they just resort to character assassination. For the record, just b/c a “hindutvadi” believes something doesn’t make it inherently wrong. in the same vein, just b/c a “secularist” believe something doesn’t make it inherently wrong.
Similarly, some people say Hitler was a vegetarianism….that says nothing about the inherent merits or shortcomings of vegetarianism as a position in it of itself.
People, please make arguments rooted in logic and not just make baseless character attacks.
Yes these Hindu fanatics are truly a hateful and dangerous breed. I believe they are the worst enemies of India.
There is a stark difference between Buddhism and Jainism (the shramanic religions) and Vedic Hinduism. The former teach universal love and non-violence, yoga and meditation, charity and compassion etc while the latter teaches casteism and untouchability, sacrifices (including animal) and idol worship, widow shunning and burning, temple exclusion and devadasism, casteist callousness and cruelty etc. Hinduism has borrowed a lot from Buddhism and Jainism through the centuries: yoga, vegetarianism, concepts of karma and moksha/nirvana, various philosophies etc but the “revealed” Vedic core contradicts these dharmic innovations. which is why Buddha rejected the Vedas and Brahminism. It is quite like how Sufism too has borrowed from the shramanic religions but the core Islam consisting of the “revealed” Quran, the Hadith and Sharia law stands in stark contrast to Sufi concepts. Which is why Sufi saints like Mansur Hallaj were executed as blasphemers and apostates by the mullahs. Likewise, Jesus taught shramanic truths in his sermon and parables but his teachings were in stark contrast to that of Moses in the Torah/Old Testament; and for this he was condemned as a heretic/blasphemer by the jewish priests and handed over to the Roman authorities to be crucified.
Prema (Gypsy),
You’re back! But what is this new avatar? You’re even criticizing religions other than Hinduism!
The outpouring of Hindutvadi bile here is just astonishing. I’m an American Buddhist and would probably be considered an adherent of the Dharmic religions, but I feel more kinship with Rumi and Moinuddin Chishti than I do with the self-appointed representatives of “Hinduism” here. The Hindutvadis seem to stand for hatred and greed (lusting after political power); they are antithetical to the best impulses of the Dharmic religions.
By the way, Rumi’s stories – at least the ones that I read – involved bestiality between a girl and a donkey. Rumi – or the omniscient voice in this comedy story – was supposing how impressed the girl would be to make love to a well-endowed donkey. I’m not kidding you. I just don’t recall the story or the context, but it was vulgar.
“To the secularists here, Baalu and his collaborators have shown beyond doubt that secularism in the Indian context is a very poorly understood idea and has been utterly ineffective”
Why secularists? Even this right-winger doesn’t understand it. Explain please.
Why all this hatred? SOMEBODY, please, please blog about Hina Rabbani Khar and bring about some peace. She is HOT!!
In any case it’s not really the Muslims who are morally responsible but the Congress Party’s statist oppression of Kashmiris and everyone else deemed not “Indian” enough including North Easterners, Tamils and Marathis. And it was American Christian David Headley who planned the last Mumbai terror attacks, who suddenly became Pakistani Muslim Daood Gilani (LOL) when the cops got too close. Or was it the Hindu terrorists (LOL again) which is the pet theory of the Congress Party?
Swamy’s just following lefty pro-American-Hindu newspaper-reading script of giving Congress Party supporters a chance to brandish their fake pro-muslim credentials. This chattering class are not fooling anyone.
Closing for now. Will re-open in ~12 hrs.
“Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule.
I’ll tone it down a bit from last time so that perhaps my comments won’t get deleted. But Islam in the subcontinent is a good thing (as are the other faiths). As the former captain of the Pakistani cricket team, Imran Khan, said about Islam, ‘Islam is a faith which has given a lot of dignity to hundreds of millions of men in the Subcontinent.’ Moreover, ‘in Islam, we worship one god, andwe don’t worship a materialistic god.’ I agree with his assertion that Islam has given a lot of people dignity in South Asia and elsewhere in the world.
Mr.Swamy is indeed a fanatic, but from my experience, he speaks for a lot of Brahmins in general, and south Indian Brahmins in particular. From conversations that I’ve had with them in a multi-ethnic group, I’ve noticed that their narrative of Indic history is distorted. It has been de-greened and saffronized in much the same way that my own American history books were white-washed. For example, some of these fanatics – and they are excellent people, but just delusional – don’t believe that there is a concept of Dravidianism, except as it pertains to all things Tamil. One even told me that “Malayalam is an Sanskritic language, but Tamil is a Dravidian language.” They also seem to over-credit certain ethnic groups in India as “having saved Hindus from Islam.” This is utterly false, and perhaps a double-standard. Why is no one credited from saving India from other ideas (i.e. socialism, beauracracy, Maoism)?
These fanatics tend to hate missionaries (not the position) and Muslims, and they also don’t regard other faiths as being different. For example, they say that Sikhism and Buddhism are the same religion as Hinduism. My friends, I know both groups, and they do NOT identify as being Hindus, but they do acknowledge that their faiths spun out of Hinduism.
I think Hindu fanatics are vile and stupid, like any religious fanatics, but I’d like to know by what objective measure they are the worst enemies of India. They are certainly doing India no favors, but does that make them India’s worst enemies? Let’s have some objectivity here before we make blanket statements with no merit. Gypsy’s comment is far too Rahul Gandhi-esque and unthought out for me. Also, are we ranking our religions now?
The average Hindu (or urban Muslim) is pretty darn secular, and completely distinct from the average Hindutvadi or fanatical Islamist. Indian civics books teach an appreciation for religious pluralism, diversity and secularism. I’ve heard relatively few bigoted statements in India, but in almost every case, they have been met with cold contempt and complete and vocal disapproval.
The same can’t be said for India’s divisive politics. So yeah, I’m signing this petition because this guy is just one among the many idiots in the vast spectrum of divisive Indian politics. It’s a frikkin rainbow of either idiocy or cynically strategic hypocrisy that the Congress party has perfected over the years. Of course, give another party enough time in power and they’ll do the exact same thing.
Boston mahesh, may I suggest that your sample set is perhaps a tad limited? There’s no shortage of prominent liberal leftie south Indian brahmins. Dravidian languages are old and very linguistically sophisticated (Sangam literature and poetry date back to what, 600 BC?), but the more recent Dravidian movement has been all about erasing the ‘nasty’ sanskrit influence and purging Tamil of its sanskritic loanwords. That’s rewriting history too, isn’t it? Your friend who made that comment about Malayalam being a sanskritic language doesn’t sound very well informed, but neither are the Dravidian or Aryan pride people. For heaven’s sake, each and every one of us can trace our ancestry back 4 billion years. There’s no such thing as a pure bloodline, religious, linguistic, racial or otherwise.
“I think Hindu fanatics are vile and stupid, like any religious fanatics, but I’d like to know by what objective measure they are the worst enemies of India. They are certainly doing India no favors, but does that make them India’s worst enemies? Let’s have some objectivity here before we make blanket statements with no merit.”
I said I believe that they are, it is my opinion not a proof. I base it on the objective fact of their numbers, their influence. Similarly I believe that the Muslim fundamentalists/fanatics are the worst and most dangerous enemies of Pakistan, in fact they are FAR more dangerous to Pakistan than Hindutva fanatics are to India.
Isn’t his daughter, Suhasini Haider, married to a Muslim? Very disappointing language from Subramaniam Swamy of all people. He does seem opportunistic, changing his views with the wind.
Also, why were Varun Shekhar and Satyajit Wry asked not to post anymore when their comments (on this thread at least) were no worse than boston mahesh who was invited to “rewrite” his comment. And what exactly is toned down in his rewrite?
Gypsy aka Prema will explain to us what is “Vedic Hinduism” and then elaborate on how Vedic Hinduism “teaches casteism and untouchability”. In the meanwhile we will turn to Ambedkar’s “Riddles…” where we find that the Vedic times far from being an ossified hierarchical and oppressive period tolerated practices that would make the notables of Woodstock, the Paris Commune and Haight Asbury blush purple.
Opening thusly, Ambedkar catlogues the many excesses of the ancient times,
Niyoga Ambedkar helpfully informs us is,
Ambedkar was a teetotaler (probably influenced by the reformist Brahminical and Protestant culture of the times from both of which he drew inspiration) and was appalled by what we would find instead la dolce vita!
Thank you, Swati.
I am not religious. I am from a Hindu family. I do think Hindus who try to act like caste system was not a major problem and go to some historical source for validation are missing the fact that what we know as Hinduism is not based on one single set of books and originated in one area like the other big religions. In practice , there have been indefensible things go on in the name of Hinduism. So let’s not try to justify all the evils that went on. Now, does that mean we need to pander to adherants of other religions? No.
Hinduism spans religion and cultural domains, does it not? I still see some converted Christian families practice caste system with more fervor than some Hindu families. It is a fair question to ask why some subcontinenal muslims feel like it is not relevant to learn of some ancient Hindu practices and history in the context of local historical knowledge. So somewhere in his rants, Swamy has some kind of a point. I think it is a massive joke for Pakistanis to distance themselves from local history.
As far as Swamy, the guy is an Econ professor. His idiotic comments are not that relevant to what he teaches. If he makes dumb Economic policies in India, then by all means, go after his head.
It sounds like you want to hold subcontinental Muslims accountable for more knowledge about Hinduism than your average Hindu.
I am not talking about learning about Hinduism the religion. I am referring to historical past where what we know as religious beliefs now were part religious, part philosophical, part cultural, part tribal at one time. If you are going to talk about this history of the area you live in, you cannot ignore the ancestoral history and the stuff that went on in the location you live in. indian kids learn about the islamic and hindu practices during Akbar’s reign. You can’t not talk about islam when talking about the mighty Mughal Empire. A lot of us have a basic knowledge of Christianity and its historical context.
@jyotsana:
“Gypsy aka Prema will explain to us what is “Vedic Hinduism” and then elaborate on how Vedic Hinduism “teaches casteism and untouchability”. In the meanwhile we will turn to Ambedkar’s “Riddles…” where we find that the Vedic times far from being an ossified hierarchical and oppressive period tolerated practices that would make the notables of Woodstock, the Paris Commune and Haight Asbury blush purple.”
so who made it “ossified and hierarchical”?
As long as people like Swamy only represent minority views, they are good for broader discussion about evils of extremism and nationalism. Perception of India as secular & tolerant democracy is only enhanced after people like him are denounced on broader scale by all sides. Something India is very capable of doing in contrast to most Islamic states.
And jyoysana and satwarjit wry, why do you insult anybody who stood up against your views as “prema”? Having read many of your venomous comments here, I think both of you need to get a mirror before starting to judge and ridicule others. The lack of Muslim voice in Sepia Mutiny is a concern many people might share but given your tendency to be bullies here, I understand why the only people who are willing to stand up against you happened to be your mirror image.
No problem. I will from now on refer to those commentators as UnknownMouse
Good question. But, really, we don’t know. In the history of ancient India we are dealing with vast periods of time spanning millennia, and have so far gotten away with some extremely shoddy research, misusing tools that were perfected by the study of small groups to, describe entire peoples.
UMouse, thanks for noting that I am a sharp debater here. i rarely spare punches. I am also p****d off with the many here who have never bothered to follow the many links I have posted to Ambedkar’s works whenever there has been a sawaal-jawwab session on Hinduism. I also note that Vivek is yet to share his knowledge on Golwalkar with us.
And doesn’t plan to.
I note that you didn’t address my reply to your kelvi.
“UMouse, thanks for noting that I am a sharp debater here. i rarely spare punches. I am also p****d off with the many here who have never bothered to follow the many links I have posted to Ambedkar’s works whenever there has been a sawaal-jawwab session on Hinduism. I also note that Vivek is yet to share his knowledge on Golwalkar with us.”
I don’t think I ever called what you frothed out as debates. I termed you as a bully.
Unknown, you do have the choice of ignoring Jyotsna. But J got under your skin, and you are not able to ignore him. If you are here long enough, you will learn that observing your reactions to your opponents are the only lessons worthwhile learning.
So this was your badhil?
Muslims are [being] [[doing something or forced to do something]]…and so on What gets your goat? That in reality Muslims as a group aren’t or that we can’t say something like that about any large group of people? But why do you expect Swamy to be nuanced when no feted writer of India (I mean the limo lib types, Suzanna Roy, Pankaj Mishra and now the execrable ignorant Manu Joseph, and the champion ignoramus Meera Nanda) all condemn entire groups day in and day out – the middle class, Gujarati Hindus, Hindus in general, Brahmins “caste Hindus” and so on. That’s the way we deal with people in India. Once in a while there is a Patrick French or a Mark Tully who comes along to remind us that the BJP with all the invective dumped on it still commands a large chunk of the electorate (diminishing though its share maybe).
What is Diggy Jackass doing sharing a stage with mullahs at the release of a book titled “26/11 RSS ki Saazish”? The Congress is working on a hunch that there is a large enough mass of Muslims that either rationalize jihadist terror as divine just desert upon the Hindu bania (for Ayodhya, Gujarat etc) while simultaneously imagining that it is an RSS plot – not very different from the numberless jihadophiles around the world who will tell you that the Mossad plotted 9/11 (why did no Jew attend office that day at the Towers?) while celebrating the event. Lalloo campaigned in 2005 with a motley crew that included an Osama bin Laden look-alike who said nothing and did nothing, but made sure to wave his left arm once in a while.
What business does Swamy have? For one thing he is a citizen of India, that’s all the business he needs. Citizenship is defined usually by a constitution which in turn is not written in stone, at least in India. Swamy is not asking everyone to become a Hindu, simply acknowledge their Hindu past. That’s not a religious test although I am not sure how Roxna Swamy would pass that 🙂 The uniform civil code would require every religious group to give up some (or many) of its cherished practices and that would roll out on its own while Swamy goes around asking everyone “Do you affirm your ancestors were once Hindu?” Having lived in India longer than you have Vivek, I know for a fact that about 75% of the non-Hindus would unhesitatingly say yes. Swamy is also saying that being Hindu or having been one is a matter of pride, at least something to feel good about. Diggy Jackass wouldn’t mind at all as he is a very devout Hindu. There are some Indians who think that the Hindu past is something to be ashamed of or to scoffed at or scorned. Swamy premises otherwise.
Between Diggy’s favorite mullah and Suzanna’s favorite jihadist (Geelani of Srinagar) who would sooner filet their daughter than have her marry a Hindu, or John Dayal who considers about 98% of his fellow citizens to be headed for the flames of hell unless they buy into his creed on the one side, and Swamy on the other with his Parsi wife, Muslim son-in-law, and Christian sister-in-law it is Swamy who needs answer no one about his secular credentials.
You don’t plan to Vivek? appadiye irukkattum, enakku theriyaradhu, kizha vizhundhe aana meesele mannu ottale!
“Swamy is not asking everyone to become a Hindu, simply acknowledge their Hindu past.”
He bases that on the false assumption that a 1000 years ago “100%” of Indians were Hindus. Of course that is not true, and has never been true, and he is willfully lying just as he lied when he claimed that everywhere except India there was “100%” conversion to Islam within 20 years of being conquered by Muslims.
He wants everyone to acknowledge their Hindu past “with pride”. Now why on earth would non-dwija Hindus, especially untouchables, be proud of the discriminations and humiliations they endured under Hinduism?