Returning to the Infidels site after almost a year, I was quite thrilled to see this forum. As I browsed through, I got the impression that you guys are being far too lenient on Hindu fundamentalism. I don't want to say much, except suggest that you use your favorite search engine to find documents containing "Hindutva" (Hindu-ness in Sanskrit). Just check out whether you see parallels between the Nazi quasi-religious credo and that of the Hindutva gang.
I would really love to be able to argue in all honesty that the ancient tradition of inclusive beleif (or lack thereof) that has hitherto been know as Hinduism is quite different from the hate-peddling brand of cultural nationalism that is Hindutva; but I regret that I can't. These days, at least in Lucknow, the Hindutva crowd has totally appropriated the festivals, rituals, and every form of popular expression of Hinduism.
I'll try to keep up with this thread, but ask pardon in advance if I can't log in frequently enough for your satisfaction...
Amit

Amit, most of the Hindutva organizations are boneheaded and irrationally destructive. But you cannot really compare them with Nazis. since you have made the comparison please give examples.

I do not understand your point about Lucknow. Are you saying they are practicisng Hindu customs with greater zeal or that they have forced Muslims there to become Hindus?

Also you have ignored the background of the rise of Hindutva. It has become so popular precisely because of Islamic militancy and now christian agrressivemness. Yes, I know violence begets violence and revenge makes us monsters, but turning the other cheek is not an option here --- unless you want to see hindu culture smashed as they smashed the Buddha statues.

Hi,

I think that Hindu fundamentalism may provide a potent bulwark against Islamic and Christian militancy. It may be over the top and silly but it may also be a necessary mechanism to protect a rich, ancient and worthwhile culture.

On the other hand, Hindus have absolutely no right to be even moderately upset when the Untouchables convert to Buddhism. In fact, some Untouchables converting have been murdered by Hindu mobs. How dare these particular Hindus even have an attitude or opinion towards the conversion of Untouchables to Buddhism? Do they actually think that they own the Untouchables and get to dictate what the Untouchables do, believe or study?

At an individual level, if you're an Untouchable then it's hideous. If you're already a Buddhist and particularly a Tibetan refugee then it's probably tolerable. At a global or national level, if it provides protection against Islam and Christianity then great, bring it on!

We'll see if I still mean this tomorrow when I've thought about it some more.

[This message has been edited by Waning Moon Conrad (edited June 23, 2001).]

What Buddhist convert had been slaughtered? I would certainly have read of it!

Of course, in some places, today if a hindu converts to islam there might be violence leading to murder.

hinduwoman:
arguing from examples may be logically fallacious, but that's not what holds me back. its the sheer volume of evidence, impossible to confine to a BB thread. Have you read D.R. Goyal's book, titled "The RSS" ? Mr. Goyal, who is an extremely nice person, was indoctrinated into the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh=National Volunteer Union) in his youth during the 1940s. He recognized the fascist core of the organization soon after their man Godse murdered Gandhi. The book spells out in painful detail how the RSS works.

Waning Moon Conrad:
I guess you've been hanging out with some of the soft-Hindutva crowd. Their major point in self justification is precisely the point that hindu fundamentalism is a sort of "backlash" against militant islam. sorry, i don't agree. the two kinds of fundamentalist ideologies have been mutual back-scratchers for at least the past 60 years in india. the partitionining of colonial india into india-pakistan was a fallout of the bigot hindu antagonizing muslim politicians to such a point as to make them seek a separate state after the end of colonial rule. i may be sounding like an apologist, but this view is far too seldom aired due to pressures of political correctness.
about appropriating the non-fundamentalist hindu's space: you see, traditional followers of what is called hinduism never experienced a congregational variety of religion. each hindu is supposed to have a "family-deity" (kul-deva) and a (i'm stupid at translation!) "dear-god" (isht-deva). however, organizations such as the Bajrang Dal, another front organization of the RSS, now appropriate Hanuman as their mascot, and proceed to burn alive Graham Staines, an Australian missionary working among leprosy patients, and his kids aged 6 and 10. what i'm trying to say is that hindus did not mobilize in mobs seeking to protect their religion from unbeleivers before the hindutva crowd stepped in. furhtermore, it is these people who sort of plan, execute and direct the way common festivals are celebrated. last, they are also trying to de-legitimise people like me, who are atheistic, iconoclastic, impatient of superstition and against rabid cultural nationalism of their kind.

If it is books you want have you read Koenraad's Elst's books on Hinduism and Islam?

Partition was due to Hindu bigotry annyoing Muslims?
Of course, I suppose that the Khilalfat movement which aimed at PREVENTING SECULARIZING Turkey is only a movement to preserve religious freedom?
Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan said that he knew noone as good and perfect as Gandhi, yet he must value an adulterous drunken Muslim above Gandhi because the Muslim followed the true faith. But naturally that is NOT bigotry and has nothing to do with the creation of Pakistan.

Hindutva wants to deligitimise you. I only hope that you will state boldly that you are against Taliban and smashing of temples just as you are as much against mosque destruction. That you will condemn Cgrisitan terrorism in NE as much as you condemn killing Staines.

I don't believe in anything supernatural. I went to temples in Garhwal and south India, even to Pushkar, where I flatly refused to give puja in the face of the astonished priests. I declare my atheism boldly in public. Funny, nothing has happened to me.

[This message has been edited by hinduwoman (edited June 24, 2001).]

Koenraad's Elst's books on Hinduism and Islam

No, I'm not particularly into Hindutva apologetics. What put me off even more is the jacket, which proclaims that the author is "Dr." Koenraad Elst. Does it have any decent insight to offer? Friends who do history and sociology for a living don't seem to have a very high opinion of Elst.

Partition was due to Hindu bigotry annyoing Muslims?...

Well, no, I won't go so far as to say that, but it was certainly a factor. Do you have the details of the politics of the 1937 elections in UP? Khaleequzzaman's pact with Nehru, Kidwai's sailing close to the wind, M.M. Malaviya's political formation and the entire mess of who had franchise and who didn't? Its an interesting period, and to me, it smacks largely of the hindu element taking the muslim leadership for a ride. It is mostly politics, with religion not overtly the issue on which one can discern differences b/w politicians, but it sort of frustated the muslim leadership, which had hitherto acted in good faith.

"...the Khilalfat movement which aimed at PREVENTING SECULARIZING Turkey is only a movement to preserve religious freedom?"

So who wanted the Khilafat mvmnt? The Ali brothers and Gandhi. The Ali brothers weren't exactly secular, nor was Gandhi, in the Western sense of the word. I see in the Khilafat movement all the ingredients of a reactionary means being adopted to pursue a laudable end; namely, accord b/w hindus and muslims. So, as with the Babri mosque movements (both VHP and AIABMC), religion becomes a handmaiden to political ambitions: the Khilafat mvmt was as political a move as the Babri mosque imbroglio.

"Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan said ..."

Jinnah has said odder things than that, and i have no intention of absolving him from blame for the anathema of partition. Only, lets get a little Biblical and look at the beam in our own eyes before pointing out the (rather large) mote...

"Hindutva wants to deligitimise you. I only hope that you will state boldly that you are against Taliban..."

I do so solemnly state, whether or not I'm showing any boldness in doing so sitting at my keyboard in Hindutva-controlled Lucknow!

"...and smashing of temples just as you are as much against mosque destruction."

which temples? if you ask me, I am very much in favor of smashing a couple of temples encroaching on the road that leads to my lab there aren't any mosques or mazaars, though... :-)

"That you will condemn Cgrisitan terrorism in NE"

what xian terrorism? could you tell me some links or references? i've worked with a "colonel" Lotha of the NSCN, and though he happens to be a xian, his militancy is based more on perceptions of tribal and regional imperatives than religious zeal. of, course, i hasten to condemn terrorism carried out under whatever pretext, but, hey, if the terrorist is xian, the terrorism does not automatically deserve the label of "x-an terrorism!"

"...as much as you condemn killing Staines."

Sorry, no. the NSCN is fighting trained troops. The Bajrang Dal murdered people who were unarmed and defenceless.

"I don't believe in anything supernatural..."

Good for you- you are a true daughter of the Lokayat tradition of Charuvak. But watch out for the subtle trap of identifying the "other as enemy"
Cheers
Amit

Sastan

There's an obvious reason why Hindu fundamentalism is not given the same attention as Christian or Islamic fundamentalism:

The Hindus aren't trying to convert everyone to their faith.

That alone is reason enough to pay them little attention. If that's not sufficient, then there's also the fact that Hindus don't go about trying to prevent the teaching of evolution (with the exception of the ISKCON cult, which represents 0.01% of Hinduism ie. not at all. I personally have yet to meet a Hindu or even hear of a non-ISKCON Hindu deny evolutionary theory.

There's also the fact that Hindus have not gone on bloody religious crusades or jihads in the past to destroy other religions or promote their own.

if Hindu fundamentalists wants to retain their own culture which they perceive as under threat from aggressive Christian and Muslim expansion, then so be it, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. It's no difference from what every other culture wants, to retain their heritage. Just look at the language police in France and Quebec.

Of course you could try and focus on a few isolated events (such as the Staines murder) to malign the entire Hindutva movement, but what would that achieve? There are many more serious issues threatening secular ideals around the world, and I would think that those issues would have more priority.

Of course, you're free to contribute your own reflections and other material on the threat you perceive of Hindutva, and it would be a welcome relief to the perpetual Christian/Muslim battle.

Until Hindutva hordes come rushing out of India to impose their religion on the rest of the world, fighting against the 'Satan' West, I wouldn't expect much attention to be diverted in that direction.

Amit Misra,

I haven't been hanging out with any soft Hindutva crowd and I can't imagine what gave you the impression that I have.

I'm simply saying, that if it provides a bulwark against militant Islam and militant Christianity, then I don't think it's a totally bad thing.

I think the burning to death of the missionary and kids was disgusting and the murder of Untouchables converting to Buddhism also, but....in the larger scheme of things, if such actions do not become commonplace, and Hindutva does provide some sort of collective will to resist Islamic fundamentalism then I think that the long term consequences, at a national or societal level may not necessarily be as negative as one might at first imagine.

HInduwoman,

I read on a news type website and also in a newspaper about a couple of Untouchables being murdered by a mob of screaming Hindu fanatics for the heinous crime of leaving a religion which considers them to be scum and oppresses them ruthlessly and for having the unbelievable arrogance to make a decision for themselves about what religion they will practice. It didn't seem to be propaganda, it didn't seem to be a plot by Islamic wankers to make Hindutva look bad, it actually happened.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to have happened thousands of times, just a few times which is bad enough.

Look, why don't you read Elst's books for your self. I find them scholarly. You can start with "Decolonizing the Hindu mind" and "Negetionism in Islam".

I am not saying that hinduism is perfect, but it is not wholly bad and any attempt to prove the tolerant humanitarian nature of Koran makes me purple.