hinduwoman

Aristhrottle,
About my name I was explaining the lack of a gap between the words. Of course my name was meant to convey the message that I belong to this group and is proud to be a member; I was feeling very evangelistic at that time. There was an article on secular web library about the rise of Hindu fundamentalism which I felt gave an unfair one-sided description of the problem, so I followed the link here to debate.
But I really don't see any difference between Hindu woman and hinduwoman; unless you mean the latter is a statement of intent kind of thing?

So let us refine it a little. In the circles I move in and in a great deal of literature I read this is the attitude. But none of the people I personally know are Rss activists.

It is the perception that matters --- the perception of the event was that politicians are into minority appeasement because of votes. Since then everything had been under the scanner and there is a sense that discrimination is against the majority.

I am hopeful too of more Muslims coming out. The problem is any criticism is met by threats. Muslims who joined the BJP had been threatened with death for belonging to a Hindu party.

As I said before Christians per se is not a threat, but too aggressive missionaries just make themselves and the religion more disliked.
Muslims too are fragmented, but it takes only a handful to wreck carnage.

In the last twenty years both Muslim and Christan fundamentalism had been on the rise. For the Muslims this is fuelled by oil money while the Christans are being encouraged by USA religious right money. In case of both there is greater unwillingness to engage in cultural interaction with Hinduism and greater emphasis on the purity of their own religion and that Hinduism is Satanic. This is answered by rise of Hindu fundamentalism.


I did not say benign, I said it takes recourse to physical harm less. Today Christians as a rule do not go in for actual war, but that is only because of the long centuries of being reformed. As for Islam, it is an all enveloping way of life --- whatever sect you are and you have to be a robot to avoid the slightest transgression.
Also as I said, one reason I am not very afraid of Hindu fundamentalists is that I do not see them coming to absolute power. Even now with religious fervour at its height they have a coalition government; on top of that the good government they have promised have not been delivered. For me personally the good news is that for the last few years they have been stressing that someone can be a Hindu and an atheist --- somehow I don't see any Muslim or Christian right group saying that.
Still another point is that Hindu extremists are not interested in bringing the End Times nearer or go out to other countries; but you cannot say the same thing about radical xians or Muslims.

And that is where things are topsey turvey in India. It is the majority religious fundamentalists who want a uniform code that would apply to all citizens and it is the so called 'liberals' and 'secularists' who oppose this in the name of minority protection! This is the plank on which Rss gained great success among middle class Hindus.
Our bloody 'pseudo-secularists' simply don't get the point that the secular State should not care for any religious laws --- all common laws of ALL communities must be replaced by one law. Instead they go on and on about majority communalism and upholding even regressive laws.

Because the fundamentalists of other communities make me conscious that I am in their eyes an idol worshipping pagan. My individuality do not matter to them, I am kufr or destined to hell because of the group to which I belong by birth and upbringing. So when it comes to religious discussions it automatically becomes we and them.
Also there are certain problems and features which are unique to each community, even though the root cause is religious. For example three talaqs divorce is unique to Muslims; I can oppose it as a human being, but it has no connection with the way I live. Similarly, it is orthodox Hindu communities that are reluctant to accept remarriage of widows which makes it a Hindu and not a Christian or Muslim problem.
This is true about even 'you/we atheists'. Of course atheists here are not a homogenous group and the flames in PD forum are terrible, but you will find that they are all united on certain features that they consider distinctive to themselves. For example, atheists of every hue will see themselves as us vs them when it comes to keeping evolution in schools and keeping creationism out of science category.
I do try to think of everything as a human problem, but humanity is not an uniform term; the parameters are varied.

Kama:
It arose from functional division of labour, got consolidated as priesthood and military class fought for control, got religious sanction and is mixed up with economic system. There has been always been mobility, but the untouchables got shafted throughout, in spite of reform movements. We (aristhrottle, this is an example of what I meant about community because it is obvious that Hindus have to do something about this and not other communities) are trying our best to do away with it, unfortunately habits are strong and where economics are involved it gets worse. Also caste is a distinct socio-cultural-historical unit with its own lifestyle and rituals, so I don't think that that caste system as such will go away easily.

There will always be people like that.
I am not sure about the frauds being coimmitted by Hindu zealots (I presume you mean RSS, VHP?), unless you mean people like Saibaba.

Why shall I? On my website the page dealing with Christians was meant to show that they are not always angels being persecuted; I definitely condemned Staines murder. The rest of the site deals with ancient India about which most Hindus are pitifully ignorant. Finally I don't see the need to show myself to be nuetral to be politically correct.

Yep, it will be interesting to see what kind of karmic retribution falls on me for my unbelief, though of course it is another question if I could recognize it for what it is.

hinduwoman

Primal,
For the fourth time this issue of identity is an emotionalissue, not a scientifc one.

This is not something like evolution vs creationism debate --- that you can only support one side.
Identity is not a matter of hard evidence but more of feelings.
Nor is christian Hindu bit disingeuous; it is simply that the man feels he belongs to both groups: by religious faith to one and by daily lifestyle to another.

Keraleeyan

I am new to this group and this is my first post.I am from Kerala, India.Though legally regarded to be a Hindu, I no longer consider myself to be a member of any religion.And,along with Aristhrottle, "Fundamentalism of any sort scares the hell out of me".
A personal observation: There are a few things shared among people who consider themselves as "Hindu"s of the "upper and middle" class/ cast in today's India: One is a deep distrust of Muslims .Contempt and intolerence towards Dalits (untouchables in the past) is another.Though the latter was much prominent a few years ago during the days of anti-Mandal commission riots-(college students of the upper cast were so infuriated by a decision to implement more reservation for the dalits in government appointments that many attempted self immolation), the former has gained the upper hand now.
It is my understanding that the hardline Hindu politicians (BJP,VHP etc) are not bothered whether you really belive in any particular god or none at all.Once a suitable enemy (Muslim now,Christians or Dalits tomorrow) is identified/ invented and their enemy status agreed upon- , a consolidation of forces against the enemy is easy and that does not need much philosophical agreement between the members of the 'chosen people'.
Hinduwoman in one post had observed that "Hindu community is so fragmented and varied that it is very difficult to actually impose rigid control" and "So it is very difficult for Hindu organizations to actually control the whole country, or even persuade them to unite in the name of religion". This, I think, is a terribly mistaken idea. All the Hindus-even those who consider themselves as "atheist but culturally hindu" can unite against what is percieved as Muslim threat to their "culture". If you have any doubt, think of what happened in the state of Gujarat quite recently. I myself recently faced this question from an atheist high cast Hindu: "Don't you want to retain the freedom that you now enjoy? Do you want this country to become another Saudi Arabia?"
No, Hinduwoman. You do not need a rigid control structure at the plotter's command to initiate ghettoization, or to ignite riots . All that you need is an enemy. If that enemy happens to be "traditionally" considered as to have "no sweetness" and "no goodness" it just becomes easier.

David Bowden

Primal, I'm not sure if anyone's brought it up yet, but in the United States I'm not aware of anyone doubting the Jewishness of secular Jews. I've known a couple of secular Jews. They're proud of their Jewishness, and they don't believe in God or bother with any of the rituals of the religion taught by Moses.

I've interacted with a Jordanian family that converted to Christianity. They consider themselves Christian Muslims, because culturally they are more like their Muslim relations than the American Christians they know, but their beliefs are evangelical Christian. Much like the Christian Hindus mentioned by hinduwoman, they use both terms and understand one in terms of religious beliefs, and the other in terms of cultural background.

I also have had the good fortune to know and work with Indian natives who are secular and who refer to themselves as Hindu atheists and who see no contradiction in terms. These are highly intelligent people who understand the meaning of words and who are far more likely to know what they're talking about than someone whose knowledge of Hinduism is pretty much limited to what scholars have written about it.

These labels (Jewish, Hindu, etc) refer to far more than just the religions that use the same name. So, why argue against the Hindu-ness of secular Hindus? The religious Hindus do not hold a copyright license on the term.

As I recall, the word "Hindu" refers to those who come from "east of the Indus River" - or in other words, a Hindu is just "someone from India". Thus the Hindu label would seem to include all facets of the culture and traditions of India, not merely the religious aspects.

From what hinduwoman has posted and from my own experience with Indian people, Hindus themselves clearly see this as an ethnic, not just a religious, term.

So I see no good reason to require that a person of Indian heritage give up the "Hindu" label simply because they don't follow the religious footsteps of their ancestors - the term stands for a lot more than merely the body of religious traditions.

-David

PS - hinduwoman, I'm curious: we English-speakers call India "India" and people from India "Indians" - what do the people there actually label their nation and themselves?

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]</p>

Sunfair

Primal
I agree that it's dangerous to parade religion as secular thought, but I do think that our society is culturally Christian. I would not go so far as to say "all" but I think that definitely the status quo is heavily tinted by the religious mores and practices of our past Christian heritage.

Some examples:

--Lack of rights for gays to have insurance coverage, recognition of marriage, or service in our armed forces (unless they "don't tell") is based on the Christian belief that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Oh, yeah and there's also the Boy Scouts and the oft-repeated accusation of "recruiting" young people.

-"Blue laws" that call for the closing of liquor stores on Sunday are very common and are based on the belief that Sunday is God's day. Also, the majority of businesses are closed on Christmas and Easter (including banks and government institutions closed on Good Friday), and this is not based on their secularism, it's based on the traditional belief that those days are holy.

-No adequate (read: respectable) term to describe a long-term commited relationship that does not involve marriage, and can you think of a respectable term for a child born to an unmarried mother besides "illigitimate" or "out-of-wedlock"? Our language reflects the Christian belief in the duty of every person to wed and reproduce, and that sex outside of marriage is a sin- and there's also the heavy battling about birth control and sex education for teens, and abortion.

-Lack of opportunity for women to enter priesthood (aside from one branch- can't recall which) which comes from the Christian beliefs that women should not teach, are somehow "unclean", and are less than men in terms of spirituality. (If you are atheist, this one might not concern you, but it is so prevailent in attitude that I thought I should mention it.)

-Lack of conservation and other enviromental efforts steming from the prevailent Christian belief that God gave earth to humans to subdue, and have dominion over.

Those are just off the top of my head, but I hope it is enough for you to think about.

Primal

David and Hindu woman: The terms refer to belief, if the beliefs contradict then the terms should not be combined.

Also, on the question of Jewish atheists, that only works if it pertains to race. I'm not the first to question the Judaism of so-called Jewish atheists/secularists...nor would that matter even if I was. That's a band wagon fallacy.

As fof how US society is culturally christian:

I agree, there is much Christian influence, there is also much pagan/romantic/greko-roman influence as well.

Look at how many ways we violate Xian laws, by celebrating pagan holidays. Advancing technology instead of waiting for the end. Advancing gay rights, becoming politically actove. With capitalism.

Just about every word of the Deist Constitution is not derived from Christianity in any way.

Hence I would admit, there is Christian influence in our society, but this is not totally, perhaps even not mostly.

To try and parade a religion as secular on cultural grounds though is simply misleading. Culture has an aspect to it seperate from mere religion and can be justified on seperate grounds. Christianity is largely influenced by Zoroastrianism, that mean we are really culturally Zoroastrian/Judiaic?

I really don't see any way to try and say you adhere to a religion yet you are secular, the terms are mutually exclusive. All you are saying when you admit you don't believe in the religion is "I don't believe it but feel an emotional attachment so will trick people into thinking I do." Such labels only serve to confuse arguments and work as a ground by which to avoid having to own up to the fact that you are a secularist.

My mother is Buddhist, my dad a former Jehovah Witness now deist. Does that make me culturally a Buddhist/JW/Deist? Can I be all those things yet secularist? Sorry, but that really is stretching it and seems senseless to me.

Keraleeyan

To Primal and all others who are concerned about the dangers of parading religion as secular thought- here is one really good essay :

Breaking the Spell of Dharma- Case for Indian Enlightenment
by Meera Nanda
<a href="http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/MeeraNandaJuly2001.html" target="_blank">http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/MeeraNandaJuly2001.html</a>

Keraleeyan

A question to Hinduwoman:
At your website you are saying:

"We Hindus are allowed to think freely. Let us not waste this advantage. It is neccessary for us to fight physically to annihilate the militants of other religions who are trying to kill us. But we must wage an war on the intellectual front as well --- we must think and think critically. It will not affect the core of Hinduism itself. Remember, Sanatana Dharma is eternal precisely because it embraces change and evolves."
<a href="http://www.hindunet.com/home/social_contemporary_issues/hinduwoman/" target="_blank">http://www.hindunet.com/home/social_contemporary_issues/hinduwoman/</a>

However, on your posting here (Nov.5th) you have stated:
"We Hindus will do our best to keep Hindu fundamentalism at bay, but Muslims and Xtian missionaries must meet us halfway. At the end each community must police its own and try to integrate; merely insisting on the duty of majority would not do."
Are you not contradicting yourself? Exactly whose duty is it to attack physically and annihilate those militants?

roshan

indians refer to their country as bharat. however the term bharat not only includes india but all of south asia, including bangladesh, pakistan, nepal etc. people from all these countries normally call themselves "desis". i have no idea what that means though.

theres also hindustan for india and hindustanis for an indian but those words are of persian origin.

hinduwoman

Keralyeen,
I have noticed that many high caste hindus have contempt for untouchables. They do not mind if the latter are in lower end jobs, but they become very agitated if the dalits enter their own socio-economic sphere. I think it is based on the belief that Dalits are simply not good enough.
However the Mandal agitation was not solely due to contempt; the students saw their job-opportunites shrinking.

But as regards Islamic terrorism I agree with the man who said he did not want to see India turn into another Saudi Arabia. I am sorry if this distresses you, but I do consider Islamic fundmaentalism to be far more dangerous than anything else. That is why I am not contradicting myself on my website. We should criticize and radically alter Hindu scoeity, but we should also put up resistence against terrorists, who if you have not noticed are of Islamic variety, insead of meekly submitting and worrying about human rights of terrorists. That is why I am saying that moderate muslims should come out of their shells and join in the fight --- that way VHP and other politicians would not be able to exploit the traditional tension.

All fundamentalism is scary, but right now my immmediate worry is whether I or my relatives shall be blown up by a suicide bomber.