aristhrottle

Hello hinduwoman,

May I kibbitz? I know I asked Primal to elaborate on his statment too.

Does not that depend on the indicators one uses for calling a state (or people or country or whatever) more advanced than the others?

cheers

aristhrottle

Hello Hinduwoman,

Thank you for your reply.

I don't have any problems of you being proud of being a Hindu or, for that matter, being proud of anything whatsoever. A lot of us like labels to be attached to us and there is nothing wrong with that. For example, when asked I call myself an atheist - which I define as having no rational justification in believing in any gods or god. However, for me, there is no specific philosophical structure behind my label.

I was interested in your reasons for calling yourself specifically a Hinduwoman, rather than describing yourself as a Hindu woman.

A few points from your post that attracted my attention. Please let me know if I have taken them out of context. That is not my intention.

Your quote,

"It kind of opened our eyes to Islamic fundamnetalism and how strong it has become."

'Our' eyes? Are you speaking for the rest of the Hindu's in India or for a particular organisation? Or was it just a slip of the keyboard, so to speak? :-)

Your quote,

"Any law or court judgement that contradicts their interpretation of Koran is announced to be an attack on minorities."

There will be a minority in ANY country that will protest against a judgement. However, the important point to be noted is that the law has to be followed, irrespective of protests from some minorities. From the tenor of your post, I take it then that the laws are not being followed. Am I correct? If yes, can you give me examples or instances? For example, in the case that you mentioned in your post, was the Supreme Court judgement repealed?

"Since then the Mullahs and Islamic leaders have been more and more inflamatory and it appears quiet a lot of locals help the Islamic terrorists out of zeal and local madrassahs teach all about Jihad."

Should all Muslims be condemned for the acts of a few? I admit that the silence from the vast majority of muslims is worrying, and they should be encouraged to speak out against the acts of these Mullah's. Aren't moderate muslims, such as Mr. M.J. Akbar or Ms. Azmi, making their voices heard? Isn't that a good sign? Again, I agree that more muslims should come out, but aren't you oversimplifying matters?

"The mass of Muslims simply refuse to acknowledge there is anything wrong with their community; it is always the other party's fault."

I don't know about that because I haven't been around this "mass" of muslims in India. From what I've read, the majority of Muslims in India are illiterate, at least, relative to other communities. Don't you think that secular education might help in ridding the control that Mullah's have?

"In North India there are actually Church backed terrorists who try to convert Hindus and Buddhists to christianity by force. "

And they are? Names of organisations etc. would help. Or do you mean the North East? Then again, should all Christians be blamed for the acts of a few? Or should Christians call themselves Hindu Christians to be accepted into the "fold?"

"I am more more afriad of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism than of Hindu fundamentalism. "

Fundamentalism in any form is dangerous and a scary thing indeed. However, fundamentalism from the majority community in ANY country or locale is even more frightening, isn't it? After all, there is a greater chance of the majority fundamentalists coming to power and changing laws or even the constitution, than those of the minorities. I hope you are not saying that because you define yourself as a Hindu, fundamentalism by Hindu's is not AS scary. Is that right?

No. Fundamentalism of any sort scares the hell out of me.

As far as I am concerned, it's no concern of mine what you would like to label yourself. But since, you specifically say that you belong to particular group, it's only fair that I try and make sense of it. I hope you don't take it in the wrong spirit.

cheers

hinduwoman

Hello Aristhrottle,
I am not offended by your questions. It is always good to have a sensible civil discussion

No great mystery. It was just that when I took the screen name, I did not think about leaving the blank space as it should be , that is all. It means the same.

I was speaking for the Hindus in general, though now that you have asked the question I suppose I can only speak for the upper and middle classes. I don't think anyone specifically asked the lower classes what they thought and I suppose the very poor would not care.

No, what happened was worse. The ruling party which had a majority in Parliament actually passed a legislation confirming the mullahs' position. After that the Hindu hardliners rise to power was unstoppable.
And even now the so called leaders of Muslim community are protesting at raising the age of marriage for girls from 12 to 18, and for the court saying that a husband can no longer divorce his wife by saying talaq. Their positon is that no court or parliament has the right to reinterpret the Shariat or Koran.
On internet many eudcated muslims support both measures, but unforutnately the average Hindu hears only the leaders.

All Muslims should not be condemned, but the way I see it the problem is with Islam itself. Until they reform it, until they learn to criticize religion, they cannot live peacefully or advance. Certainly some moderate Muslims are making their voices heard, but the problem is they are too few in number. I admit that the situation in India is complex, but you see this is a matter of life and death --- literally in many cases, for both our communities. The Hindus perceive Muslims as inherently violent. With every act of terrorism by Islamic militants, with every provocative speech or action by their leaders, this belief is confirmed. Until you have a large number of Muslims saying openly that they have no connection with extremists, that belief won't go away --- they seem unable to get this. Communication is the only way, but it is the burden of Muslims as well.
I tried to explain this to two nice Muslims. Their response was oh let us not discuss religion, we can be friends with Hindus without it. The Ulema are the ulema. Well actually you cannot, not when the belief is that Islam is evil, not when the mullahs issue fatwas that Hindus are kufr. Until they are willing to speak up and explain clearly, they are going to seem like the enemy. But there is always unwillingness to criticize Islam or Muhammad even in privacy where it won't get out to other Muslims. I put this down to minority syndrome --- unwilling to criticize one's community before the majority.. But now I am wondering whether this is simply because they are unable to get away from the Islamic mindset long enough to criticize. And apologetics by moderate Muslims only make things worse because they go about in completely the wrong way. They usually defend Muhammad the Indefensible, and argue that stories of what Muslim rulers did in India are lies! It simply conforms the traditional belief, "Tamarind has no sweetness, Muslims have no goodness".
I think there are two types of moderate Muslims. One group would like to integrate themselves openly but is afraid of violence (it had happened often enough). The other group simply cannot get away from Islam's shadow.
Let me give two examples which the Hindu hardliners could not have bettered --
Recently when Falwell said Muhammad was a terrorist, Muslims in India rioted and killed Hindus. So Hindus saw --- a group of Indian citizens killing other Indian citizens, in the name of religion, because an American citizen of whom no one in India (certainly not the victims) has ever heard of has said something. NO Muslim organization criticized it or did anything to being the situation under control.
Abdul Kalam was elected President. The Hindu hardliners approved of him as an example of Muhammadi Hindu. Immediately newspapers were flooded with letters and columns from educated Muslims protesting at calling Kalam a Muslim. Since he read Gita and had once said he was a devotee of Ram, he is not a Muslim. Excepting one journalist, there was no defence. Majority simply refused to accept him as a proper Muslim, as a role model for his community. But he is precisely the model India needs.

Yes that would be a great help. But again their own leaders who have risen in society must help to do this. Actually I think that mullah control is lessening, but it is hard to tell unless you are part of the community.

Sorry, I should have written NorthEast. I don't blame all Christians, but aggressive missionaries.
The Hindu Christian bit was a way of explaining to Primal that you can use Hinduism as a cultural label

I agree with you. because if truly Hindu fundamentalists come to absolute power they would want to make us live according to their notions of Indian culture; in several colleges for example they wanted to impose dress codes on girls and they are absolutely obsessed with banning beef. They will no doubt think of something else if they come to power.
But right now I am more afraid of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism because they are far more violent and rigid. Hindu community is so fragmented and varied that it is very difficult to actually impose rigid control. Hindus never had an official Church, a founder, a community of disciplined priests, missionaries, and had such a number of sacred scriptures some of which are in different versions in different regions, -- well no control mechanism in short. 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. They get support from many people only on certain issues, on others they are ignored. The organizations themselves are split into several groups with varying notions. when you are speaking of majority gaining power, you are thinking of a more or less homogenous unit. But in Hinduism it is impossible to have that. So I don't think that there is any danger of Hindu fundamentalists actually coming to uncontested power. Also in Hinduism more leeway is allowed, precisely because it is decentralized. In the past, differing sects would try to grab the king and scuffle with one another, but there was never actual wars over doctrinal points or burning at the stake. So I feel a bit more safer voicing unorthodox opinions in Hinduism. On the other hand Islam and Christianity appear to me to be far more controllable and easier to enforce.

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.

aristhrottle

Hello Hinduwoman,

Interesting post. Your quotes are in italics.

No great mystery. It was just that when I took the screen name, I did not think about leaving the blank space as it should be , that is all. It means the same.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that, is it? These messageboards were created for people to discuss issues of religion etc.. Therefore, your moniker - and nicks similar to yours - mean something. For example, when somebody calls herself a Christianwoman on these forums, it would normally 'mean' something or at the very least, her nick would convey a 'message' to the other participants of the board. This is in contrast to a nick such as mine which, perhaps, might arouse a passing interest (if any) and then the topic would not be raised again. Perhaps, it would not be an exaggeration to say that nicks with religious connotations attached to it on these boards are like those proverbial red rags to a raging bull! ..:-)

However, I shall accept your explanation for the nick.

I was speaking for the Hindus in general, though now that you have asked the question I suppose I can only speak for the upper and middle classes

Quite honestly, aren't you being a tad presumptuous? You mean to say that Hindus (in the religious sense and belonging to the categories that you listed) are as monolothic as that. I think not. It would be a tragedy to have whole populations thinking uniformly about such issues. Tragedy for the people and for the country.

The ruling party which had a majority in Parliament actually passed a legislation confirming the mullahs' position.

I have been doing a bit of reading on this particular case. Yes, it's a shame that the government in power then, bowed to the fanatics and introduced legislation. However, ironically the legislation they enacted went even further than what the Supreme Court decreed in their judgement. So in the end, the fanatics did NOT get what they wanted. I recollect reading that the SUpreme Court in their ruling of the legislation commented that the Act did actually the reverse of what the then government 'intended!'

but unforutnately the average Hindu hears only the leaders.

I would rather you change that to, "but unfortunately the average "insert religion" hears only the leaders." :-)

That's a pity and a fact of life. However, you appear to be well read. Then why the absolutes? If one takes static positions then whatever you read will appear to confirm your viewpoint. Even in articles critical to your religion or issues, a person who does not have critical thinking in his/her armoury will only pick on those points which appear to compliment his/her position. It's important that one should be aware of this. It's easy and comforting I think to be part of a group or to be against a group.

All Muslims should not be condemned, but the way I see it the problem is with Islam itself. Until they reform it, until they learn to criticize religion, they cannot live peacefully or advance.

I agree that Islam is rigid and has no patience with reformers whether from the inside or the outside. It, and other religions, needs to be reformed or hopefully, consigned to the dustbin of history - like all other religions .. :-) But reality never conforms to what one would like it to be. Debate and discussion is one way of understanding the other person's point of view. Hopefully, more muslims would join in.

We both agree, I think, that religion should not be allowed to have a free hand in affairs of state. I, at least, have no disagreement with that.

The Falwell incident did leave a bad taste in my mouth, for sure. And I understand what you are pointing out to me. People's ideas about a certain group of people are reinforced by incidents such as these.

So I feel a bit more safer voicing unorthodox opinions in Hinduism. On the other hand Islam and Christianity appear to me to be far more controllable and easier to enforce.

Not really. Christianity is not as monolithic as you think it is. It is extremely fragmented. You give the Pope too much importance if you think he has the power to control the catholic masses. The Catholic Church's edicts regarding abortion, for example, is regularly flouted by practicising catholics and even the local church on occasion turns a blind eye to the happenings. A good example is the US. Numerous sects exists. Most don't agree with each other. Indeed, it's fair game to convert a member belonging to a particular sect to another one. After all, those people belonging to the other sects are not on the right path! Therefore, to call Christianity as one complete whole is not the whole truth.

The Muslim world - to a lesser extent - is also fairly divided. The Sunni's hate the Shia's. Everybody hate's the Ahmediya's. The Bahaa'i's are not worth the effort to arouse any emotion amongst the rest. They are not one unit as people would like them to be. They are also divided on the basis of tribes - especially in the Middle East.

Now, it's possible that all these sects, cults, whatever, may unite for a particular issue. They might be willing to ignore their doctrinal differences in order to gain some influence. But that unity will never last. In that sense, they are no different from the hardline Hindu groups. But in the time ANY of these fundamentalists are in power they will change the whole fabric of society - Indian or otherwise. And being a majority, Hindu hardliners are more of a threat to Indian society than say the Muslim, Christian, Sikh or Buddhist varieties. Similarly, the Christian groups in the US are a greater threat to their society than the minority religious groups.

I really don't think, therefore, that fundamentalism of the Hindu strain is much more benign than the Christian, Muslim, whathaveyou variety.

At the end each community must police its own and try to integrate; merely insisting on the duty of majority would not do.

In the end, the law of the land should be the one that should be followed. If it conflicts with any one religion, then followers of that religion are free to go to another country that supports their stance. However, it's important that the law is applied equally across religions. In that sense, a common civil code is of paramount importance.

We Hindus will do our best to keep Hindu fundamentalism at bay, but Muslims and Xtian missionaries must meet us halfway.

Forgive me when I say this, but I find it odd that you keep using terms such as "we hindus" or "those muslims" etc.. :-) For example, I simply can't bring myself to say in a forum such as this, "we atheists." Each one of us - atheist, hindu, muslim, christian etc. - are a person in their own right. I would be assuming too much if I think I can speak for the rest unless I am specifically given authority by a group. Why do you speak in such a language? This is a genuine question. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be able to, by myself, to keep atheist fundamentalists (ha ha) at bay. I am sure you understand that I am just trying to make a point.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: aristhrottle ]</p>

Kama

If I may, a few questions for Hinduwoman
What is your stance on Hindu casteist mentality and social hierarchy?
What is your opinion of frauds and misdemeanors commited by Hindus zealots themselves in this age of Kaliyuga.
It is definitely noticeable you havent given any
misdeeds on Hindu miscreants to be neutral in your enjoyable site or prevalent in any posts in the Internet that I had been aquainted with.

Thank you, and may the Laws Of Karmic retribution be your backing as a Nastika, culturally and secularly of course.

Primal

There's a bit of a personal attack totally unwarranted. Actually I think Hinduism is bunk because science and logic make it superfluous. But thanks for assuming.

And describing one's-self as Hindu is still a statement of religious belief, so it is still ridiculous to claim to be a "secular Hindu". A Hindu Christian is disingenuine too, what makes you think that because a bunch of people think that a folly works, that it works?

I met "Vegan Vampires" too, so what?

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Primal

Because they are trying to end the caste system, combat superstitions, secularize the government, end child labor, sexism and actually allow people to eat cows.

Hinduthvaite

Communism... Scientific? Arrrgh ...the guy is outta his mind. In India at the crumbling leftist citadels when they are not busy burning their opponents they are busy carving out the name of their party on the skins of those students who have joined the rival student unions. Then their texts are busty singing praises to butchers of humanity such as Lenin and Stalin. Apart these are idiots who believe in such irrational Abrahamic religious residues like dialectical materialsim, historical dialectics etc...
only they are clothed in the terminology of industrial age and colonial racism.

Agricola Senior

It seems to me this discussion is going off topic. The issue is legitimacy of the term «secular Hindu». I find nothing ridiculous in it. On the contrary it is very ridiculous (and dangerous too) to be unaware of the fact that we (Europeans and Americans) are all cultural (secular?) Christians.

My grandfather was an atheist and my parents too. I grew up in an «atheist» country. I never have any direct contact with christian faith or any church, and still I know I am cultural (secular) Christian. I do not like it, but it is the truth.

And there is a fundamental difference between Hindus and Christians. Hindu extremist could harm only Hindus and a few neighbours (Muslims etc), but Christians (of various kinds) are tearing this planet apart: they are driving humanity towards collective suicide.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Agricola Senior ]</p>

Primal

Secular=nonreligious

Hinduism=a religion according to the vast majority of scholars in the subject.

Hence the term secular Hindu is absurd.Also it is ridiculous to say we are all culturally "Christian" in western countries, do you have some strong evidence for such an extraodinary claim? Are you saying all our practices and beliefs stem from Christianity? That's bull. Even those borrowed such as celebrations of Christmas can become mere holidays and lose their religious significance. I think its dangerous to parade any religion as secular thought.

to hinduwoman: I never said Marxism was scientific, on the contrary I think Marxism is incorrect. However the Marxists do try and help India progress.