Sastan

hinduwoman - To smash an old ruined mosque is evil; when Buddha statues are smashed, well let no intellectual speak against it.

The destruction of those statues were condemned worldwide.

Amit Misra - easy. rational opinion. fighting fire with fire is misplaced in this case. the two kinds of bigotry are only going to feed upon each other.

I don't believe religious bigotry can so easily be neutralised with rational opinion. While all the Gandhi-wannabes may preach to the fundamentalists, the reaction will not be of pious respect, but rather, physically attacking the rationalist. Take Palestine, for example, he can't sign a peace agreement (that doesn't give up most of Israel to the Palestinians) without being killed by his own people. How are you going to rationalise with 4 million people brought up on hating Israel and the Jews? Fighting fire with fire will be necessary for the forseeable future.

[i]But Hindutva does have a bloody history. They have engineered hindu-muslim riots and carried out pogroms in Punjab during the 1940s.

This was fairly recent history, I was taking a look at the overall history of the religion. For example, Christianity has been involved in a a tremendous amount of religious violence against other faiths since it's inception, as has Islam. Also, it is my opinion (which is, admittedly, not a result of indepth research, but of casual observation) that the recent upsurgence in Hindutva is more of a backlash against many centuries of Islamic/Mughal imperalism. I don't think it can be argued that the Muslim invasions of India were extremely bloody, and the best (or rather, worse) Hindutva has to offer pales in comparison.

In the early 1990s, Mr. Advani left a trail of blood in the wake of his kitschy "hindutva chariot" as he drove from Gujarat to Bihar.

I'm not Indian, so I can't comment on this, being unfamiliar with both the events and the people involved, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, if you could refer me to any websites. Did you literally mean 'chariot'?

In 2000-2001, they vandalized village churches,

Not suprising.

murdered x-ian preists and

Such as? I've been looking at the US State Department 2000 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and it makes no mention of any murdering of Christian priests by Hindu extremists.

're-converted' former x-ians to their brand of hinduism.

Is this a form of religious intolerance? Was any coercian or unfair means used in these rconversians? I'm not sure how this relates to a 'bloody history'. But then, the tense atmosphere may have led to some of these reconversions to be motivated by fear. To be honest, I find it somewhat amusing, seeing both sides pulling on these tribal animists to their religion.

Yes! one major campaign by the hindutva crowd is that muslims (the randy b*s) don't use contraception, and so have more children than hindus.

IIRC, Muslims do in fact have a significantly higher birthrate than Hindus in India, in fact, it applies worldwide, which is why Islam is expected to overtake Christianity in adherents. So it wouldn't be incorrect of these Hindus to make that claim...it is true. Just as in Israel the Arab Muslim israelis will overtake the Jewish Israelis by birthrate alone this century.

The fact is that progeny numbers correlate to education and awareness status much more tightly than religious grouping.

I would maintain that there still is a link between the two, if not directly, then indirectly. It cannot be dismissed that high birthrates is a common, perhaps distinguishing feature of Islam worldwide.

The upshot is, political events in south asia are better viewed from economic perspectives instead of appraisals of religious affiliations of the citizenry.

I agree, but still believe that religion is a major factor in this. Especially today; Kashmir is a religious issue for the Pakistani people today.

I've been looking at this document:

2000 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom: India

While the Hindu extremists appear to be involved in creating a volatile atmosphere in parts of India, it seems to be mainly that. The bigotry seems rather mild, aside from a handful disgusting and sickening cases, but I would hardly judge the entire Hindutva movement on the exceptions to the rule.

From what I can see, Hindutva is worthy of criticism on it's own, but in the context of global bigotry, I can't say that it is worth any significant attention, as is the current case.

"I don't believe religious bigotry can so easily be neutralised with rational opinion. … Fighting fire with fire will be necessary for the forseeable future."

I guess we should agree to disagree on this. As a Gandhi camp-follower in many respects (though certainly not a wannabe- why, Gandhi didn't even eat kabab or guzzle beer!) I like to swear by civil society. No, I won't be greeted either piously or respectfully if I talk to Hindutva-indoctrinated Hindus or screaming Mullahs, but I will have the ear of Hindus and Muslims who are religious only in the denominational sense. It is this silent majority that I hope shall prefer rational opinion over the other kind. Conflict resolution within the paradigm of civil dialogue rather than civil war is what I would like to see, despite conceding that Hindutva adherents and fanatical Muslims are two warring camps in my subcontinent. The tenet is to oppose irrationality, not to pit one variant against another. In the forseeable future, I see growing disillusionment with hatred-preaching, electoral-politics-oriented religious fundamentalism, and not a triumphant Hindutva brigade glorying in their subjugation of rational opinion along with the Communists, Muslims and Christians of India.

"(…pogroms in Punjab during the 1940s.) This was fairly recent history, I was taking a look at the overall history of the religion."

Two problems. Hindutva is a recent religion. It was born circa 1925 when the RSS was incorporated. It has very little to do with the loosely-allied set of beliefs and practices of what has been termed "Hinduism" by visitors, invaders, adventurers or immigrants to this part of the world.
Second, in so far as some of the ancient and medieval States located in the subcontinent were 'Hindu', they were no more reticent in unleashing persecution upon denominationally different citizens or neighbouring kingdoms. Temples of gods other than those of the victorious were desecrated as a matter of routine in ancient and medieval India. Take the case of my hero, a philosopher called Charuvak. He had supreme contempt for religion, and made a very important contribution to the history of science in India. He stated the distinction b/w 'anumAna' (hypothesis) and 'pramANa' (evidence). This rattled the theologians, for obvious reasons. And what happened to him? He and his school were reviled, discredited, their books disappeared, and to this day, Charuvak's 'lokAyat' tradition is depicted as buffoonery or extreme epicurianism in popular discourse. If its blood and gore you want to check out, Jains were slaughtered by hindu rulers on a large scale (though they returned the favour when one ruler accepted Jainism!) and there is a popular anecdote about how a Buddhist ruler from Asoka the Great's line put a price on every Brahmin's head that was brought to him. Bloody histories are common to all societies, religious affiliations cloud the issue unnecessarily.

"the recent upsurgence in Hindutva is more of a backlash against many centuries of Islamic/Mughal imperalism. "

Rather late in the day, wouldn't you say, for Hindutva crowds to resist attacks by adventurers from the northwest? Mughals, Turks, Persians, Kazhaks, et al have contributed more than genes to India by now. Their descendants are ethnically indistinguishable from the hindus that populate north India. So a 'backlash' against rulers and aristocracies dead and gone at least 150 years ago deserves contempt for no other reason but the time warp in which it locates itself…

"I don't think it can be argued that the Muslim invasions of India were extremely bloody, and the best (or rather, worse) Hindutva has to offer pales in comparison."

Yes, those were bloody times. Taimur the lame made blood run in the streets of Delhi, it is said. The argument I would prefer to put forward here is that the 'invasions' (demographically much smaller in scale than the immigrations that preceded and followed them) were not 'Muslim." First, the triple motivation of 'gold, glory and God' a la "Stout Cortez" or Pizzaro played no small part in the designs of Ghaznavi, Ghori and Company. Second, even at such an important target as the Temple at Somnath, resident Muslims of surrounding areas participated in and contributed to the defence against the invaders.( I wish I'd saved a link to Prof. Romilla Thapar's popular article on this-try frontlineonline.com if interested).

"I would be interested in knowing more about it, if you could refer me to any websites. Did you literally mean 'chariot'?"
Well, it was a dolled-up truck, with whorls, curlicues and suchlike decorations sticking out of it, painted in lurid colours. Inside, I am told, it was air-conditioned and fitted up like a caravan. As it passed through hamlets and small towns, youths would slash their thumbs and anoint Mr. Advani's forehead with the fresh blood…
I'll do a search later, and maybe post answers to some of the other points you raised, but must say bye till the 5th. Going to Delhi.
Amit

Sastan, about the destruction of Buddhas, I was referring to the Indian intellectual. I would like Amit Mishra to quote from all those who said destruction of Babri Masjid was a barbaric act that this is also barbaric. Yeah, some muslims did, by lying that Koran says nothing against idolatry.

About Advani's Rathajatra -- I too would love to know about the 'trail of blood'. Whenever people ask, well who had been killed, people like Mishra says well I can't give you facts and figures right now but they happened. I would have thought that after repeatedly being asked they would have them handy.

Temples of defeated in ancient and medieval India routinely descecrated --- examples. And I want about Hindus doing it.

Mishra thinks that the Hindu backlash is a bit late. Well, it is not so much against the invaders (though the more fanatical ones think it a insult to call someone Babar's son) as against Islamic terrorism today and the privileges politicians have given to Muslims to capture their vote.
As you see Mishra refuses to say anything about what I said about muslim priveleges and intolerance in the earlier post. All he says is that I have been misinformed. The reason he cannot is that the information is correct.

Amit

Umm ..i thought i had kept it simple, probably the length of the post might have done the tirck...
The reason is very simple, not many hindu fanatics (in fact i dont recall seeing even one) land up on these boards and proselytising about the hindu religion or championing the vedas and giving theistic insights into how the world came into being and how it operates and how human beings should live.

And I am certainily amazed at your comparision to gestapo


Sastan

I've heard this claim before, is there anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this?

You want me to back up my observation with some sort of peer reviewed thesis paper/study?

JP

hinduwoman,
please don't hit me if i seem derisive of your concerns. my problem is that canards such as yours proliferate on the web, because of some net hoodlums like jai maharaj and voice of india publications.
i was part of a demonstration at the lucknow general post-office the day that the taliban started their demolition. at least 150 people turned up during the couple of hours that i was there, and a sizable number of them were denominationally muslim. as for screaming condemnations, check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/message/954

What canard are you exactly referring to?

Hinduwoman:
'.. bulwarks against Islamic fundies are a meaningless construct': It is not meaningless for the Hindus who see their religion being maligned while told to respect Muslim sensibilities.

LP:
A legitimate gripe. And I'd add to that that one reason that Muslims are so obsessed with the contention that they are being persecuted is that persecution is the *only* thing that they can imagine -- that they believe that it ought to be them doing the persecuting.

HW:
Protest against Hussein's naked Saraswati is bigoted; endorsing fatwa against Rushdie is openmindedness.

LP:
What's Hussein's naked Saraswati? And I wish to ask where are the Muslim leaders who have issued a counter-fatwa against that fatwa. I've yet to see any do so.

HW:
Demonstrating against "Water" leads Star TV to lecture Hindus on democratic rights of citizens; Vandalizing halls showing Gaddar leads Star TV to say that scenes offensive to minorities (doing namaz wearing sindoor) should be cut out.

LP:
What's Gaddar? namaz? sindoor? And what was so troublesome about "Water"?

HW:
To smash an old ruined mosque is evil; when Buddha statues are smashed, well let no intellectual speak against it.

LP:
And if actions like smashing Buddhas are so un-Muslim, then why aren't the perpetrators kept out of Mecca unless they try to undo the damage they have done? Considering Muslims' willingness to impose harsh punishments, one suspects that not doing so is tacit approval.

HW:
To assemble for Kumbh mela is superstition; to subsidize hajj --- from hindu taxes yet --- (and my atheist tax as well), but not hindu pilgrimages, is secular.

LP:
What's Kumbh mela?

HW:
"minority-bashing braggarts" ---
Funny. during such discussions minority always means Muslims and christians. They never mean the Jews or Parsis. But then since these groups never insult Hindu culture or have any conflict with hindu neighbours they cannot be 'minorities', right? Also let us never never mention Bahais or Ahemediyyans who are relentlessly persecuted by mainstream Islam. It is nasty and illeberal to speak of Islamic persecution of minoritites.

LP:
It's interesting to watch Muslims demand that others do for them what they refuse to do for others.

HW:
Sastan, many Hindus agree with you that we have become pussies. That is why Shivsena, Bajrangdal etc are giving armed training to any Hindu who asks. In particular camps for women's self-defence have become hugely popular. Incidentally, I think a report said that a whole gang of Shivsena turned up to fight in Kashmir but the army naturally turned them back since they lacked expert training.

LP:
Women's self-defense? I wonder how many female recruits they get on account of how the more strict Muslims treat women.

HW:
When I read stories of Hindu Munani shooting dead members of Muslim militant parties I feel disturbed; on the other hand I feel comforted by the thought that Hindus have protectors. After all in the Partition riots it bloody well wasnot Muslim tolerance that saved Hindus; it was militant Hindus like Aryasamaj and Sikhs and the ordinary Hindus who were determined to fight.

LP:
That can indeed go too far -- Mohandas Gandhi had been assassinated by someone who considered a sellout to Islam -- but when one considers how Islam celebrates Holy Wars...

LP:

Hussein painted a naked woman and then called it Saraswati, goddess of learning. This led to many conservative hindus protesting.

Water is a film where objectionable scenes were shown like saying that all hindu widows are prostitutes etc. Gaddar is a film where the Muslim heroine falls in love with a Sikh (an infidel) and she prays to Mecca wearing sindoor, a red vermilion powder that among hindus denote a woman is married.

About hindu mulitancy --- I am very confused about it. But if we are too peaceful or chivalrous Islam is going to wipe us out for sure.

HW:
Hussein painted a naked woman and then called it Saraswati, goddess of learning. This led to many conservative hindus protesting.

LP:
Much like the Satanic Verses, which featured a prophet named "Mahound" who invents a religion called "Submission"; some prostitutes in that story take the names of Mohammed's wives.

Furthermore, "Hussein" is an Arab name; many Muslims like having Arab names, so could he be a Muslim?

It might be fun to do a precise analog of this painting -- to paint a picture of a naked woman and then claim that it is of one of Mohammed's wives. I'm sure that many Muslims will react much like those conservative Hindus had reacted.

HW:
Water is a film where objectionable scenes were shown like saying that all hindu widows are prostitutes etc. Gaddar is a film where the Muslim heroine falls in love with a Sikh (an infidel) and she prays to Mecca wearing sindoor, a red vermilion powder that among hindus denote a woman is married.

LP:
I would not be surprised if "Water" had been made by a Muslim. And Muslims complain about being stereotyped as bloodthirsty misogynists...

And is that red powder used in that red dot on Hindu women's foreheads?

HW:
About hindu mulitancy --- I am very confused about it. But if we are too peaceful or chivalrous Islam is going to wipe us out for sure.

LP:
Good to recognize what a dilemma such militants present.


[This message has been edited by lpetrich (edited July 05, 2001).]

Yeah, Hussein is a Muslim. and what you suggested was asked of him: he was asked by the Hindu nationalists to paint a picute of a naked woman and call it Ayesha. Needless, to say he did not respond.

Water was made in collaboration with muslims.