... Jinnah, specifically the declamatory 15-minute rant he used to launch in to upon hearing his name.

Get The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan by Yasmin Khan.

I'll dig up the relevant parts later.

Of course, there are Christians in Pakistan! Why wouldn't there be? After all there were Christians in the Pakistani part of British India pre-Partition. It wouldn't make sense for them to completely disappear. Granted, most of the Christians I knew there were economically marginalized, servants, etc, but they exist and they have relative freedom to practice their religion.

A personal story about my embarasment about my igonorance about a similar thing (regarding Hindus in Pakistan). I was just recently visiting Pakistan, and went to this national park in Balochistan (Hinglaj), where there is a ancient mandir. We were planning to visit this mandir but the road was messed up due to rains or something so we couldn't. Anyway, there was a group of pilgrams who were going to walk across and get to the mandir on the other side. I asked them, where in India they were from (assuming of course that they must be Indian because they were Hindu), but they were from Karachi! Needless to say, it was pretty embrassing. But also important to realize, that even if the Hindus in PK are 1% of the overall population, 1% of 160 million people is still quite a lot of people.

I think the Roman Catholics got to my part of Kerala first, likely Jesuit missionaries. Instead of the Syro-Malabar or Syrian Rite, we stayed Roman Catholic.

They say the original St. Thomas made his way to Kerala, but I always had my doubts.

"most Hindus and nearly all Sikhs fled the country, but the Christians remained"

FYI. This is absolutely wrong. In the immediate aftermath of 1947 about 15% and 25% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations were respectively Hindu. Of course this has been decimated after decades of ethnic cleansing or forced conversion. Another popular version has been kidnapping Hindu women by Islamic men so that progeny continues as Islamic ( remember the war cries in J&K by Jehadis 'leave Kashmir but leave your women behind' or something like that ). Now the respective populations are about 2% and 10%. OTOH Islamic population in India has gone up from 8% to 21%. Some of it is also due to illegal migration. The successive SICKular governments in India are afraid to release actual figures! Christian population also has increased from 2% to about 8% now due to terrorising evangelization. This is sad truth of south Asia where people of the book are involved in demographic warfare.

Sebs,

There's a beautiful essay on Sulekha on this topic. Please read
http://c-alex-alexander.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/05/proselytization-in-india-an-indian-christian-s-perspective.htm

Kiran

"OTOH Islamic population in India has gone up from 8% to 21%
...
Christian population also has increased from 2% to about 8% now due to terrorising evangelization"

Absolutely wrong. Muslim population is around 13% and christian population is around 3% at best. I don't have the data for 1947, but in 1960 muslim population was 11%. christian population is virtually unchanged since 1960.

Please nobody feed the trolls

5 · Kiran P said

There's a beautiful essay on Sulekha on this topic. Please read

WOW! That was beautiful. I'm from the ancient Orthodox tradition the author described and I attend a G.O. church in D.C. where the priest himself decries the bigotry expressed in the name of G-d; when I mentioned on this blog that said priest gave a sermon which explained that we did not believe that Hindu people/non-Christians were automatically going to be barbecued in hellfire, I was called a liar and then a member of a fake church, as if the only Christian view of other religions is the one promulgated with claims of exclusivity and hate. That was a few years ago, when I was repeatedly attacked here for my "evangelizing" ways, which were obviously dictated to me by some missionaries who are using SM as an instrument of anti-Hindu propaganda. It hurt, because I don't support almost any of what is currently done in India (much like the author of that piece).

My Father (like Alexander's parents) steeped me in the exact same brew of tolerance, respect and bewilderment at all the Johnny-come-lately's who sow acrimony where there was none that he was raised with by my grandparents, and people are shocked at it sometimes. But that was the Kerala my father grew up in, for the first thirty years of his life. I'm sad that such harmonious views surprise anyone and I desperately wish that people were sowing those seeds, instead of the ideas currently being used to manipulate the most vulnerable elements of society.

Thank you for one of the best links I've ever been given.

7 · Samir said

Please nobody feed the trolls

Agreed. Also, we learned early on that we best have a source for EVERYTHING we type, and that relying on memory alone would come back to bite us in the kundi. :) That's why even brief posts take me an hour. Fact-checking, y'all. I am terrified of all of you brainiacs pointing at me and doing the Nelson-esque "ha ha", so I don't blog nothin', unless I can back it up, son. ;)

My point is statistics are more useful (and powerful) when you can cite the credible source from which you obtained them.

::

1 · SSK said

Get The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan by Yasmin Khan.

Will do! Thanks. :)

2 · Kabir said

Of course, there are Christians in Pakistan! Why wouldn't there be? After all there were Christians in the Pakistani part of British India pre-Partition. It wouldn't make sense for them to completely disappear.

Well to be fair, at this point I have known of their existence for the past 16 years. ;) I just didn't know if they left during partition, or if they were British, and went back, etc.

3 · Sebs said

They say the original St. Thomas made his way to Kerala, but I always had my doubts.

Why? :)

Its interesting to think about the history and perceptions of South Asian Christians... and how it differs between the countries of the subcontinent. If Christians are only about 3% of India's population, they are pretty overrepresented in the public sphere - which is great! With the number of politicians, academics, movie starts, etc. seemingly from that background it's great to hear they've done well.

I've met Pakistani Christian immigrants in the USA... and have heard old-generation Pakistani Muslims mutter bad things about them behind their back (I am not Muslim by the way). The bad things they said had more to do with the presumed prior caste affiliation of the Christians which is disgusting and offensive to hear regardless of the which generation is saying it.

The general impression I've gotten from the old generation is that outside Goa and Kerala, most Christians in the subcontinent came from the a lower social background - and that any sort of discrimination against them by the older generation is more due to old caste biases than anything.

By older generation by the way, I mean those that were alive during partition either as small children or older.

They say the original St. Thomas made his way to Kerala, but I always had my doubts.

I remember hearing a sad tale of a Pakistani Christian kid in grad school a couple of years ago. It seemed he ran out of money and had no place to stay. He didn't get much support from the other Pakistani students 'cos he wasn't a Muslim and the Indian grad students didn't want anything to do with him 'cos he was a Pakistani!!!!

Thoughtful post, Anna. In Pakistan, because of the demographic and ethnic cleansing/migration issue you mentioned, the default for 'minority' is Christian. There are Christians in most Pakistani cities, both in Punjab and in Sindh, especially the large port Karachi. And it is true that, most if not all Christians in the interior were converted after the British 'conquest' of the Punjab and Sindh, which itself is quite recent - 1840s. Thus in Pakistani Punjab, which is most of Pakistan - the entire discourse around 'minority issues' occurs around the treatment of Christians. That is the significance of 'Christian' in the caption of the picture you linked in. Pakistan has had a Ministry of Minority Affairs (interesting pic) since the early 1970s, and the Minister has usually been a Christian. Of the Hindus that remained in Pakistan post-1947, most are in rural Sindh - Pakistani Punjab has almost none. There are Sikhs in rural Pakistani Punjab, most of them living near the Sikh shrines of Nankana Sahib and Panja Sahib, but neither Hindus nor Sikhs are as numerous as Christians.

The socio-economic situation of most Christians in Pakistani Punjab is quite bad - in some respects it resembles that of Christians in Indian Punjab as well, but even more, there are compelling similarities with the neo-Buddhists in India: the situation in both cases pre-dates their (relatively recent) conversion to their present religion, seems institutionalized, and is reflected in persisting prejudice.

Anna,

Pakistani Christians were an integral part of developing private education in Pakistan. The first school I went to in Karachi was a school called St. Michael's - its essentially run by Christians - I remember the Principal being called "Father ____", the administrators tended to be nuns or other Christians. Now, I'm pretty sure that some of them would be what you call Anglo-Indian, but not sure of the exact breakdown. Now, even after St. Michael's, I transferred to Karachi Grammar School (Benazir's alma mater), and I remember our junior school principal being Mrs. Fernandes, and having Christian teachers and administrators. Other schools - St. Patricks, St. Josephs, Convent of Jesus & Mary. There's also hospitals - my brother was born at 7th Day Adventist in Karachi. So really not that different from the situation in India.

When I was at St Michaels, me and my brother developed a friendship with one of the Anglo-Indian administrators. We credit him with giving us our impeccable English at such a young age, as well generally just taking us to fun places growing up - essentially a cool uncle. He eventually moved to Canada when we got a little older, but I still visit once every few year when I go to Toronto. In fact, his entire family now lives in Toronto, where there is a small community of Pakistani Anglo-Indians. I've also run into a couple of Pakistani Christian / Anglo-Indian randomly - one of the ladies at McGill Grad Admissions office where I worked was from Karachi too.

Of course though, in Karachi you tend to have poor Christian families, as well the educated middle-class ones as well. I went to school with a handful at KGS, which is considered an elite school, but I'm sure there were tons of poor working class Christians throughout the city. From what I remember, they live in their own colonies that tend to be pretty obvious (Hallelujah House etc), and from my recollection I don't remember people troubling their middle clas colonies and neighborhoods when I lived there until the late 90s - the middle class folks knew they were probably teachers to their own kids and generally were quite respectful. Of course this all based on just my experiences.

8 · A N N A said

WOW! That was beautiful. I'm from the ancient Orthodox tradition the author described and I attend a G.O. church in D.C. where the priest himself decries the bigotry expressed in the name of G-d; when I mentioned on this blog that said priest gave a sermon which explained that we did not believe that Hindu people/non-Christians were automatically going to be barbecued in hellfire, I was called a liar and then a member of a fake church, as if the only Christian view of other religions is the one promulgated with claims of exclusivity and hate.

Anna, sorry that you had to go through. I am very proud of the ancient Christian roots in India, just like I am proud of ancient Hindu heritages. However, it is true that the action of evangelists of India are irking most people in India, and its good to hear dissenting voice of Alexander and you that this is not the Indic way.

5 · Kiran P said

Sebs,
There's a beautiful essay on Sulekha on this topic. Please read
http://c-alex-alexander.sulekha.com/blog/post/2003/05/proselytization-in-india-an-indian-christian-s-perspective.htm

Kiran

Thanks a lot for that link, such sane voices are disappearing fast in Kerala.

For those of you interested in developing Alexander's type of broad understanding of religion across faiths, I highly recommend S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy book (two volumes). It is HUGE, but it is definitive, and worth the read. It will change the way you see the world, and yourself. You can find it in most university libraries in the West.

6 · najeeb said

Absolutely wrong. Muslim population is around 13% and christian population is around 3% at best. I don't have the data for 1947, but in 1960 muslim population was 11%. christian population is virtually unchanged since 1960.

najeeb,

It's easy to blurt something in a post but you can't get away from truth. Please read
http://greathindu.com/2008/02/demographic-siege-in-bharatvarsh/

You are not including several figures since 1960 which the p-sec media is not reporting or rather (conveniently ) cannot be accurately reported:

1. Ethic cleansing of non-muslims from Kashmir and West Bengal, Assam and other border areas with Bangladesh by Jehadis.
2. Massive illegal migration of Bangladeshis (90% muslim ) into India.
3. The converted Christians and at the rate they are converting are considered 'dalit' and are not being reported with 3% christian figure.

Most importantly SICKular parties are suppressing truth to protect votebank! Your figures are close if you ignore the above. To be frank India is all set to be a nation with Hindus as minority by 2060. And that is in numbers only. They already are a minority in terms of their voices, their causes, their heritage and their culture being suppressed slowly but surely. The 4M movement ( Macaulayites, Mullahs, Missionaries and Marxists ) along with western funded/partnered media is marching on to continue the negation and subversion of everything and anything remotely Indic. The Christians and Muslims have power and influence disproportionate to their numbers. Christian institutions inherited from British vast amounts of land. Today the illiterate, ignorant and alien Roman Catholic woman who has no idea of anything Indic is controlling the levers of power of GOP of India. Hindus are already a minority in Kerala, hence Sabarimala is a minority institution now. They are minority in Nagaland ( 90% christian ). Even Anna may not be aware of 'Nagalim for Christ' and other secessionist movements going on in India's North eastern regions. In Andhra Pradesh Samuel Reddy has a huge agenda for conversion and carrying it on with utter impunity. In Congress party circles there are rumors that if one is Christian it's easy to get a party ticket. More than half of CMs of Congress ruled states are Christians

I can go on and on. Things have changed drastically in the last 20 years. Pope's visit in 2001 changed it for the worse when he said "The Cross was planted in Europe in the 1st millenium, in Americas in the 2nd millenium, and now it will be planted in Asia in the 3rd Millenium". Until then India was getting marauded by Jehadis and now Missionaries are fighting for their share. Point is, considering Hindus are not people of the book and not an organized religion they are already a minority. It's only a matter of time before they are a minority in numbers. India will be a land where Islamists and Missionaries will continue to increase their flock by hook or cook. It's unfortunate it's all happening. There is no way to stop this by ethical means en masse.

Especially when Bush/CIA are involved ( see http://compreligion.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/chritian-plan-to-convert-india-the-role-of-american.htm )

Sarvepalli,

True. Also I sincerely feel only Indian christians with Indic thought like Alex Alexander, Anna can help us to ward of the evangelical types since as insiders to Christianity they can counter the dogma from evangelicals better. I know that Jesus was a yogi and not the evangelical type. Conversion is the Church's agenda. And when Bush kinds are involved it also becomes the agenda of western powers with dangerous threats to world peace. Pluralism, Tolerance and Inclusivity are the values we need to preserve and cherish most. The idea of India is so vast and great that it needs to be preserved for all of Humanity. I will try to find some other great Indian Christians and list their articles in my next post. I truly wish Anna after reading all those can write 1 great post here.

regards
Kiran

he.he.. Kiran @ 17:

Thanks for the laughs.. It looks like everyone is out to convert the "poor Hindu". :-)

But this post is about the mistreatment of Pakistani minorities in the name of blasphemy laws. What do you think about that?.

3 · Sebs said

I think the Roman Catholics got to my part of Kerala first, likely Jesuit missionaries. Instead of the Syro-Malabar or Syrian Rite, we stayed Roman Catholic.

They say the original St. Thomas made his way to Kerala, but I always had my doubts.

Syrio-Malabar Christianity existed before Roman Catholicism. So, what's your point ?

I had Christian family in Pakistan, actually, but now apparently they've moved to the southeastern US. My parents had moved to Pakistan in the early 1980s (my father was a foreign correspondent from the states, my mother's from India), and the story goes that he met a woman who said that she had family in Delhi of a certain name, which my dad said was my mother's family name. So they met up and determined that, yes, they were related. They're, confusingly, Bengali Brahmin Christians, as one matriarch of the family way back defiantly put it. I won't get into much more because I have never met these people, despite the fact that they now live in the states (long story), and the little I do know would detract too much from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that their families simply didn't leave after Partition and as far as I know never really had a problem. My mom did, of course, as an Indian woman married to an American Jew with an eastern European name; complications ensued, and they then transferred to Kenya.

19 · Ponniyin Selvan said

he.he.. Kiran @ 17:

Thanks for the laughs.. It looks like everyone is out to convert the "poor Hindu". :-)

But this post is about the mistreatment of Pakistani minorities in the name of blasphemy laws. What do you think about that?.

One man's agony is another man's ecstasy!

About blasphemy laws do you still need to know what me thinks? Of course they are NEANDRATHAL. What can you say about laws where you need 4 witnesses for a rape victim to prove she was raped? That's like asking for additional 4 rapists. And then you need 16 witnesses to prove that you were raped. The math continues..

Here is another math from the land of pure ( Arabia ), recall that Pakistani enforcers of such laws want to reach Arabic standards: The value of life of Hindu woman is 3.33333% of that of Muslim man.

Enjoy more such math at http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/16rajeev.htm

Pothen Joseph aka "Potent Joe" parted ways (disillusioned) with Jinnah before the Partition, after he helped found the "Dawn" in Delhi. When we say that Christians were supportive of the Muslim League's demand for Partition, we are not being clear, whether this was by way of their participation in the general referendum of the time, or through mass movements. There is little evidence for either. Firstly in pre-independence times, there was no universal adult franchise, so as a rule only the propertied classes - naturally an elite - got to vote. Secondly, ignore my hauteur, titans of the Christian Indian community were all from today's India including scholars such as Dr.HC Mukherjee and Fr. Jerome D'Souza SJ members of the Constituent Assembly. As I have said earlier on these pages, Hindus almost entirely made up the ranks of the sanitation workers of Pakistan (and continue to this day), and when the waves of the Partition violence washed over them in Karachi, many of them prepared to flee to India, and were restrained only when Jinnah issued an assurance of safety. Bal Thackeray, then still a caricaturist, lampooned Jinnah in the pages of the Bombay Chronicle for his expediency. More later...

11 · NV said

They say the original St. Thomas made his way to Kerala, but I always had my doubts.

Isn't he buried near Madras or is that another Saint?

NV, Anna---

Oh, I'm just joshin' around with some good ol' Christian puns, ha.

Kiran---

Thanks for the excellent read. I would consider my family a fairly liberal group of Catholics. My parents came to the US from Kerala in the late '70s & most of the extended family is still in Kerala. Most of the extended family are Roman Catholics, some further removed are Mar Thoma/ Jacobite/ Orthodox.

I'm from Texas, no stranger to the evangelist movement. I believe so many actions/statements/thoughts/etc are a combination of two things: message and presentation. It's not just what you say, but how you say it, how that message is delivered. Both aspects should be given care and attention, or the reception of the message might not be very positive. And then we get conflict and unease.

iran P wrote:

This is absolutely wrong. In the immediate aftermath of 1947 about 15% and 25% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations were respectively Hindu

Kiran P, do you have a source for your claim. Here is a link the SM thread with the correct figures. The proportion of non-Muslims in West Pakistan was 3.36% in 1951 and 3.49% in 1998 (counting Ahmadis as Muslim in each case). Also for West pakistan, the proportion of Hindus was 1.8% in 1951 and 1.73% in 1998. Check the links for more detail.

I'd say the issue is less how many Muslims there are demographically and more how susceptible those Muslims are to jihadi brainwashing. Having a growing Muslims population isn't bad by itself, it's bad because the reason for that growth is that they're poor, uneducated, and easily exploited by gangsters, terrorists, and myriad other varieties of brute.

Same thing with the evangelization of the adivasis mentioned in that link from Kiran P. The problem isn't that they're becoming Christians, it's that they're becoming psychotic right-wing nutjob Christians. The Jerry Falwels and Pat Robertsons cause enough trouble for us in a country as wealthy, powerful, and stable as America. Imagine the kind of havoc they'd wreak in India.

"You are not including several figures since 1960 which the p-sec media is not reporting or rather (conveniently ) cannot be accurately reported:"

What are you talking about? Facts are facts - there is only one source I am relying on, ie the census reports from Indian government. You have no clue what you are talking about. You can have your own opinion about various things - but i challenged only the 'facts' that you mentioned. http://socialjustice.nic.in/tab18.pdf is the link if you want to see the full report from Indian government.

Further more, this fear mongering has no basis - for the sake of argument, if I accept that the minority numbers have gone up, same can be said Indian/hindu population in the U.S as well. So are you going to bash hindus in the U.S for that reason? Sorry, you don't make any sense.

@najeeb
There is a difference between statistics and facts. Censuses aren't objective truths. They're the results of surveys. Surveys are subject to all sorts of biases that skew the numbers one way or another. In a well designed survey they biases should more-or-less cancel out, but in reality that rarely ever happens.

Even the American census has trouble properly counting the population and routinely undercounts the urban areas and the rural poor. India, which offers even more significant operational difficulties for survey design is likely to get the actual figures even more wrong.

Since much of the Bangladeshi migration he was talking about is illegal, it's not surprising that they would be reluctant to allow themselves to be counted.

"There is a difference between statistics and facts. Censuses aren't objective truths. They're the results of surveys. Surveys are subject to all sorts of biases that skew the numbers one way or another"

When you find a better method, let the world know please. At the same time, you have no trouble accepting the numbers written by people with an agenda. Great!

ok, this is off topic but related to the interloping thread of indian christianity: the dilemma i face as a liberal coming from a fundamentalist (pentecostal) background (the religious change of my family in one generation is astounding when i realize that my father was baptized jacobite, raised csi, and became pentecostal after being in the states in the 70s/80s) is how to separate fact from fiction in what i see as a religious struggle among different groups aimed at the "souls" of the indian poor...i hear of the evangelicals who proselytize to the poor and claim to be prosecuted by the rss and then i hear of hindu fundamentalist groups complaining of forced conversions by the evangelical movement. i get sickened when i hear indian and american pastors pray for their version of christianity to spread throughout india...but if a person wants to convert, why can't they? i've heard of violence that has been done (which gives fodder for the evangelicals--it reminds them of the 1st century persecution of the christians) but can't everyone just live and let live and use words in a nonviolent fashion against agents of intolerence (such as against the evangelicals)? i guess i'm trying to find an appropriate approach to an irrational subject such as religion...it seems religion defines who you are in india, sorta like caste, no? you change your religion, you change fundamentally who you or your family are...case in point, my cousin who was part of the church of south india, became pentecostal, but in order to marry a catholic girl, converted back to being anglican but before he did so, he had to sign a document stating that what he did in converting to being pentecostal was wrong before he was welcomed back into the church...how silly and so sad.

29 · najeeb said

"There is a difference between statistics and facts. Censuses aren't objective truths. They're the results of surveys. Surveys are subject to all sorts of biases that skew the numbers one way or another"
When you find a better method, let the world know please. At the same time, you have no trouble accepting the numbers written by people with an agenda. Great!

Wow. Defensive much?
I said that it's very likely that the formal census numbers are an undercount. I gave you actual statistical reasons why they are likely to be undercounted. I didn't say I had a better method. In fact, this method is perfectly fine as long as you're willing to acknowledge its shortcomings and compensate for them in your analysis.
But you've obviously failed to actually dispute my claim, instead choosing to accuse me of having an agenda for trying to set the record straight about your numbers.

The fact that you are going to tie yourself to the mast with the census numbers despite my having pointed out that they are an undercount actually says more about your agenda than mine.

31 · NV said

The fact that you are going to tie yourself to the mast with the census numbers despite my having pointed out that they are an undercount actually says more about your agenda than mine.

your latest amendment to your original response is very different in tone from your original statement, which did not call into question any of the tenuous competing claims, but only chose to cast doubt on najeeb's. this is not the first thread on which you've chosen to engage in selective clarification.

case in point, my cousin who was part of the church of south india, became pentecostal, but in order to marry a catholic girl, converted back to being anglican but before he did so, he had to sign a document stating that what he did in converting to being pentecostal was wrong before he was welcomed back into the church...how silly and so sad.

It's not just an Indian thing. Religion is a fundamental part of a lot of peoples' lives. I didn't hold anything against her for wanting me to convert initially. I didn't actually start to feel offended until she started bad mouthing my own religious beliefs by implying that I was ignorant or deluded.

but can't everyone just live and let live and use words in a nonviolent fashion against agents of intolerence

Apart from the safai karamcharis of Karachi, some of whom are related to the Balmikis, Satnamis, and Ravidasias, a fair number of Sindhi and Kutchi Hindus too stayed back in Karachi and other parts of Sindh. In fact there is one Hindu majority district in all of Pakistan and it is in Sindh. Due to a disintegration of the Hindu communities in Pakistan for various reasons, the safai karamcharis have had no one to turn to among their own, further unlike in India, where there has been a constant attempt to reform and rehabilitate the most marginalised among the dalits, the better off Hindus of Pakistan have taken no responsibility.
Some of these families have embraced Christianity, and are widely employed in public sector notably the Pakistan Railways. The educational institutions set up by the Catholic and Protestant Churches in Pakistan have grown and prospered and educate the elite Muslims of Pakistan in both Punjab and Sindh (who have gone on to join the elite themselves), thus helping secure a measure of protection for themselves and the Christian community from the excesses of fundamentalist organizations. But here again the humble folk who live in the less affluent neighborhoods still live in fear of violence, and recent events have shaken the community. Christians have served with distinction in the Pakistani military, with the air force producing fine officers in Cecil Choudhary, Pete O'Reilly, and Merwyn Middlecoat (the last of whom went missing in action), but all that seems to have ended in 1971, after which the Pak military adopted a strong Islamicist orientation. I am not sure if there have been any Christian judges after the late Justice Cornelius of the Supreme Court. Some sportswriters (all Muslim) in Pakistan wrote about their speculation over the conversion of Mohammed Yousuf (then Yousuf Yohanna), and warned against what they saw as an excessive interference by Tablighi and Jaiat elements in the affairs of the Pakistan cricket team. The same writers alleged that Yousuf was told that he would never be considered either for captaincy if he remained a Christian. It is not known if there was any such pressure on Danish Kaneria (a Hindu). Yousuf's conversion was a bit of a surprise because I remember, so vividly, seeing him cross himself when he scored a 50 in Madras in 1996 - he was a Christian then - and standing apart when the rest of the team performed their prayers on Friday that week in Madras.

32 · nuh uh said

31 · NV said

The fact that you are going to tie yourself to the mast with the census numbers despite my having pointed out that they are an undercount actually says more about your agenda than mine.

your latest amendment to your original response is very different in tone from your original statement, which did not call into question any of the tenuous competing claims, but only chose to cast doubt on najeeb's. this is not the first thread on which you've chosen to engage in selective clarification.

But fine, I'll admit it. I'm more likely to correct people on the wrong side of an issue than on the right one. STOP THE PRESSES!

35 · NV said

I'm more likely to correct people on the wrong side of an issue than on the right one.

how unbiased of you. great that your ability to judge right from wrong is so perfect.

Kiran's numbers didn't seem especially unbelievable to me, but being as how I don't know how Kiran got his numbers I can't really comment on his methodology can I?

ah, that was najeeb's fault! being transparent about his methodology. good to know your standards for judging right from wrong.

I just recently started attending Latin (Western) Catholic church because there are no Orthodox or native Indian churches where I live and I'm still deciding whether I should keep going because there's definitely a "us and them" tone in the sermons that I find difficult to deal with. I come from a religiously mixed family and I've never noticed that in the native Indian churches and I love them for it. Still, I should add, I find evangelizing (which the native churches don't do) incredibly distasteful and I hate the discord that it's causing in India, but I think we should also acknowledge that persecuting and killing converts and evangelizers is horrible. I'm proud of the religious tolerance that is the desi tradition and all sides are contributing to it's destruction right now.

25 · Ikram said

iran P wrote:

This is absolutely wrong. In the immediate aftermath of 1947 about 15% and 25% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations were respectively Hindu

Kiran P, do you have a source for your claim. Here is a link the SM thread with the correct figures. The proportion of non-Muslims in West Pakistan was 3.36% in 1951 and 3.49% in 1998 (counting Ahmadis as Muslim in each case). Also for West pakistan, the proportion of Hindus was 1.8% in 1951 and 1.73% in 1998. Check the links for more detail.

Ikram,

I am looking at the link you sent. What you are quoting is what you want to believe in. I am not talking about 1951, I am interested in 1947, immediately after Independence. Did you read the whole article? Read the summary after Table. 2 35% of the minority population in Pakistan and 26% of the minority population in Bangladesh were unaccounted. Thanks for the link though.

Thanks Jyotsana. Is the Dawn founded by Pothen Joseph the same as the Dawn in Pakistan? Their online editorials are usually quite well-informed and they also have a Parsee gentleman, Mr Cowasgee, as part of the editorial board.

I wanted to add that Sikhs seem to have done ok in Pakistan judging by the flickr pix on Nankana Saheb, Punja sahib. Does anyone have any stats on the sikh population and trends in Pakistan? Also, do Sikhs in India, rest of world do pilgrimages into Pakistan, givn the roots of the religion in that part of punjab?

fyi - Here's a portrait of a lady praying at nankana sahib in pakistan.

fyi - here's a woman playing holi at the lahore krishan mandir

didymus,

I will try to answer your qn. Considering that you are born here and know little about dynamics in India it will be very difficult to bridge the gap. But I will try. First try reading the link I shared with Anna earlier. Read the comments in that essay also. Couple that with this link about Bush nexus.

Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists are not actively seeking 'souls'. Same with sufi version muslims and Indic Christians. The ones who do are the radical kind. I believe the material provided above is enough to rest the claims and counter claims. RSS does have programmes to reclaim the lost flock but it's 'reactive'.

>> if a person wants to convert, why can't they?

Sure. Voluntary conversion happens rarely. Anyone is free to change their religion on their volition. The issue that is tearing societal fabric apart in India is conversion that happens using enticement, inducement, fraud, allurement or coercion.

>> i've heard of violence that has been done (which gives fodder for the evangelicals--it reminds them of the 1st century persecution of the christians)

Please see these and you decide.

>> how silly and so sad.

Absolutely. If you want to be a student of India and Conversion please read this.

Christians in Punjab and Sindh had been quite active post 1945 in their support for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League. Even before the final phase of the movement, leading Indian Christians like Pothan Joseph had rendered valuable services as journalists and propagandists of the Muslim League

I searched and read a few articles about Pothan Jseph. Looks like he has worked in quite a few newspapers and Dawn is one among those. Seems like he resigned from Dawn much earlier to partition. I don't think it can be construed as supporting Jinnah or Muslim league atleast with what we know.

But I agree that there is a quite a bit of support for Jinnah from non Muslim leaders in his India partition plans after 1940. I recently read about meetings between Jinnah, Ambedkar and Periyar in the early 40s where the Pakistan, Dalitstan(Maharstan ??) and Dravidastan ideas were floated. Recently , Karunanidhi the current chief minister of Tamil nadu said in a Muslim meeting how he waved the Muslim league flag and shouted for Pakistan in the early 1940s. ( he..he.. don't know if the Muslims now like to be reminded of old history. :-) ) I think even the communist party supported partitioning India into many pieces. A lot of non Congress leaders were toying with their own fiefdoms and not letting the "upper caste" Congress to get all the spoils.

Hi people, this is my first ever post on Sepiamutiny. I've been skimming the thread for a couple of years, and I am quite surprised that many people here have never met Indian Christians.

I'm a British born Punjabi who's now located in LA. My father was a Ravidassia from a Muslim village, my mother was born into a Ravidassia family and raised as Sikh, and me, well I had a Christian education, attended Bible study, Sunday school etc. Personally, I'm not religious, but I'll call myself a Hindu if anybody asks.

I grew up around loads of Indian Christians in UK, all Punjabi. These families were Christian in India before they moved to the UK in the 1960s. I'd say the Indians around me were probably 40% Hindu Untouchables, 40% Christian untouchables, 15% Jatt Sikh, and a few of other castes. There were never any issues about religion anyway.

I have a few relatives in UK who converted to Christianity, and nobody minds. There's no issues over it. They just carry on the same as they did before, and they'll still do stuff like Diwali etc. Contrast this with my dad's friend's daughters in Delhi. They were converted by American missionaries and refused to enter the Krishna Janambhoomi mandir, because it was "pagan".

Most Punjabi Christians are of the Choora caste. Many keep the last name "Masih" (Messiah).

There are many incidents of in Pakistan of Muslims kidnapping Christian girls who are never seen again. This happened to the niece of a Punjabi Christian guy I know.

There's actually very little Hindus in UK converting to Christianity. Christianity is dying in Europe anyway, so there's not really any inclination for people to go that way. The whole Evangelical crap in the US doesn't really exist in the UK. Church of England Christianity is very inclusive and gentle.

The Christianity that these aggressive evangelicals believe in is nothing like the Christianity that I grew up surrounded by.

"People of the Book" - that is the term in Islam to describe the followers of the two preceding Abrahamic religions, Jews and Christians. "People of the Book" in an Islamic state are given "Dhimmi" status. It is to those whose religions are allowed Dhimmi status that there is no compulsion in religion. For those who are not allowed Dhimmi status they are treated differently.

Bernard Lewis, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East:
"Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam squarely confronts the problem of religious tolerance, and lays down both the extent and the limits of the tolerance to be accorded to the other faiths. For Muslims. the treatment of the religious other is not a matter of opinion or choice, of changing interpretations and judgments according to circumstances. It rests on scriptural and legal texts, that is to say, for Muslims on holy writ and sacred law. These texts and laws make certain basic distinctions among non-Muslim religions and their followers. The first and most crucial is theological. Certain specified religions possess a scripture which Islam recognizes as authentic, or rather, to be precise, as having been authentic. Three are named in the Quran, as the Jews, the Christians, and the somewhat mysterious Sabians. In the Muslim perception, Judaism and Christianity were predecessors of Islam, earlier stages in the sequence of prophetic revelations sent by God to mankind, and thus in a sense of Islam itself...Those who follow a religion which is not specified as lawful that is to say, who do not have a recognized sacred scripture, are not to be allowed the tolerance of the Muslim state. Their choice is conversion or death, which may be commuted to enslavement. This did not present any great problem in the countries of the Middle East in the earliest areas of Islamic expansion - in the Fertile Crescent, North Africa, Sicily, Spain - because everybody was either Christian or Jewish. It presented some problem in Iran, where most people were Zoroastrians, and even more when Muslims got to India and confronted Hindus, who were manifestly polytheist and appeared to be idol-worshippers."

Bernard Lewis - ISLAM AND THE WEST
“However, the principle has always been adopted in Muslim law and usually in practice that Christians and Jews - but not atheists, polytheists, or idolaters - are entitled to the tolerance and protection of the Muslim State....
...The Zoroastrians, seen by secular nationalists as the custodians of the true Iranian national identity, are viewed with corresponding suspicion by devout Muslims and are in any case too few to matter. The Baha’is, followers of a post-Muslim dispensation, are as such excluded from the tolerance prescribed by the Shari’a. Under the shah, they flourished and achieved a palce of some consequence in Iran. Under the republic, those who persist in their faith are proscribed outlaws...
...For Jews and Christians, followers of religions recognized by Islamic law, this status is one of protected subordination, with some but not all of the rights of the Muslim compatriots. For those who practice nonrecognized religions, like the Baha’is in Iran, the Ahmadis in Pakistan, and the followers of African religions in the southern Sudan, the strict application of shari’a law would give them the choice between conversion and death, with the latter possibly commuted to enslavement.�

I'm proud of the religious tolerance that is the desi Hindutradition and all sides are contributing to it's destruction right now.

There -- corrected it for you.

The Christian tradition and Islamic tradition aren't paragons of tolerance as any visit to Elephanta / Mathura will show.

Actually skip Mathura, or looking up Jazia, or anything to do with Islam - it is ridiculous to even suggest that the muslim rule of India was a paragon of tolerence. If you think so I guess you feel that the Hindu Kush mountains were so named because Hindus were happy.

For the Christian presence, which was far less bloody, a simple Google of forced conversions in India under the Portuguese will show. Or a simple look through the Wikipedia entry on forced conversions

The only thing that Hindus can be grateful for was that the British were becoming more secular a large extent by the time they ruled most of India (As we can see of the acceptance of Disraeli who was born a Jew as a Prime Minster -- something that would had been unthinkable a few decades prior to this).

Since they were far more interested in just looting India than on imposing religion, Hinduism was able to survive and revive itself. This became especially true after 1857, when decided that needlessly antagonizing people on the basis of their religion, was not worth risking the empire for.

44 · SomeBodyUk said

Hi people, this is my first ever post on Sepiamutiny. I've been skimming the thread for a couple of years, and I am quite surprised that many people here have never met Indian Christians.

I think Anna and some others here were talking about Pakistani Christians, not Indian Christians. That said, your information on Punjabi Christians from UK was interesting as well as the background about the Masihs that I see many times when Pakistani Christians are mentioned.

46 · DizzyDesi said

For the Christian presence, which was far less bloody, a simple Google of forced conversions in India under the Portuguese will show. Or a simple look through the Wikipedia entry on forced conversions

THE Christian presence? That's unfair and insulting. There was a Christian presence well before those Portuguese @$$#o!?$ persecuted both Hindus AND the existing Christians in Kerala (for not bowing down to their pope). It's easy to point to glaring examples to make a point, difficult to be fair and nuanced.

43 · Ponniyin Selvan said

Pakistan, Dalitstan(Maharstan ??) and Dravidastan ideas were floated

Most blogs in Sepia gets so divisive when it comes to religion, caste, ethnicity. I wonder many times whether India will remain united as people become more literate and wealthy. The passion about religion, caste in India is certainly on rise with the rise of wealth and achievement of education in India. Many a times I wonder the old untouchable system would come back as they have more money and education. But one comfortable fact that calms me is that the people of India will remain united, because the effect of getting divided would be horrible. There would not be an end to the division in India, if that process ever starts(which I am sure will not happen). There are very little in common between two Indians(other than love of Bollywood, which is so uncool). There are very little in common between 2 people in US, but that will have to include taste of liquor, politics, genre of music, political party, sexual preference etc. So guys, Why dont we ask Indian people to chill out, drink more liquor, smoke more of the native stuff, practice more of Kamasutra etc. The normal course of an Indian now is to go to school, get educated, become a doctor, engineer (everyone else used to be losers). I am wondering why the liquor companies are not doing well in India(exception Kerala).

13 · oldtime-SMer said

Thoughtful post, Anna. In Pakistan, because of the demographic and ethnic cleansing/migration issue you mentioned, the default for 'minority' is Christian.

Thank you for staying with SM for so long, and for such an interesting addition to this discussion!

14 · alybaba said

from my recollection I don't remember people troubling their middle clas colonies and neighborhoods when I lived there until the late 90s - the middle class folks knew they were probably teachers to their own kids and generally were quite respectful. Of course this all based on just my experiences.

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences-- they made this thread a valuable read!

15 · zee said

Anna, sorry that you had to go through. I am very proud of the ancient Christian roots in India, just like I am proud of ancient Hindu heritages.

That is so kind of you. Thank you, I really appreciate it.

24 · sebs said

Oh, I'm just joshin' around with some good ol' Christian puns, ha.

I am an idiot. :) Can't believe I missed it.

30 · didymus said

ok, this is off topic but related to the interloping thread of indian christianity: the dilemma i face as a liberal coming from a fundamentalist (pentecostal) background

I am glad you commented, even if it was tangential to the topic because I wanted to hear a Penty's perspective. I've heard of so many Jacobites being drawn to the Pentecostal/Fundamental side of things. It was good to hear from you.

34 · jyotsana said

Some sportswriters (all Muslim) in Pakistan wrote about their speculation over the conversion of Mohammed Yousuf (then Yousuf Yohanna), and warned against what they saw as an excessive interference by Tablighi and Jaiat elements in the affairs of the Pakistan cricket team. The same writers alleged that Yousuf was told that he would never be considered either for captaincy if he remained a Christian.

!!! This post took an hour longer than I expected because I was trying to find more information about Yousuf Yohanna! I wasn't satisfied with the links I encountered, that's the only reason he wasn't included. Thank you so much for your comments-- they are really helpful.

37 · Lea said

I just recently started attending Latin (Western) Catholic church because there are no Orthodox or native Indian churches where I live

I've done that, when there were no Orthodox churches near...hope you find a place you feel welcome and comforted. :\

44 · SomeBodyUk said

Hi people, this is my first ever post on Sepiamutiny.

I am honored that you delurked because of this little post! :) What an informative comment you left, too.

47 · Nobody said

I think Anna and some others here were talking about Pakistani Christians, not Indian Christians. That said, your information on Punjabi Christians from UK was interesting as well as the background about the Masihs that I see many times when Pakistani Christians are mentioned.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. :) And I agree with how you re: how interesting SomeBodyUK's information was.

46 · DizzyDesi said

Hinduism was able to survive and revive itself

Do you think Hinduism had great grand father like Adam whose descendants filled Indian planes to make it a Hindu area? No religion is free from the sins(?) of spreading itself. India had vast number of Budhists and Jains in history. What happened to them?. They never learned the secrets of reproduction as Hindus learned? In a modern society, religion should be like a political party. If you like it join it, else remain independant. People should have the freedom to campaign for their party. If you dont have enough time to think, you can join in the political party that your Dad was a member.

The Dawn that Potent Joe founded for Jinnah is the Dawn of today. And Ardeshir Cowasjee is a shipping magnate who decided to stay back in Karachi, based on a personal assurance of safety from Jinnah, while he went about building Pakistan's merchant Navy. MA Jinnah and his sister attended a church service that was held the day after the declaration of independence of Pakistan. Leaders of the minority community, particularly of the Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant decided to remain in Pakistan, as did Swami Ranganathananda who ran the sole Ramakrishna Mission Ashram in Pakistan, then, in Karachi. But after Jinnah died, Swamiji decided to return to India. Hindu and Parsi philanthropists too founded hospitals and colleges in Pakistan. But in case of the former once the wealthier families left for India, the institutions they founded were left leaderless. Christians in Pakistan, although they have the Church to turn to education and healthcare, have not been able to acquire any political clout. Unlike in India where there is a shared tradition between different faith gorups - everyone celebrates, Divali, Christmas, is aware of Id-ul-fitr, GuruParb, Mahavir and Buddha Jayanti, in Pakistan whatever tradition may have existed seems to have petered out since 1950 and possibly stamped out after the 70s. Basant of course is celebrated with fanfare in Lahore, and the CM of Panjab (Pakistani) some years ago had the purohit visit his official residence to be anointed with a tikka. While the many Pak teleserials I have seen over the years are conspicuously devoid of any non-Muslim character or even references (not even a Good Morning or Good Bye!), the web now is features discussions on blogs, music videos, amateur vids etc., that suggest a much more diverse and vibrant culture than would seem apparent. Outlookindia has over the years featured some offbeat coverage of Pakistan, and its Pakistan correspondent, Mariana Babbar is fantastic. Mariana has written some interesting stories about Hindus in Pakistan - even about a doctor duo who are officers in the Pakistan Army. Mariana may yet write something iteresting about the Christian experience in Pakistan.

51 · LandBeyond7Zs said

India had vast number of Budhists and Jains in history. What happened to them?.

well said. the dual myths of hinduism's purported tolerance through the ages (of course, it was "tolerant" as long as buddhists and jains weren't encroaching on their turf), and the arguments made by some on this thread which are tantamount to claims that the only way to keep india's tolerance alive is to tamp down on other religions (oh yeah, no contradiction there!) are part of the sangh victimology diet, and are somehow omitted in their selective complaints about the rewriting of middle indian history. that said, there are reasons for concern if the other strains of religion are intolerant, but that's not what the sangh is worried about as much as in perpetuating hindu nationalism as some sort of equalizer against the global muslim threat or as a bulwark against the demographic scares they've been whipping up. somehow these people are able to pull off the brilliant feat of criticizing the fundamentalists and theocrats of other religions while yearning to emulate the same with hinduism.

Thanks for this post, Anna. It was a good read.

A segment of Pakistan's Christian community are Goan Catholics, mainly in Karachi. The community still exists though they used to be a lot larger. Many have migrated to Canada, the UK, Australia etc. There is a large community in Toronto, if I'm not mistaken. My grandmother grew up in Karachi in pre-partition India but later moved back to Goa. We had a few relatives who stayed on after partition but I think all had left by the late 1980s.

Growing up in the U.A.E., my family's social circle was made up almost exclusively of Goans, Mangaloreans and East Indians - three communities that had much in common. The Karachi Goans fit right in. I never thought of them as Pakistani - the only difference I can think of was that they usually rooted for Pakistan during India/Pakistan cricket matches!

There were many South Asian Christian groups in the U.A.E. Besides the Goans, Mangaloreans and East Indians, you had the Malayalees, of course, who I found fascinating since they represented so many different Christian traditions. There were Catholics - Roman, Syrian and Malankara, Syrian or Indian Orthodox, Jacobites, the Marthoma church, Church of South India, Church of the East, and numerous Evangelical and Pentecostal groups. You also had Anglo-Indians; Catholics from Sri Lanka - many of whom also had Portuguese names like de Silva and Pereira; and the Pakistani Punjabi Christians - they had their own Urdu Mass at church. I'd always thought that Indian Punjabis were either Sikh or Hindu, but in the U.A.E., I knew a few who were Catholic and had been so for a few generations.

I do have a lot of respect for Orthodox and Anglican traditions and some for the Jesuit tradition, but attributing tolerance to "Desi" attributes is unfair. It would still be accurate to say that while minority subjects under a hindu monarchy were tolerant, the when Hindus were under a non-hindu kingdom/empire/state, they usually landed up as second class citizens.

My take on it is that that hindus are composed of many faiths. Over time these faiths took a tolerant approach more often than not. Various other communities that lived with and under Hindu faiths in a tolerant atmosphere continued to follow but propogate a common culture long after the Hindu rule faded away.

53 · nuh uh said

India had vast number of Budhists and Jains in history. What happened to them?.

Conversion by inducement and force, while denigrating other religion, is what is considered unethical. So, if someone willingly converts by being influenced by teachings or coming across great souls like Buddha, or saints like Saint Thomas, Shankaracharya, Chaitanya, Ramadass, Moinuddin Chishti, Sufi saints, etc then no, it is not considered unethical (at least to me). While most hindus converted to Buddhism under the influence of Buddha, many converted back under the influence of Shankaracharya, Chaintanya, Madhava and other great saints of the time during the Bhakti Movement. And none of those saints denigrated other religions, like the evangelists of today.

56 · zee said

Conversion by inducement and force, while denigrating other religion, is what is considered unethical.

oh, so it was the buddhists and jains who saw the light of day that decided to kill themselves under the variety of regimes in southern india - kerala, andhra pradesh and tamilnadu, as well as mutilate all their own statues... well, one learns something new every day. not to mention dozens of history like this (and similar about several famous temples in southern india), or the complete destruction of the traditional sinhalese buddhist capital of anuradhapura by raja raja chola. it wasn't exactly just people engaging in weighty intellectual discource and participating in the lofty free market of ideas. of course, it's easier to be tolerant when you are the only group of consequence.

(i love that word "inducement and force" and "willingly converts by coming accross great souls". i wonder what counts as unethical inducement or force, and how ownership of people is divvied up. if a poor individual who doesn't see any value from hinduism chooses to convert to a religion that gives him short term upward mobility and potential escape from a caste hierarchy, should that person be threatened with damage to life, limb and property, and a few in his cohort made an example of? is the latter acceptable or even understandable, and the former unarguably unethical? it just seems like a turf war to see who can accumulate the most warm bodies on either side.

57 · nuh uh said

gives him short term upward mobility and potential escape from a caste hierarchy

So, are we seeing upward mobility in Africa due to evangelical influences in Africa and Latin America ? Nuh uh! I too choose to agree with what Gandhi said "proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy, to say the least." BTW, I have Buddhist heritage too, and so your sentence about "easier to be tolerant when you are the only group of consequence" is inconsequential.

58 · zee said

So, are we seeing upward mobility in Africa due to evangelical influences in Africa and Latin America

That wasn't my point, I asked why individuals should be prevented (or threatened or victimized - "force", as they often are) from making that choice for themselves if they felt they had something to gain from it ("inducement"). It is a perverse morality that would prefer the supremacy of numbers in some abstract turf war, over missionary work that offers some benefits to deprived and backward people and communities.

BTW, I have Buddhist heritage too, and so your sentence about "easier to be tolerant when you are the only group of consequence" is inconsequential.

I have no idea what this means, but I do see you chose not to engage any of my other points about how Buddhism and Jainism were obliterated by Hindu kings in many different ways.

You asked why individuals should be prevented from being threatened or victimized in order to make them convert? You don't see what could possibly be morally incorrect with that or that their rights as secular citizens would be infringed upon due to that? I don't think anyone would argue that there is something wrong with someone freely making a decision for themselves that their religion or non-religion doesn't suit them and that another does or doesn't. I certainly don't; it's one of our fundamental rights as citizens. But, if, as it does happen in certain parts of India, violence or otherwise fraudulent methods are used as part of such activities (regardless of who does it), then there has to be some legislation to prevent that.

As a Hindu, I definitely don't see why some of my fellow Hindus act as if preaching or engaging in missionary work is somehow taboo in our religion. How do you think a vast portion of South East Asia converted to Hinduism? How do you think nearly ninety percent of the present population of Bali is Hindu? Do you really think that our ancestors simply stood by while, due to some singular quality of our religion, it survived and thrived with nothing being done to ensure its protection and propagation? At the same time, I think it would be fair to say that Hindu theology itself is more accommodating of a wide range of beliefs than most other religions. But, that should not prevent us from proselytizing in a peaceful, ethical manner.

60 · arul said

You asked why individuals should be prevented from being threatened or victimized in order to make them convert?

I think you exactly inverted the question I asked.

violence or otherwise fraudulent methods are used as part of such activities

Of course, violence should not be acceptable, whether it is Kandhamal, or Karnataka, or the northeast. As for the other part, I consider all of religion a fraud, or if you want it to put it more mildly, a fantasy, so I don't know how any argument for any religion is any more or less fraudulent than any other (unless based in general platitudes about "do no evil" or equivalents).

@Nuh uh

Ever notice how the strongholds of Indian Buddhism in antiquity are today known as "Afghanistan," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh?" What do these areas have in common religion-wise do you think?

Sri Lanka managed to survive, but little else. All those Buddhists in SouthEast Asia. . . mostly gone. Mysterious circumstances I'd say.

59 · nuh uh said

but I do see you chose not to engage any of my other points about how Buddhism and Jainism were obliterated by Hindu kings in many different ways

It is you who seem to ignore that, Buddhism was given a very high position by most Hindu kings. Although there might be some exceptions like the Cholas, but majority of Hindu royalties revere the Sakyamuni. Buddhism flourished under patronage of Hindu emperors like the 'Guptas'. The number of Buddhists reduced drastically only after the advent of Mughals and Persians. The Buddhist monasteries of Afghanistan fell first during the conquest from Persia.

It is my firm belief that no social benefit can come by religious conversions. And by no means, does that give anyone any social mobility. Again, Africa and Latin America are examples. In fact in Latin America, it is the Europeans who form the ruling junta while the indigenous people got nothing out of conversion. Is that what you want for India ? And in Africa ? No, the money of the westerners didn't do any good yet. Rather, slavery was quite acceptable to missionaries as long as they were baptized. So again, I not believe that bribing to convert is not only unethical, it also is useless.

62 · NV said

What do these areas have in common religion-wise do you think?

All those Buddhists in SouthEast Asia. . .

Funny you mention SE Asia, do you know what happened in Cambodia around the turn of the century.

If your point about bringing up Muslim strongholds is to highlight their intolerance, that's fine and you won't see me deny it. Let's just not pretend that India was a special bastion of equal opportunity, or that Hindu nationalism isn't just trying to sneak in the Muslim theocratic ideology with its associated perversions through the backdoor. Once we can agree that's what the Hindu nationalist movement is about, we can dispense with weasel words such as pseudosecularism and appeasement, and have a debate on honest terms.

63 · zee said

So again, I not believe that bribing to convert is not only unethical, it also is useless.

So you've decided on behalf of tribals that they are best off staying low caste Hindus. Good to know.

The number of Buddhists reduced drastically only after the advent of Mughals and Persians.

This does not fit with the historical record. Further, the Buddha was appropriated as forms of Hindu gods by many many emperors, in the early days of Buddhism.

No, the money of the westerners didn't do any good yet.

Well, for what it is worth, missionaries and faith based movements do at least a modicum of development work in Africa when governments have failed. Denying people access to even a modicum of improvement because of some misplaced analogies to imperialists from multiple centuries ago is wrongheaded.

oldtime-SMer

Thanks for the interesting discussion all. One thig I want to point out is that I used to have a knee-jerk opposition towards conversions to Christianity in India because I was raised in the United States and didn't understand the difference in contexts. In India, some/many dalits choose to adopt another faith - whether Christianity or neo-Buddhism or something else - and this is their right. This antogonizes many people from the rightwing Hindu front (who most frequently are not dalits), but it shouldn't antogonize anyone else - it is part and parcel of a longstanding tradition in India of the upper castes/classes getting too big for their britches and the people at the bottom (economically and socially) opting out. That is, in fact, the brilliance of Buddhism.

To all those who argue that Islam spread in India by violence, I would strongly suggest you stop reading crap ideologically loaded texts and read Thomas Eaton's book or a summary thereof on how large swathes of Bengal became Muslim - it has to do wtih the river changing path and people following it. Violence and extremism and proselytization are not the prerogative of any particular faith or belief community, but the dipshit faction in all of them. They usually have morein common, thoughtwise, with each other, than with people they are allegedly in the same belief system as.

Thanks for writinng a post that generated such a substantive discussion, Anna.

The picture in the main post, is it really a "prayer ceremony for global peace?" My first thought was that it was a propaganda stunt by the establishment in Pakistan.

Check the captions of the posters in the photo -- They are only asking for peace between "Ghaza and Palestine"

I had a snarky comment about how peace between Jews and Muslims was of the utmost importance to Christians. And made sarcastic references the inner peace brought about by observing lent and also Afghanistan, Bhutto, Baluchistan, Madrid, London, Mumbai, Madrid, etc. Unfortunately my new years resolution is to be less snarky :-( and I decided to keep it.

I followed the link that Nuh Uh posted, and of course what do I find but this "According to D. Ravikumar, who has studied the history of Buddhism in several districts in Tamil Nadu and is a legislator belonging to the Dalit Panthers of India..." There are so many things mistaken with this...Nuh Uh and Co. are comfortable with a very hazy requirement for competence. To criticize ideologically loaded texts while quoting from the casual observations of a non-scholar doesn't make for useful discussion. Given the richness of Hindu iconography and the elaborate lore associated with it, all evidence points to an appropriation of traditionally Hindu forms into Buddhist iconography. Very simply, while the story of Gautam becoming Buddha is a simple one, with a few transitions, the lore associated with each deva or devi is vast. It is true that the later Bodhisattva and Tibetan traditions tried to create a richer set of icons. Again this is not to say that stories are simply written down by a bunch of writers who decide to make things up - that is so ignorantly colonial and Hinduism has suffered griviously from such descriptions. Given that the Hindu dharmic traditions are not religions in the first place, these narratives emerge ground up from the experiences of people. Sometimes they converge into joined accounts of a few characters, and at other times as communities split and go their own ways, they may give way to a completely different set of even contradictory accounts. At times some centrally accepted texts may provide a background for the interpretations, or not at all. Some of the more interesting ways in which this change has happened is incorporation of the chief devas of one tradition as minor or even supplicant deities of another. Some Buddhist traditions have done this to incorporating Vishnu, even while appropriating many features of Vishnu. In the case of Jain traditions, which are much older than the Buddhist, there is a longer tradition of the Tirthankaras so some of this re-creation was probably not necessary. Again all early evidence points to both Buddhist and Jain panthis being from the elite. The Buddhist movements especially grew from state patronage and dependent on revenues from trade over a period of 1000 years. The Muslim invasions obviously destroyed these foundations, economically and politically. As always the facade of scholarly discourse of the likes of Nu and Doc A, peels off quickly, when we come across those so typically ill-informed JNU steeped boilerplates. And these posts are no exception. FYI, what we today dismissively dub the tribes of India, or more respectfully call the vanvasis as they have always been called, dwellers/keepers of the forests, (as distinguished from the city dwellers - nagariks - and the people of the fields - kshetriya/khetiya) have always remained outside the jati tradition, and their autonomy has remained inviolable for centuries until recently. And a suggestion to Doc A and Nuh Uh, you deep thinkers, pl don't reporoduce boilerplate from the the JNU types. There is only so much of discredited text you can churn out each time.

or the complete destruction of the traditional sinhalese buddhist capital of anuradhapura by raja raja chola

jyotsana, so let's see the "strong" evidence you accumulated. you picked out one sentence from one of the examples i produced, and "discredited" by saying the author was from a dalit party, and hence untrustworthy, and a natural member of the greater jnu conspiracy. wow, that's some really strong stuff you have there! and then said that hindus peacefully absorbed all religions with disinterested "patronage", whereas muslims only destroyed. and then some stuff about tribes being inviolable until recently - even if you believed that, i have no idea how any of the stuff i said contradicts that. that's some heady stuff you got there - what with using words like "nagarik" and "vanvasi", you must be sooo well informed compared to the hawaii chappal wearing jnu pretenders.

nuh nuh said

"if a poor individual who doesn't see any value from hinduism chooses to convert to a religion that gives him short term upward mobility and potential escape from a caste hierarchy"

This is the most common argument coming from evangelicals and if the argument is True I will also support it. The argument is flawed. First of all those who are targeted are poor and illiterate who have no idea what's going on. The dalits who are Hindu end up as 'Dalit Christians'. The so called upper caste christians look down upon them. It's their #1 issue if you read that page. Forget Hindus and Christians this dalit lower caste tag exists among muslims also. The point is this: casteism is a social evil in Indian context. Converting from one religion to another is not going to help. Definitely it does not provide any 'upward mobility' and 'potential escape from a caste hierarchy'. Casteism is going away slowly and steadily. Some pepetuate with arranged marriages, business arrangements and such. Most people don't care. As capitalism makes inroads and economic liberalization takes priority the caste construct will break down automatically. Slavery took 300 years in US to be dismantled. It's only 60 years since Independence. My Hindu Gowda brother is married to a girl who is a daughter of Hindu Brahmin man whose wife was a Muslim. All is fine in their world. Worse, even if caste persists and people choose to identify with it as long as there is no discrimination based on that factor it should be OK. It's just like Christians identify with various denominations, only stripped of religious angle in case of caste.

I will not argue with anyone trying to defend the evangelical ways. What they are doing in India is plain wrong. No point in defending the indefensible. Everyone is free to profess their religion and if someone takes it up fine. I get knocks on my door once in six months or so by bible thumpers and I talk to them for a while about merits and demerits of conversion and finally say NO! Same should be the approach in India. Most people who get into this conversion debates do not fully comprehend the issue. They adopt pro-conversion stand by using "upward mobility, escape from caste and such" flawed logic. If you can spare some time educate yourself, read the various links exchanged here. Read the 635 comments in Alex Alexander's essay and you will side every side of this issue is covered. There are very smart minds there!

75 · Kiran P said

They adopt pro-conversion stand by using "upward mobility, escape from caste and such" flawed logic.

you miss the point even though i explained it. my point is not that conversion frees these people. the point is that an individual should be free to convert if they perceive value in doing so. to dismiss their choice as uninformed and hence something that must be prevented by law, force or intimidation is just a plain denial of their basic autonomy. especially, when these missionaries often do provide some minimal value to these individuals and communities at least in the short term.

i am no shill for evangelicals, but if hindus were really concerned about the well being of these people instead of just worried that they are losing warm bodies from their side of the turf, they would invest in socio-economic development for these communities rather than engage in physical violence and property destruction against these "poor and illiterate" dalits.

(i do worry about illiberal strains of christianity and islam becoming pervasive in india, but the solution is not to counter with illiberal hinduism, but rather education, wealth creation, and cosmopolitanism that usually renders religion far less important.)

73 · DizzyDesi said

To paint this as a religious crusade is wrong.

so, motivational forensics or some variant of "pillaging of the local infrastructure? that's what conquerors did!" gives the "correct" answer when it is a hindu empire doing it - be it sri lanka, or the non-island buddhists in andhra pradesh, kerala, and tamilnadu, or the chola vassals in cambodia, but is agenda driven when applied to muslim empires - enough that "romila thapara" and "jnu" can be used as casual invective with no more required. not to mention the high standards of scholarship applied to such key issues such as meat eating by hindus from 1500 years ago, or the presence of a land bridge used by ram, or krishna janmabhoomi, or the indigenous bharatiya civilization theory.

oh, and jyotsana, as for the "patronage" you talk about, i believe that should be viewed prejudicially as the "unethical inducement" that so many here rail against, or we should accept that both approaches are just fine.

but if hindus were really concerned about the well being of these people instead of just worried that they are losing warm bodies from their side of the turf, they would invest in socio-economic development for these communities rather than engage in physical violence and property destruction against these "poor and illiterate" dalits.

That's right. I don't see anything wrong if someone converts for money or for personal improvement. If Hindus are angry let them do the same things Christian missionaries do, run schools/ hospitals etc. and provide help. I believe thats what the anti-conversion swami in Orissa was doing before being bumped ff by Christian Maoists.

Anyways, whats all this need to do with Pakistani blasphemy laws.

I need to add this. There are several sites which test you for what religion you should really belong to based on your answers. Mine came up as "Buddhism" though I am a Hindu. One of my friend's was "Sikihsm'. My point is Indic religions with subtle customization at the spiritual or 'way of life' level are all tolerant and pluralistic and inclusive. Alex/Anna's version of Christianity too. Same with Sufi version of Islam ( I am not aware of any other strains in Islam that is Indic enough ). Hinduism itself has several varying schools of Thought. It's western definition doesn't capture it all. That is essence of Gandhi's thought. Conversion between any of these Indic religions is fine. What's important is to preserve India's unity with Indic heritage intact and not succumb to divisive forces coming from Evangelists and Jehadis whose loyalty is to Vatican, Bush, CIA or Arabia.

Take care.

For those who ask about the disappearance of buddhism etc. from India - consider this - There was no official hinduism or buddhism ever - prior to British codification of laws for different native communities - people identified along sectarian or caste lines rather than on the gods they worshipped. It was quite common for people to worship different gods - gods who currently get identified as belonging to different religions. A continuation of the same tradition can be seen in what are currently Buddhist areas like Sri Lanka and Thailand - they _still_ worship Hindu Gods while giving primacy to Buddha - Sri Lankan Buddhists worship Vishnu and Karthik, while Thai Buddhists do worship Brahma, Shiva and Ganesha. The Thai kings have Brahmin priesthood (from India?) for their royal ceremonies.

Many Kings in the pre islamic funded what are currenty identified with Hindu/Buddhist/Jain religions.

When there is not a single instance of mosque demolition until 1857 in non-muslim ruled areas of India, despite all the well documented temple demolitions from 12th century to british times, why do you expect intolerance among indic religions prior to that?

Things were not perfect, and some Southern Indian kings were part of Shiva - Vishnu rivalry and some Vaishnava - Jain issues, but the scale of intolerance post 12th century is incomparable.

77 · nuh uh said

my point is not that conversion frees these people. the point is that an individual should be free to convert if they perceive value in doing so. to dismiss their choice as uninformed and hence something that must be prevented by law, force or intimidation is just a plain denial of their basic autonomy

OK nuh it's getting better. But here's the problem. The keyword is "percieve". Perception is not reality. A 13 year old percieves there is value in having sex, A drug addict perceieves there is value in taking pot. But society has a responsibility in protecting those having wrong perceptions. That's why sex with minor is a rape, it's a crime. Hence it's important that until the poor, illiterate and the innocent are capable of making decisions or in this case assess the value of conversions they need to be protected. The anti-conversion laws that are in some states are designed for that purpose. The highest court of the land, the supreme court has also made this clear.

Kiran P wrote:
What you are quoting is what you want to believe in.

Actually, what I am quoting are figures from the census, which, as you note, was conducted in 1951. I have been unable to find any data corrobrating your claims for partition, 1947. Again, I would be interested in seeing the source for the data you cite.

If by "immediate aftermath" you means August 16, 1947 -- then I agree. The ethnic-cleasning/"historic unmixing of peoples" did not happen in one night.

82 · Kiran P said

A 13 year old percieves there is value in having sex, A drug addict perceieves there is value in taking pot. But society has a responsibility in protecting those having wrong perceptions. That's why sex with minor is a rape, it's a crime. Hence it's important that until the poor, illiterate and the innocent are capable of making decisions or in this case assess the value of conversions they need to be protected. The anti-conversion laws that are in some states are designed for that purpose.

Sounds like believers who've seen the light wanting to make sure non-believers are saved for eternal salvation to me! Or maybe it is an indigenous appropriation of "white man's burden" of responsibility to the the "poor and illiterate" who are rendered infantile and incapable of decision making.

Guys,

Let's stop arguing with people like Nuh uh and Dr. Anonymous.
If someone dislikes Hinduism, then there's nothing that we can say or do that will make them change their minds.

As Hinduphobia becomes more and more widespread, people like them are going to be the least of our problems...

80 · another longtime lurker said

For those who ask about the disappearance of buddhism etc. from India - consider this - There was no official hinduism or buddhism ever - prior to British codification of laws for different native communities - people identified along sectarian or caste lines rather than on the gods they worshipped. It was quite common for people to worship different gods - gods who currently get identified as belonging to different religions. A continuation of the same tradition can be seen in what are currently Buddhist areas like Sri Lanka and Thailand - they _still_ worship Hindu Gods while giving primacy to Buddha - Sri Lankan Buddhists worship Vishnu and Karthik, while Thai Buddhists do worship Brahma, Shiva and Ganesha. The Thai kings have Brahmin priesthood (from India?) for their royal ceremonies.
Many Kings in the pre islamic funded what are currenty identified with Hindu/Buddhist/Jain religions.
When there is not a single instance of mosque demolition until 1857 in non-muslim ruled areas of India, despite all the well documented temple demolitions from 12th century to british times, why do you expect intolerance among indic religions prior to that?
Things were not perfect, and some Southern Indian kings were part of Shiva - Vishnu rivalry and some Vaishnava - Jain issues, but the scale of intolerance post 12th century is incomparable.

Good point. The people complaining about the disappearance of Buddhism also need to account for how Buddhism spread all over Asia. If it is possible for one religion to spread peacefully over the whole of Asia, just based on its intellectual merit, it is also possible for that same population to replace that religion with another religion, based on its intellectual merits, peacefully.

Bottomline: the complainers don't have a clue about what they are talking about. You have to first understand what Buddhism is, and its relationship with other intellectual traditions during that time (labeled 'Hinduism' by the British), before you can make any sense of that part of history. The best starting point to understand the philosophic literature, and the links between the history and the philosophy, is this guy.

85 · TTCUSM said

Let's stop arguing with people like Nuh uh and Dr. Anonymous.
If someone dislikes Hinduism, then there's nothing that we can say or do that will make them change their minds.

And you keep nurturing that open mind that can absorb arguments, buddy!

17 · Kiran P said

To be frank India is all set to be a nation with Hindus as minority by 2060.

Kiran P, you scare me.

As the years go by, I see more and more people saying such things. And then they use these statements to justify violence against minorities.
Hinduism is not under any threat.
The very air we breathe in India is Hindu.

I agree there are a few crazy evangelists, but you are blowing this out of all proportion.
Don't do it.

You don't seem to understand the consequences of such talk.
Don't ruin innocent lives by this irresponsible fearmongering.

76 · nuh uh said

but if hindus were really concerned about the well being of these people instead of just worried that they are losing warm bodies from their side of the turf, they would invest in socio-economic development for these communities rather than engage in physical violence and property destruction against these "poor and illiterate" dalits.

nuh,

I wouldn't say it so crudely. Not if you are a believer of inclusivity and not support something that is the source of strife in India. You are right about the need for Hindus to do more but the playing field is not level. And it gets worse when west is pitted against India in this aspect. Let me explain.

First there was no turf. With advent of Islamic invasions, European colonization, Missionary Inquisitions and such a turf arrived where there was none. After the Bristish had plundered and pillaged India what wealth was left went to Christian institutions. So hopitals, schools etc., i.e the infrastructure to convert remained with Christians. Even then they just did 'good' with expectation that people came over to their side. That mechanism was also ok. Conversion in this mode was minimal, not causing the massive social disruption like what's happening now. The secession based movements in NE funded by western churches, Pope's open clarion call to convert India in 3rd millenium during his visit and Bush's faith based policies changed all that. Everything accelerated after that by a large magnitude. Then everyone woke up. It took long time for Hindus to realize the designs and dangers of conversion. Not just Hindus but Sikhs and Jains too. So they are doing with whatever they can now. Hinduism is not an organized religion. It's not interested in empire building. It's not interested in world domination. Eastern religions are focussed on spirituality, on the aspects related to divine compared to expanded agenda of monoethistic religions. As someone said the anti-conversion swami who was doing noble work was murdered. Yes, in all this there's hatred getting generated resulting in loss of innocent lives and property. That is why it's important to address the root causes of the problem. Preaching Intolerance should not be tolerated.

pj,

You are trying to dilute the matter. I know the importance and truthfullness of what I say. I was quoting following study.

Hindus in minority in india by 2060
https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no31425.htm
religious demography of india/a.p. joshi. m.d. srinivas and j.k. bajaj. chennai, centre for policy studies, 2003, xxii, 358 p., tables, figs., maps, $45. isbn 81-86041-15-x.

This is the finding of the extensive research on demographics conducted by professor m d srinivas and his team at the indian institute of technology. they deployed the most robust methods in statistics, probability and computing to project these numbers. I am sure this study includes the rapid phase of conversions by not only evangelicals but also by Mullahs in border districts of Bangladesh and such.

85 · TTCUSM said

Guys,

Let's stop arguing with people like Nuh uh and Dr. Anonymous.
If someone dislikes Hinduism, then there's nothing that we can say or do that will make them change their minds.

As Hinduphobia becomes more and more widespread, people like them are going to be the least of our problems...

Not if I have anything to say about it. Boo!

Here are some Indic Christian links

CHRISTIANS AGAINST PROSELYTISM

Faith, Civilization and Eurocentric Racism

Proselytization In India: An Indian Christian's Perspective

http://www.petitiononline.com/panaveli/petition.html

so, motivational forensics or some variant of "pillaging of the local infrastructure? that's what conquerors did!" gives the "correct" answer when it is a hindu empire doing it

I specifically gave the example of the Cheras to show that Raja Raja Chola did the same to Hindu empires too. And for the same reason. Empires throughout history neutralized threats from hostile neighbors. Those that did not got destroyed. Did Rome destroy Carthage because of religion? Why would Raja Raja Chola roll over an die, just because he was a Hindu? To the best of my knowledge most Hindu faiths do not have a commandment "When attacked, thou shalt bend over, take it and learn to enjoy it".

BTW. There are examples religion based discrimination in Tamil Nadu -- there was a lot of Jain, Shavite and Vaishavite fought for dominance.

But the example you keep harping on was from a period noted for the promotion of literature of all faiths by the Cholas. For example this was the time Jivaka-chintamani was written to promote Jainism in Tamil Nadu -- with the full support of the Chola court.

Anna wrote a post on pakistani christians. now the argument has turned to hindus becoming a minority in 2060! amazing. Why does all arguments just deteriorate in almost every post to this in SM now.

94 · scribina said

Anna wrote a post on pakistani christians. now the argument has turned to hindus becoming a minority in 2060! amazing. Why does all arguments just deteriorate in almost every post to this in SM now.

Because many (not all) Hindutva advocates are fundamentally dishonest and abuse intellectual spaces.

87 · nuh uh said

And you keep nurturing that open mind that can absorb arguments, buddy!

You didn't let me finish :-)

I've noticed a disturbing trend where any sort anti-Hindu bigotry is justifiable as long as you mention things such as the caste system, treatment of women, etc.
Who's to say that today's anti-Hindu remarks won't evolve into something like this?

68 · Dr Amonymous said

Thanks for the interesting discussion all. One thig I want to point out is that I used to have a knee-jerk opposition towards conversions to Christianity in India because I was raised in the United States and didn't understand the difference in contexts. In India, some/many dalits choose to adopt another faith - whether Christianity or neo-Buddhism or something else - and this is their right.

hmmm? the way you phrased this dr a, as being generally oppossed to conversions except in the context of dalits in India where you recognize the convertee's rights, implies you don't recognize thsi right in the american context, or presumbably even in India if the convertee isn't dalit.

Is context really that important to you?

I wonder why the Christian missionaries aren't focused on the Muslim minorities in Christian Europe--oh, wait, wait, I know why--they're scared--same reason they're not working in Saudi or in Iran, but--oh, wait, wait, all religions are the "fundamentally the same," right, nuh-uh?
Anyhow, we here in the Hindutva camp are working with the Flemish right for--a reason. Moo-hoo--whawhawha. . . .

98 · rob said

I wonder why the Christian missionaries aren't focused on the Muslim minorities in Christian Europe--oh, wait, wait, I know why--they're scared--same reason they're not working in Saudi or in Iran

See, that's all I was asking for - honesty about your eventual vision for India, and what your role models are.

(I need to go now, but will respond to other comments in a couple of days if the thread is still open.)

97 · Manju said

68 · Dr Amonymous said

hmmm? the way you phrased this dr a, as being generally oppossed to conversions except in the context of dalits in India where you recognize the convertee's rights, implies you don't recognize thsi right in the american context, or presumbably even in India if the convertee isn't dalit.

Is context really that important to you?

Sorry, I wrote unclearly. As a person who cares a lot of about individual rights, I think that every person has the right to their own thoughts and self-definition, no ifs ands or buts, though I might call someone a dipshit for holding particular views or try to articulate what social or political or cultural trend they might be exemplifying in their views if I find it objectionable.

What I menat to say is that I think that the signifciance of the act of conversion differs from context to context. So I would have less of a beef with missionary activities in the context of assisting-whether intentionally or not- an escape from a system or ideology of oppression (e.g. like liberation theologists in Latin America or Buddha's reputed original work or MLK or many other examples of the use of faith to attempt to liberate people). This is what I was saying I didn't grasp at first wrt to christian missionary activities.

That said, I still think the tactics and intent of conversion (whether religious or political in nature) can be just as important as the effects (which as one of the Hindutva commenters above pointed out, frequently doesn't alter social status as much as one might hope). I suppose that would be the question of how a proselytizer approaches the context I'm describing above and for whose benefit.

88 · pj said

The very air we breathe in India is Hindu

I always wondered why it was so foul smelling. LOL

Getting back to the original topic, do people know if there are new churches /temples allowed to be constructed in Pakistan. I believe a few churches existed in the British time frame. I have read that Sharia disallows construction of new non Muslim places of worship. Is that the case in Pakistan?.

I always wondered why it was so foul smelling. LOL

he..he. :-)

81 · Kiran P said

Hence it's important that until the poor, illiterate and the innocent are capable of making decisions or in this case assess the value of conversions they need to be protected.

Let us take away the voting rights of the poor, illiterate and innocent before they become rich, educated and rational. LOL

96 · TTCUSM said

I've noticed a disturbing trend where any sort anti-Hindu bigotry is justifiable as long as you mention things such as the caste system, treatment of women, etc.

Are you also disturbed by anti-nazi bigotry that is justified by the nazi racial classification system and the nazis treatment of the handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, jews and slavs?

I think it is telling that the hindutva gang is never disturbed by the casteism, misogyny, slavery etc that blight hindu culture. They are the real problem not those who highlight these critical issues.

People who are supporting conversion in India should at least read the genocides of the past and abandon their quest for this world supremacy in the name of my God is true God, rest are evils. Understanding this quest since crusade times the equally exclusive Islamists have every reason not to let any churches come up in Pakistan. Forget us Hindus, we are worse than Christians in their world view. Why replace one intolerant ideology with another?

What happened to the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and the native Americans?
What happened to Diversity, Cultures and Traditions?
TRUTH BE KNOWN

I think it is telling that the hindutva gang is never disturbed by the casteism, misogyny, slavery etc that blight hindu culture.

I don't sympathize with the Hindutva cause, but you're mistaken on this matter. Organizations like the RSS focus a significant part of their effort (though the other parts might be more a little misguided) on fighting the caste system.

Examples:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/238039.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/RSS_rips_into_ban_on_Dalits_entering_temples/articleshow/1040404.cms

75 · Kiran P said

nuh nuh said
"if a poor individual who doesn't see any value from hinduism chooses to convert to a religion that gives him short term upward mobility and potential escape from a caste hierarchy"
This is the most common argument coming from evangelicals and if the argument is True I will also support it. The argument is flawed. First of all those who are targeted are poor and illiterate who have no idea what's going on. The dalits who are Hindu end up as 'Dalit Christians'. The so called upper caste christians look down upon them. It's their #1 issue if you read that page. Forget Hindus and Christians this dalit lower caste tag exists among muslims also. The point is this: casteism is a social evil in Indian context. Converting from one religion to another is not going to help. Definitely it does not provide any 'upward mobility' and 'potential escape from a caste hierarchy'.

Even sikhs living in America practice casteism: sudras/jatts acting superior to chamars, even though the sikh gurus preached against casteism. Casteism is against the principles of Buddhism, Islam and christianity as well. Yet this pernicious social system has such a stranglehold on the desi mind that even converts to other religions, even those living outside india, cling to it tenaciously. But there is no denying that remaining a hindu dalit is far worse than whatever vestige of casteism is retained when the dalit converts to christianity or islam. At least the dalit convert to these religions is taught that he is equal in the eyes of God which is not what is taught in brahminism.

Question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to brahminism by the hindutva missionaries? The answer to that question should highlight the fraud and farce that is casteism.

89 · Kiran P said

Hinduism is not an organized religion. It's not interested in empire building. It's not interested in world domination. Eastern religions are focussed on spirituality, on the aspects related to divine compared to expanded agenda of monoethistic religions

LOL! (Reminder:- Islam, Christianity are eastern religions). The only people who hold Rath Yathras, these days, are politicians who want publicity and not empires.

Dhoni said

>> hindutva gang is never disturbed by the casteism, misogyny, slavery etc that blight hindu culture. They are the real problem not those who highlight these critical issues.

I have already said casteism is an all-India phenomenon affecting Christians, muslims, Hindus, all of us. That's why converted dalits are also unable to escape it. Now you have introduced 2 more evils and attributed it to Hindus. Misogyny and Slavery. Where are you getting such hateful and factually incorrect information. Are you telling Patriarchial society translates to Misogyny? And slavery has been imported from USA to Indian context. I can't believe the degeneration of this topic, anything goes to justify conversions!

And just because I am opposing unethical conversion someone already labelled me as Hindutva. Is Swami Vivekananda also a Hindutva? What is your definition of Hindutva? Anyone who considers Bharat/India as maatrubhoomi and Punyabhoomi is a Hindutvavaadi. In that sense YES I am one. Jews consider Israel like that. Anything wrong there? No.

Why dont we ask Viswa Hindu Parishad to change its name to Bharatiya Hindu Parishad.

For people who want to know sincerely more on caste system

Is There an American Caste System?

dhoni,

what is brahminism? That's new to me.

See the missionaries have invented lot of literature to equip missionaries so that they don't feel guilty doing God's work. It's called manufacturing consent. Please don't fall for it.

>> Why dont we ask Viswa Hindu Parishad to change its name to Bharatiya Hindu Parishad

They are an international organization of Hindus, hence Viswa. What's your point?

109 · Wondering said

LOL! (Reminder:- Islam, Christianity are eastern religions). The only people who hold Rath Yathras, these days, are politicians who want publicity and not empires.

Christianity and Islam are middle-eastern religions (though the gospel of Jesus, unlike christian dogma, reads like the preachings of any eastern/desi godman). Their core belief in what happens after death: bodily resurrection followed by eternal heaven or hell is derived from ancient egyptian religion and stands in stark contrast to the eastern/desi belief in reincarnation till moksha/nirvana is achieved.

But there is no denying that remaining a hindu dalit is far worse than whatever vestige of casteism is retained when the dalit converts to christianity or islam. At least the dalit convert to these religions is taught that he is equal in the eyes of God which is not what is taught in brahminism.

I don't think so. I think Dalits should show some patience and remain Hindu and take the leadership role in Hinduism. Follow the Mayawati model. The demography and the numbers are on their side in a one man one vote democracy. Clever manipulation using caste numbers and the threat of aligning with Christians / Muslims can see them being offered leadership roles within the Hindu fold. Once you get the political power everything will follow automatically. Dalits should use the Muslim / Christian threat wisely. I already see that happening.

105 · Dhoni said

96 · TTCUSM said

Are you also disturbed by anti-nazi bigotry that is justified by the nazi racial classification system and the nazis treatment of the handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, jews and slavs?

No, but I am worried about the anti-German bigotry. After all, not all Germans are Nazis, RIGHT????

110 · Kiran P said

Now you have introduced 2 more evils and attributed it to Hindus. Misogyny and Slavery. Where are you getting such hateful and factually incorrect information. Are you telling Patriarchial society translates to Misogyny? And slavery has been imported from USA to Indian context.

Here we go again with the lies. So it is the americans who introduced the ancient practices of sati, devadasism, widow shunning, child slavery/bonded labor, child marriage etc to hindus? What makes you think you can fool us all with such outrageous lies?

116 · TTCUSM said

No, but I am worried about the anti-German bigotry. After all, not all Germans are Nazis, RIGHT????

The german people have renounced nazism, the reamaining nazis are a fringe minority. The same cannot be said about indians with respect to casteism, untouchability, misogyny, child slavery, callousness towards horrendous and widespread suffering. India has been given a pass for too long.

Dhoni,

You are a true evangelical, you have been brainwashed. I asked you for sources on Misogyny and Slavery being sanctioned in Hinduism. Instead of answering that you bring in more evangelical dirt here - sati, devadasism, widow shunning, child slavery/bonded labor, child marriage. These social practices are either dead or on the verge of extinction. These are vehemently opposed in modern society. Indian government at the centre and state governments are also policing these. There was sati couple of years ago and the whole western media painted this is commonplace in India. The problem with your rationalizing is you equate social evil to Hinduism. That's intellectual dishonesty. Again, anything to justify conversion!

I can list numerous social evils in American society and blame it all on Christianity - Racism, segregation of American churches based on race, Teenage pregnancies, pedophiles in chuch, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, teachers raping students, same sex experiments, spouse swapping, blind dating... too many! But that is not fair and I won't do it.

108 · Dhoni said

Question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to brahminism by the hindutva missionaries? The answer to that question should highlight the fraud and farce that is casteism.

Hmmm, so none of the hindutva champions have an answer to this question?

Dhoni,

>> India has been given a pass for too long.

Finally your intentions are clear. Yes, it's time for you ( as a white man to do the white man's burden or as a native converted christian sepoy of the western white man ) to civilize the heathens and pagans like us.

See what has your kind done to the world.

Dhoni,

>> Hmmm, so none of the hindutva champions have an answer to this question?

How can anyone answer a question that's wrongly framed? Try again and I WILL answer.

TRUTH BE KNOWN

119 · Kiran P said

I asked you for sources on Misogyny and Slavery being sanctioned in Hinduism.

Why dont you tell us where hindu misogynistic practices like widow burning, widow shunning, temple prostitution of girl children, child marriage etc arose if not from brahminism? Who introduced devadasism, untouchability, casteism etc to India? The christian and muslim conquerors who did not subscribe to such customs? Who would believe such an accusation other than the irrational brainwashed? None of these practices is sanctioned by even other indigenous dharmic religions like buddhism, jainisim, sikhism etc. It is only the casteists/brahminists who keep trying to defend such indefensible beliefs and practices with lies and finger-pointing. It won't work.

122 · Kiran P said

How can anyone answer a question that's wrongly framed? Try again and I WILL answer.

It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?

It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?

I don't know the details of tribal conversion / re-conversion. isn't tribe a caste by itself?. There is a reservation category called the Scheduled Tribes.
looks like this wiki entry lists the different castes that constitute a scheduled tribe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scheduled_Tribes_in_India

>> Why dont you tell us where hindu misogynistic practices like widow burning, widow shunning, temple prostitution of girl children,

If you can answer my list of social evils in America - segregation of American churches based on race, Teenage pregnancies, pedophiles in chuch, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, teachers raping students, same sex experiments, spouse swapping, blind dating etc - I will tell where and how this those came about. You started the finger pointing by linking social evils to Hinduism. So it's time you started googling - don't quote from missionary material please. TIA.

TRUTH BE KNOWN

>> It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?

Ponniyin has sort of answered it. You are too fixated on caste? because that's your bread and butter, your rationale to convert. British constructed it and you want to perpetuate it. Any tool to divide and create 'other'ness is in your toolkit, right? Simply said - Probably they will go back to being tribals. As long as social upliftment happens who cares. See, this is where the western definition of religion won't fit Hinduism. Hinduism is a way of life. It's diverse. Tribals have their way of living in this fold praying to their deities, nature worship and such for thousands of years. Read this

Adivasis, Tribals and Christian Missionaries

TRUTH BE KNOWN

125 · Ponniyin Selvan said

It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?
I don't know the details of tribal conversion / re-conversion. isn't tribe a caste by itself?.

This is another example of the intellectual dishonesty that characterizes the defenders of casteism: that casteism=tribalism. Which is a lie.

What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism? Are they caste hindus or outcaste hindus? Are they all assigned the same caste regardless of their characters, vocations, abilities? The answer to this question will show how totally indefensible hereditary casteism really is.

Dhoni,

Here's one more answer for you. One para says

Further, those who want to follow Saiva cult would be given bhasmam (sacred ash) and a string of rudraksha while the vaishnavite converts would be given namam (tilak) and a string of tulsi. The Dalit Christians who return to Hindu fold would also be given a mantra deeksha (formal initiation) both in Sanskrit and Tamil

So I guess they have a choice of worship, 'caste' if they want to. I personally don't care as long as they follow some native tradition that is inclusive and pluralistic.

Dear Dhoni,

What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism?

Your effort to divide and pigeon hole us won't work. If this makes you happy here's my bio: I was born as sudra but an intellectual kshatriya debating with you, a brahmin at working mentoring junior programmers, my wife is born sudra who is a brahmin teaching music to kids, my brother is a vaishya being a marketing manager for a software company. Cool isn't it?

Do I ask you what chrisian denomination you are? Do I ask you to convert from one to another?

Please don't talk about intellectual dishonesty? Saying "My god is the only true God and rest are false" has been the most intellectual dishonest statement in the history of mankind.

What has that done to humankind?

127 · Kiran P said

>> It is a very simple question: what caste is assigned to the tribals who are converted to hinduism? What are the criteria that are used to assign caste?Ponniyin has sort of answered it. You are too fixated on caste? because that's your bread and butter, your rationale to convert. British constructed it and you want to perpetuate it. Any tool to divide and create 'other'ness is in your toolkit, right?

Actually its hindus, even some hindus who convert to other religions and hindus who emigrate to non-hindu nations, who are so fixated on caste.

The caste system is ancient in India. Buddha criticized brahminism and casteism 2500 years ago and you are blaming the british for imposing it on naive, innocent, spineless hindus? What makes you think that you can fool the world with such outrageous lies?

130 · Kiran P said

What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism?

Do I ask you what chrisian denomination you are? Do I ask you to convert from one to another?

This is beyond silly. Hindu casteism is not the equivalent of religious sectarianism.....or tribalism.

The caste system is ancient in India. Buddha criticized brahminism and casteism 2500 years ago and you are blaming the british for imposing it on naive, innocent, spineless hindus? What makes you think that you can fool the world with such outrageous lies?

Dhoni,

I am seriously telling you: your sources of information are corrupt? Even after direction you don't make any effort to enlighten yourself. Let me give you some keywords - Jati and Varna. Don't confuse this with Caste. Missionaries have confused it as it fits their agenda and you are reading their material.

TRUTH BE KNOWN

This is beyond silly.

"My god is the only true God and rest are false" is beyond EVERYTHING!

Goodbye. May your god give you buddhi!

I got to go but don't forget this

126 · Kiran P said

If you can answer my list of social evils in America - segregation of American churches based on race, Teenage pregnancies, pedophiles in chuch, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, teachers raping students, same sex experiments, spouse swapping, blind dating etc

Man you got a very good impression of America. So the green bills with the powder is motivation here for you. LOL. You are now sounding like Ahmedinejad. None of this things exist in Iran( and India according to you).

129 · Kiran P said

Dhoni, Here's one more answer for you. One para says

Further, those who want to follow Saiva cult would be given bhasmam (sacred ash) and a string of rudraksha while the vaishnavite converts would be given namam (tilak) and a string of tulsi. The Dalit Christians who return to Hindu fold would also be given a mantra deeksha (formal initiation) both in Sanskrit and Tamil

.So I guess they have a choice of worship, 'caste' if they want to. I personally don't care as long as they follow some native tradition that is inclusive and pluralistic.

Since you cant possibly be that ignorant, it means that you are willfully engaging in deceit and dishonesty. Here is news for you: "choice of worship" is not casteism. It is really dumb to even think that such a lie could fool anyone with the slightest clue.

Your "answer" is no answer at all. It says nothing at all about the caste tribal converts are assigned. Vaishnavite and Saivite are not hindu castes. Jeez....

This is another example of the intellectual dishonesty that characterizes the defenders of casteism: that casteism=tribalism. Which is a lie.
What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism?

he...he... are you a "progressive" ?.

That truthbeknown site is quite interesting. The Hindutva folks should translate and print that list of atrocities, and circulate it in the conversion areas. That would be better than trying to beat up the evangelicals. It would be propaganda versus propaganda, a level playing field. No one can complain.

You could also include this case, where a 19-year-old nun in Kerala was killed by two priests and another nun, when they young nun found them indulging in, um, some activities not taught in the seminary. The church used influence to bury the case for 16 years, but judicial activism has led to the three being arrested by the CBI now.

"naive, innocent, spineless hindus": Has this thread run its course?

132 · Dhoni said

130 · Kiran P said

What hindu caste (brahmin/kshatriya/vaishya/sudra) is assigned to tribal (or other) converts to hinduism?

Do I ask you what chrisian denomination you are? Do I ask you to convert from one to another?

This is beyond silly. Hindu casteism is not the equivalent of religious sectarianism.....or tribalism.

You're absolutely right. One is an injustice perpetrated by Brown people. The other is an injustice perpetrated by White people and is therefore, a-okay.

It's only the Brownies who are barbaric obviously.

Screw evangelicals, I am heading over to Manjula's Kitchen to make some laddu!

17 · Kiran P said

Most importantly SICKular parties are suppressing truth to protect votebank! Your figures are close if you ignore the above. To be frank India is all set to be a nation with Hindus as minority by 2060. And that is in numbers only. They already are a minority in terms of their voices, their causes, their heritage and their culture being suppressed slowly but surely. The 4M movement ( Macaulayites, Mullahs, Missionaries and Marxists ) along with western funded/partnered media is marching on to continue the negation and subversion of everything and anything remotely Indic. The Christians and Muslims have power and influence disproportionate to their numbers. Christian institutions inherited from British vast amounts of land. Today the illiterate, ignorant and alien Roman Catholic woman who has no idea of anything Indic is controlling the levers of power of GOP of India. Hindus are already a minority in Kerala, hence Sabarimala is a minority institution now. They are minority in Nagaland ( 90% christian ). Even Anna may not be aware of 'Nagalim for Christ' and other secessionist movements going on in India's North eastern regions. In Andhra Pradesh Samuel Reddy has a huge agenda for conversion and carrying it on with utter impunity. In Congress party circles there are rumors that if one is Christian it's easy to get a party ticket. More than half of CMs of Congress ruled states are Christians

Poor Baby... are you scared to be a minority?

Poor Baby... are you scared to be a minority?

I guess the attempts to systematically undermine or eradicate a way of life is cool too though. After all, it's not like Pat Robertson and his moral majority police have caused any trouble for minorities here in America. We shall certainly be safe in their hands.

Yum. Some shape issues, but still yum.

And now, where are we in da fight against da soul-harvesting devils?

That was kind of sarcastic...

I just think that saying Hindus are a becoming a minority in India is a bit laughable. In all my time in India I have heard more Hindus (who I would argue still have a enormously powerful voice in politcs and day to day life) saying communalist things against other religious (minority) groups in India, especially Muslims. I have heard, time and time again, comments such as "those Muslims all have a 15 children and are trying to take over our country and make us a minority in OUR own land... they should move to Pakistan". I'm sorry, but those comments, which to me, sound quite similiar to Kiran P above (though he may try to express himself without quite so much inflammatory language) is reactionary as least, full of hatred at best, and expressed a fear of Hindus in India that "their" culture will be taken over by "others".

Of course, we all know that India is a country of many religions, and while Hindus are a majority, Indian cultures are not solely Hindu, but ran a gamut of different regions, religions, ethnicities, and so forth. I think this fear that Hindus will become a minority in India and "lose" their Indian culture equates India= Hindu, which ignores the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc that also contribute to Indian cultures, past and present.

And putting forced conversion aside, why would it be so terrible if religious demographic changed in India? Before Hinduism was the dominate religion, Buddhism was... if people chose to change their religion, why is that a bad thing? It's their choice, not yours. (I don't follow a religion at all, by the way, in case anyone feels I have some sort of bias)

I think your notion if religious identity is a very Western one LinZi. In the Indian context, prior to the arrival of the British, religion among non-Muslims was fluid. People revered certain Gods but as far as the theology was concerned it was pretty free-wheeling and people subscribed more or less to whatever they felt like. The lines between Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are more like the differences between Keynesian, Marxist, and Freidman/monetarist economists than a tribal distinction between, say Christians and Muslims.

So going from Hinduism (broadly defined) to being a predominantly Abrahamic society has far reaching consequences. In one sense it would be a final nail in the coffin for an Indian civilization and culture that has already been ground down by a thousand years or so of progressively increasing marginalization and immiseration.

Also, keep in mind that this shift in religious identity has had implications for India's national security as well. The fact that South Asian Muslims are being progressively Arabized has implication for their ability to integrate into the Indian national community and makes India as a whole less stable and secure. The fact that evangelicals in India's northeast (and increasingly in the Naxalite corridor throughout the South) are starting to agitate for independence from the Indian state also undermines India's national security.

For a second step back and look at this from the perspective of a religious person or a nationalistic person who values the national or religious community they have as it is. They look around and see that a country like China or Dubai are so much wealthier than they and so much better at maintaining their integrity as a stable and secure nation. They are likewise more capable of sustaining the cultural and national sense of identity that the "core" of their national identities are based on. India has always found strength in its democratic norms. But if pseudo-secularism and downright naivete about the types of forces arrayed against them continue to nurture the ideologies and forces that divide Indians from each other they are going to start looking for alternative ways to protect the interests of their communities.
For them it feels like they're being punished for being open and accepting. How long is that punishment going to last before there is a backlash? Because current trends extrapolated, either there is a backlash or they find themselves finally backed into a corner and wiped out. Neither of those options are very pleasant.

146 · NV said

I think your notion if religious identity is a very Western one LinZi. In the Indian context, prior to the arrival of the British, religion among non-Muslims was fluid. People revered certain Gods but as far as the theology was concerned it was pretty free-wheeling and people subscribed more or less to whatever they felt like. The lines between Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are more like the differences between Keynesian, Marxist, and Freidman/monetarist economists than a tribal distinction between, say Christians and Muslims.

Thanks for pointing out my 'western' views.(sacrastic again, btw)

My point is that India has not always been a "Hindu" country but throughout history has had an ebb and flow of many different belief systems. I wouldn't generalize to say "before the British, all religions (besides Islam) in India are fluid". Zoroastrians, for example, have been in India for quite a long time and maintained a very distinct religious group. Likewise, Christians and Jews have also maintained distinct religious identities. And since the British, it is not as if religious that are more fluid, such as Hinduism, do not not accept other religious beliefs into their own.. for example, in Bihar, I saw Hindus pray to Jesus, offering prasad as they would at a mandir, or I often see Hindus making offerings as Sufi Shrines.

If you want to compare Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, then we could argue something similar for Catholics, Protestants, and Syrian Orthodox, but the distinctions are still important to people who follow the religions, albeit with similar roots and belief systems.

I understand valuing your own religious beliefs and 'nation', but my question is, if people chose to change religion by their OWN FREE WILL, why is that damaging you? You can keep your religion, continue to worship and believe as you please, so why can't others do the same? Why do you feel threatened by others choices?

If your religious group is a majority in a nation, is it your duty and right to make sure you maintain the majority? How far will you go? Would you make conversion illegal? Would you kill people who change religions? Would you commit mass genocide?

Also, you claim that South Asian Muslims are being Arabized. Let's first consider that since Islam has entered India, it has changed and altered to create a unique Indian Islamic culture, take Sufism, for example.

How are Muslims in India today turning to Arabic forms of Islam? Mainly through madrassas, many of which are funded by Wahabi groups from Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps if Indian had a universal, equal education program for all children in India, Muslim families wouldn't have to turn to outside, conservative Islamic groups such as Wahabiism to get some sort of education for their children.

If you read studies regarding education and literacy, and poverty in India, you will find that a higher proportion of Muslims remain poor and illiterate. If such minority groups are 'taking over' India, why do they still stand in such a poor economic and educational state within the country?

A few examples of articles with reference to education struggles for Muslims in India:

http://infochangeindia.org/200801306848/Education/Books-Reports/Elementary-education-Kerala-tops-Bihar-lags-Muslim-enrolment-poor.html

http://www.indianmuslims.info/articles/yoginder_sikand/what_ails_muslim_education_in_india.html

http://www.indiatogether.org/2007/aug/edu-muslimedu.htm

And if you want to use the CIA Factbook as an extremely basic estimate for percentages of religious groups in India you get:

Religions:
Hindu 80.5%, Muslim 13.4%, Christian 2.3%, Sikh 1.9%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.1% (2001 census)

The country population would be approx: 1,147,995,904 (July 2008 est.)

So let's then say that 80.5% of the population is: 918,396,723

Please tell me how this 918,396,723 peoples religion, culture, and way of life can be wiped away by 229,599,181 people.

Having grown up as a minority (in terms of religion)in India, let me say, the majority is mainly concerned with issues pertaining only to themselves. I (and people of my community) have never felt accepted by the Indian mainstream. If our community has prospered it has been despite the presence of the majority. We were and still are always the 'other'.
I agree with LinZi, it is hypocritical for the Hindu's (I mean the bigot Kiran P) to claim religious minorities are infringing on the Hindu way of life. Its also funny to see how when some of the Hindu community (being a minority in the US) feel vindicated when Obama mentions them in his Inaguration speech!! How about Hindus (I am looking at you, Kiran P) treat minorities in India with the same respect they demand from the majority in the west!

(and those 229,599,181 people include all your 'fluid' religions such as Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc, too!)

My point is that India has not always been a "Hindu" country but throughout history has had an ebb and flow of many different belief systems. I wouldn't generalize to say "before the British, all religions (besides Islam) in India are fluid". Zoroastrians, for example, have been in India for quite a long time and maintained a very distinct religious group. Likewise, Christians and Jews have also maintained distinct religious identities. And since the British, it is not as if religious that are more fluid, such as Hinduism, do not not accept other religious beliefs into their own.. for example, in Bihar, I saw Hindus pray to Jesus, offering prasad as they would at a mandir, or I often see Hindus making offerings as Sufi Shrines.

Perhaps if Indian had a universal, equal education program for all children in India, Muslim families wouldn't have to turn to outside, conservative Islamic groups such as Wahabiism to get some sort of education for their children.

Having a professional and effective civil service is another thing that requires a sense of common national identity in order to pull off. Your politicians and civil servants need to feel like they're invested in the well-being of all Indians rather than their particular tribe and stoking communalism through competitive intolerance hurt that effort.
It also doesn't help that it is just about impossible for people to agree on a valid school curriculum since each and every factoid is construed as a grievous offense to one narrowly defined interest group or another.

Let's first consider that since Islam has entered India, it has changed and altered to create a unique Indian Islamic culture, take Sufism, for example.

If you read studies regarding education and literacy, and poverty in India, you will find that a higher proportion of Muslims remain poor and illiterate. If such minority groups are 'taking over' India, why do they still stand in such a poor economic and educational state within the country?

But in this too we see the effects of being too accommodating towards narrowly defined interest groups. India's Muslims have a separate civil law system than the rest of the country. While the country's Hindus are governed by the secular, democratically determined laws put forth by the state the Muslims generally have to go by sharia. As a result the Indian state has surrendered its authority over its Muslim minority to the most conservative elements within Islam. So Muslims still operate under a regime that allows polygamy in India while both Pakistan and Bangladesh have long ago banned the practice (even though they too are starting to find efforts to bring it back, but that's another long story.)
The Indian government cannot properly deliver services and initiate the important social and cultural reforms needed within the Muslim community if the mullahs are going to raise a ruckus about how it's anti-secular every time they try.
Having literate parents, especially a literate mother, is immensely important in determining whether or not a child learns how to read. Whether they have access to schools or not it is crucially important. But as long as the Indian government or society at large is powerless to actually initiate those reforms, nothing is going to get done.

It is also important not to aggregate the numbers too much. India is a large and diverse country and looking at a nation-wide average can draw you to the wrong conclusions. Hindus in Bihar, for example, aren't all that much better-off than Muslims anywhere else.

I understand valuing your own religious beliefs and 'nation', but my question is, if people chose to change religion by their OWN FREE WILL, why is that damaging you? You can keep your religion, continue to worship and believe as you please, so why can't others do the same? Why do you feel threatened by others choices?

The Tibetan monks are instructed that when they go out into the world their goal should not be to pull people away from their religious traditions. In fact, when arguing with a Christian the Buddhist's role should be make them better Christians rather than turning them into Buddhists. This is a wise and spiritually mature tack the Dalai Lama took there, but it is not the tack that missionary evangelists take with the adivasis in India.

Also, I know you said that you're "unbiased" because you do not follow and religious tradition. But don't you think maybe the fact that you don't take religion or tradition seriously might bias you against people who do?

153 · NV said

The core of the national identity still centers around one notion of culture though. Just like in America we're thought the myth of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, which completely simplifies the nature and diversity of the initial American colonizers, it is important to have a sense of national identity that is positive and unifying. Zoroastrians were there as were the Eastern Christian churches and Jews, but they've always been a miniscule part of the civilizational makeup. In the grand scheme of things they were a footnote in describing the forces that shaped Indian society. It's important that their rights and identity be respected, but it's also not a credible Indian national identity.

NV speaks for him/herself on that one there! (All you non-Hindus cannot be part of a credible Indian national identity, according to NV!)

And, BTW, having an American national identity based on some mythical story of how the Pilgrims and native people came together in love and happiness is a dangerous, false, and completely embarrassing national identity, not something to proud of at all.

Please tell me how this 918,396,723 peoples religion, culture, and way of life can be wiped away by 229,599,181 people.

If you don't like the disease metaphor just think of social instability in Afghanistan. How do you think it is that the Taliban, a comparatively small band of armed mujahuddein, managed to bring the entire country under their heel? That's the thing with social forces. A small but concentrated and dedicated interest can generally beat out a larger and more powerful but unorganized mass. How do you think the US Congress continues to shell out billions to subsidize farmers that the vast majority of the country could care less about?

To quote Barack Obama: "One voice can change a room, if it can change a room it can change a city. If it can change a city it can change a state. If it can change a state it can change a nation. And if it can change a nation it can change the world. Your voice, can change the world."
We should be mindful that such power can be used for both good and evil.

153 · NV said

India does have a universal, equal education program. The problem is this program only exists in theory since in practice, politics is done on a patronage basis and the money never gets to where it is supposed to go.

There is not current law in India which provides for free, universal education to all children. The constitution has an set up an INTENT to do so, and it was never carried out in full, not even on paper. The closed we have is the government school system, which are not universal (universal- required for all children between any age range, for example, ages 6-12), are not accessible to all children, either because they are too far away, they only exist on paper, or families cannot afford school uniforms and to buy books, let alone the ones that DO exist with poor/non-existent teaching.

There is a pretty decent higher education system, but keep in mind that that serves about 7% of the population, many of whom paid for private schools for primary education, books, tuitions, etc that many families cannot afford.

"How about Hindus (I am looking at you, Kiran P) treat minorities in India with the same respect they demand from the majority in the west!"

Minority religious groups in India are treated with much more dignity than minority religious groups in most any other country. The government funds Islamic schools but will absolutley not issue government money to Hindu schools. Imagine Moslems in America or any other country where Moslems are a minority blaring morning prayer calls over loudspeakers so that everyone in the city can hear it. Imagine that being tolerated in any other country. The government advances affirmative action programs for minority religious groups and "backward" castes, even if the members of the "backward" castes are more wealthy than a more "forward" sudra caste member. The notion that minorities in India are treated poorly is absurd. In India, Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists are treated the same, if not better than, Hindus. It's absurd propoganda to suggest otherwise.

Its also funny to see how when some of the Hindu community (being a minority in the US) feel vindicated when Obama mentions them in his Inaguration speech!! How about Hindus (I am looking at you, Kiran P) treat minorities in India with the same respect they demand from the majority in the west!

NV speaks for him/herself on that one there! (All you non-Hindus cannot be part of a credible Indian national identity, according to NV!)

And, BTW, having an American national identity based on some mythical story of how the Pilgrims and native people came together in love and happiness is a dangerous, false, and completely embarrassing national identity, not something to proud of at all.

I'll take that to a poor, third-world cesspit whose residents are too busy fighting amongst themselves to actually accomplish anything greater any day.

You can save the studying nuances of American history for late high school/college. For school kids the national mythos needs to be unifying. People need to identify with the cultures and traditions that define the nation. I am an Indian Hindu immigrant to America. I don't like baseball, I don't eat hot dogs, and I don't go to church but I still acknowledge that these are important characteristics of America as a nation and I respect them for that. I'm not going to start complaining about how America is anti-secular because they give Christians time off on Christmas without giving me a day off for Diwali.

156 · LinZi said

153 · NV said

India does have a universal, equal education program. The problem is this program only exists in theory since in practice, politics is done on a patronage basis and the money never gets to where it is supposed to go.

There is not current law in India which provides for free, universal education to all children. The constitution has an set up an INTENT to do so, and it was never carried out in full, not even on paper. The closed we have is the government school system, which are not universal (universal- required for all children between any age range, for example, ages 6-12), are not accessible to all children, either because they are too far away, they only exist on paper, or families cannot afford school uniforms and to buy books, let alone the ones that DO exist with poor/non-existent teaching.
There is a pretty decent higher education system, but keep in mind that that serves about 7% of the population, many of whom paid for private schools for primary education, books, tuitions, etc that many families cannot afford.

You just repeated what I said and omitted the parts where I explained why it still only exists on paper. Remember what I said about patronage and how impossible it is to get money to where it is supposed to go (pretty important to set up a school and healthcare system) when your politicians and civil servants are too busy appealing to the narrowly defined special interest that got them into power rather than serving the nation as a whole?

I am not biased against religions, I respect everyone's belief system and feel that as long as you are not harming others, you should be able to worship as you see fit.

And, your metaphor of disease once again just reinforces the fear and hatred that you continue to type. If you are strong and passionate about your religious beliefs, why are you so scared of the "growing" minorities? What do you have to fear? Why not stop looking at them as "others" and start accepting that India is and has been one of the most diverse nations world wide. What's wrong with that? Isn't that something to celebrate? Shouldn't you see try to see national identity as more than religion, or in your mind, Hinduism? Can't a Malayali Syrian Christian, a Punjabi Sikh, a Jain from Gujurat, and a Hindu from U.P. all count themselves as an Indian national?

Maybe if you stopped trying to label India as Hindu, stopped spending so much time dwelling on the 'scary' minorities taking over your country and actually try to educate yourself and see other citizens, you ( as one person) could even help dispel communalism, and create a place were people of different religions can live together without riots, inflammatory speechs, ripping down each others religious buildings, and so forth.

Violence breeds violence. Hatred breeds hatred. Why would you want to continue that by pretending that Indian Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians have less claim on their country than you?

@ Jayz:

I think you guys might be talking past each other. You're referring to "positive" discrimination by the government (those are sarcasm quotes, not scare quotes) to the detriment of Hindus. Karen is referring to invidious discrimination by people in society independent of government to the detriment of non-Hindus.

Personally I am not a big fan of either. But my subjective opinion is that the concern of the special interest groups is too often geared towards punishing the "advantaged" rather than uplifting the disadvantaged. Karen's sentiment that Hindus in general are all racists because of the perceived lack of respect shown to her is counterproductive since it only sows further animosity by not only bad-mouthing an entire group of people, but by assuming as a given that we're all bad people and, dare I say, not very Christ-like. Disagree without being disagreeable, kill them with kindness, and all that jazz.

Linzi,

Per your bio you are someone "currently finishing graduate school. In the future I am considering opening an organization to work with families in India". I am an Indian citizen having lived in 25 years and speaking from experience, not a touristers view. You will not be able gauge India in a short time. Talk to Francois Gautier and you will know. Or Koenrald Elst. to get a better picture.

You have mixed up everything in your replies without reading previous statements, just ranting, suiting missionary agenda. The only issue I was disagreeing to is unethical conversions. Go back and read. You are also not able to identify who a Hindu is. In the broader sense everyone who follows Indic values irrespective of religious affiliation is a Hindu, this is the "way of life" definition. Everyone in India is a Hindu except for evangelical christians and radical Islamists for whom masters are either in Vatican or Arabia in that sense. This is number one threat to Indian national identity.

And if you want to use the CIA Factbook as an extremely basic estimate

CIA is American agency. Considering what Bush has done to India and CIA's active involvement in conversion enterprise it's best you keep this to yourself and missionaries.

Always speak considering what has happened to humankind in the name of Church and Intolerant God.

Karen's sentiment that Hindus in general are all racists because of the perceived lack of respect shown to her is counterproductive since it only sows further animosity by not only bad-mouthing an entire group of people, but by assuming as a given that we're all bad people and, dare I say, not very Christ-like. Disagree without being disagreeable, kill them with kindness, and all that jazz.

Amazing! My 'sentiment' or 'perception' of Hindus as racists is absolutely false. No one says all Hindus are bad people (just you, NV). Bigotry, by claiming minorities are taking over the majority is my cause for complaint. Why not as LinZi says, we celebrate diversity. Treat everyone with respect (not just rhetoric but action). And let every person follow a religion of their choice (conversion or not). The problem seems to arise only because 'many' (a statistically valid word, I hope) Hindus are convinced 'their own' are getting converting to Christianity and are appalled about the audacity of the 'other'.

And, your metaphor of disease once again just reinforces the fear and hatred that you continue to type.

I am not biased against religions, I respect everyone's belief system and feel that as long as you are not harming others, you should be able to worship as you see fit.

If you are strong and passionate about your religious beliefs, why are you so scared of the "growing" minorities? What do you have to fear? Why not stop looking at them as "others" and start accepting that India is and has been one of the most diverse nations world wide.

Shouldn't you see try to see national identity as more than religion, or in your mind, Hinduism? Can't a Malayali Syrian Christian, a Punjabi Sikh, a Jain from Gujurat, and a Hindu from U.P. all count themselves as an Indian national?

157 · Jayz said

The notion that minorities in India are treated poorly is absurd. In India, Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists are treated the same, if not better than, Hindus. It's absurd propoganda to suggest otherwise.

hmm:

Fear and fundamentalism in India

In the Indian state of Orissa, Chris Morris finds communities in shock following a wave of anti-Christian violence, which has forced thousands to flee. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7672228.stm)

Most Punjabi Christians are lower castes. If somebody tells me that they know a person is a Punjabi Christian, I automatically think he/she is a choora.

Most Pakistani Christians are chooras, so as well getting shit for being non-muslims, they also suffer from caste discrimination. Bhatti is also a common choora Christian surname.

I can't be bothered to read all the hindu vs muslim crap above, but what I can say, is that in Punjab, many muslim pir shrines are maintained by Hindus & Sikhs. Sufism is popular and there is a shrine in my village with pictures of both Hindu gods and the Ka'aba.

164 · LinZi said

157 · Jayz said

The notion that minorities in India are treated poorly is absurd. In India, Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists are treated the same, if not better than, Hindus. It's absurd propoganda to suggest otherwise.

hmm:
Fear and fundamentalism in India
In the Indian state of Orissa, Chris Morris finds communities in shock following a wave of anti-Christian violence, which has forced thousands to flee. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7672228.stm)

Bigotry, by claiming minorities are taking over the majority is my cause for complaint. Why not as LinZi says, we celebrate diversity.

161 · Kiran P said

Linzi,

Per your bio you are someone "currently finishing graduate school. In the future I am considering opening an organization to work with families in India". I am an Indian citizen having lived in 25 years and speaking from experience, not a touristers view. You will not be able gauge India in a short time. Talk to Francois Gautier and you will know. Or Koenrald Elst. to get a better picture.

You have mixed up everything in your replies without reading previous statements, just ranting, suiting missionary agenda. The only issue I was disagreeing to is unethical conversions. Go back and read. You are also not able to identify who a Hindu is. In the broader sense everyone who follows Indic values irrespective of religious affiliation is a Hindu, this is the "way of life" definition. Everyone in India is a Hindu except for evangelical christians and radical Islamists for whom masters are either in Vatican or Arabia in that sense. This is number one threat to Indian national identity.

And if you want to use the CIA Factbook as an extremely basic estimate

CIA is American agency. Considering what Bush has done to India and CIA's active involvement in conversion enterprise it's best you keep this to yourself and missionaries.

Always speak considering what has happened to humankind in the name of Church and Intolerant God.

How can you assume I am a tourist, how do you assume my credentials?

I used the CIA factbook as a very general, as I noted, approx gauge of numbers, just because it was quick and easy to look up, find another more reliable source, I don't mind.)

Also, I am not a Christian, let alone a Missionary! Do you assume just because I am from the U.S. I must be a Christian? Bring on more stereotypes, what else can you assume about me without even asking?

I would define who a Hindu by asking someone "what religion do you follow" If they answer "Hindu", why then I would suggest they are a Hindu. Clear? I don't think my Jain, Sikh, or Syrian Orthodox friends would tell me they are a Hindu, do you? I also don't think they are radical Islamists, or evangelical Christians. (Nor are so most Muslims and Christians in the world!)

118 · Kiran P said

I can list numerous social evils in American society and blame it all on Christianity - Racism, segregation of American churches based on race, Teenage pregnancies, pedophiles in chuch, pornography, alcoholism, drug addiction, teachers raping students, same sex experiments, spouse swapping, blind dating... too many! But that is not fair and I won't do it.

Watch out, now. You're not really trying to link pornography, teachers abusing students and several other things with Christianity in America, are you? You're starting to sound like a troll. Don't discredit yourself by verging on territory prohibited by our commenting policy.

Everyone else, thank (almost all of) you for trying to keep the debate constructive.

163 · NV said

I don't see where I said only Hindus can be Indian. I said Indian culture has been primarily shaped by Hindu norms. It's the same way American culture has been primarily shaped by Christian norms.

And America shouldn't build it's identity in that wat. Whoever said that Diwali should be a holiday in the U.S., right on, how about Eid and Holi, too, for starters? "God" should not be in pledge of allegiance, and America should build it's identity on what it truly is, a nation of diverse people from across the entire globe. And we should be proud of that. Why do we need to build a Christian norm, why do we need to build a norm based on any one religion?

Linzi and Karen,

You have amateur knowledge of India and dyanmics there. Despite repeated explanations you say what you want to say.

Read the Bush and CIA links I posted above.

Read the damage done to humanity by church and evangelicals

Things They Don't Tell You

Christian Terrorism in Northeast India

and then we shall discuss whether forced conversions are OK are not?
If you have sanity you will not come back trying to defend the indefensible.

opening an organization to work with families in India

Thanks for the hint!

163 · NV said

I don't see where I said only Hindus can be Indian. I said Indian culture has been primarily shaped by Hindu norms. It's the same way American culture has been primarily shaped by Christian norms.

And America shouldn't build it's identity in that wat. Whoever said that Diwali should be a holiday in the U.S., right on, how about Eid and Holi, too, for starters? "God" should not be in pledge of allegiance, and America should build it's identity on what it truly is, a nation of diverse people from across the entire globe. And we should be proud of that. Why do we need to build a Christian norm, why do we need to build a norm based on any one religion?

And I say Indian is a land of many different cultural, ethnic and religious groups, different areas and people are shaped by many different norms. Just because you may have been shaped by Hindu norms doesn't mean everyone is.

Please don't ban Kiran. His comedy act is fantastic! Maybe you can consider substituting Melvin with him.

But that is not fair and I won't do it

SM Intern, It's right there and still you missed it. No! I am very sane :)

154 · NV said

But if 20% of the population had tuberculosis that should be cause for concern among the other 80% no? I'd hate to use the disease metaphor because I don't like the idea of equating belonging to a religious affiliation as being diseased

...and yet...you just did. Funny, that.

@Kiran: I said the formal census numbers are probably undercounts, but I would be really surprised if they undercounted by SO much that it would have undermined LinZi's argument. If it would have I'd have brought it up. :-D

@LinZi:

I would define who a Hindu by asking someone "what religion do you follow" If they answer "Hindu", why then I would suggest they are a Hindu. Clear? I don't think my Jain, Sikh, or Syrian Orthodox friends would tell me they are a Hindu, do you? I also don't think they are radical Islamists, or evangelical Christians. (Nor are so most Muslims and Christians in the world!)

If you wanted to get more specific it gets hard precisely because of how hard it is to draw lines between various Indic traditions as it is. But you could split it along Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Vedanta (which itself has various subheadings), and so on and so forth. And that's just the astika schools of thought! Defined more broadly, the term you're looking for when you hear "Hindu" would more properly be referred to as Santana Dharma.

118 · Kiran P said

I can list numerous social evils in American society and blame it all on Christianity...But that is not fair and I won't do it.

But you did do it.

174 · Kiran P said

SM Intern, It's right there and still you missed it. No! I am very sane :)

I could say that Kiran P. is a troll but "that is not fair and I won't do it". Except I just did. See how that's problematic?

171 · Kiran P said

You have amateur knowledge of India and dyanmics there. Despite repeated explanations you say what you want to say.

Read the Bush and CIA links I posted above.

Read the damage done to humanity by church and evangelicals

Things They Don't Tell You

Christian Terrorism in Northeast India

and then we shall discuss whether forced conversions are OK are not?
If you have sanity you will not come back trying to defend the indefensible.

I never said I support Christian fundamentalists, either! Nor did I ever once state that I support forced conversions! I don't support anyone forcing their religion on ANYONE else, in any form, and that includes a majority group who retaliates verbally, politically, or physically because they feel threatened by other religions in their own country, as well as fundamentalists trying to coerce groups into joining their religion.

Watch out, now. You're not really trying to link pornography, teachers abusing students and several other things with Christianity in America, are you? You're starting to sound like a troll. Don't discredit yourself by verging on territory prohibited by our commenting policy. Everyone else, thank (almost all of) you for trying to keep the debate constructive.

You really ought to take more care before threatening to swing the ban hammer around like that. I mean, Kiran even linked you to an article by Rajiv Malhotra explaining in more detail about how social evils in India, because they are in an Indian context, get studied and framed in a way that social evils in America don't.

And America shouldn't build it's identity in that wat. Whoever said that Diwali should be a holiday in the U.S., right on, how about Eid and Holi, too, for starters? "God" should not be in pledge of allegiance, and America should build it's identity on what it truly is, a nation of diverse people from across the entire globe. And we should be proud of that. Why do we need to build a Christian norm, why do we need to build a norm based on any one religion?

...and yet...you just did. Funny, that.

SM Intern,

Everyone else, thank (almost all of) you for trying to keep the debate constructive

Is SM truly fair when it ignored the following statements from Dhoni regarding Hinduism?

where hindu misogynistic practices like widow burning, widow shunning, temple prostitution of girl children, child marriage etc arose if not from brahminism? Who introduced devadasism, untouchability, casteism etc to India?

179 · NV said

Wow. It's amazing how you guys manage to take a clause in which I say "I realize this comment could be construed as A way but that's not the way I mean it" and interpret that to mean "Hey guys. I think A." The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

Those sort of statements remind me a lot of the people who say "I'm not a racist but..." and then follow with an extremely racist statement.. Is it really different to say, this analogy sounds horribly hatefilled, but I am still going to use it?

180 · Kiran P said

Is SM truly fair when it ignored the following statements from Dhoni regarding Hinduism?

What to do, Kiran? Even S-M lovers like the missionary position every once in a while.

@SM Intern:

I could say that Kiran P. is a troll but "that is not fair and I won't do it". Except I just did. See how that's problematic?

SM Intern,

I could say that Kiran P. is a troll but "that is not fair and I won't do it". Except I just did. See how that's problematic?

I was just showing the futility of making such erroneous statements to Dhoni by stating and then negating it. Somehow how this seems to have raised your alert level while condoning his action. Do your sympathies lie somewhere?!

Wow, I never would have thought of PBS as a font of wisdom, but I'm watching "The Story of India" right now and they just mentioned "Islamic conquest" "forced conversion" and "intolerance of Hindus [in Rajasthan]" in the same minute. I have no idea how this is going to evolve, I just tuned in, but for a short, short moment, right-side-up world reappeared in spite of all attempts to re-write history. Woot!

Kiran, we do try and be fair. At the same time, it's a private site with no guarantees about anything, so YMMV.

It's not my thread- Anna's offline. I'm just trying to keep things constructive, so the discussion can stay open until she's back.

Back to religion and South Asia, everyone, and this is a wide interpretation of that topic. No more comment from me.

181 · LinZi said

179 · NV said

Wow. It's amazing how you guys manage to take a clause in which I say "I realize this comment could be construed as A way but that's not the way I mean it" and interpret that to mean "Hey guys. I think A." The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

Those sort of statements remind me a lot of the people who say "I'm not a racist but..." and then follow with an extremely racist statement.. Is it really different to say, this analogy sounds horribly hatefilled, but I am still going to use it?

Well respected scientists, sociologists, political scientists, and anthropologists use epidemeological examples to illustrate how ideas, cultural notions, and religions spread all the time. If you were actually steeped in that literature you'd be aware of the parallel. I included the disclaimer because I knew the moralizing PC folks in this place would see that example and jump on it for that reason since context only seems to matter when it's used to concoct apologetic paeans to terrorists around here.

184 · Kiran P said

SM Intern,

I could say that Kiran P. is a troll but "that is not fair and I won't do it". Except I just did. See how that's problematic?

I was just showing the futility of making such erroneous statements to Dhoni by stating and then negating it. Somehow how this seems to have raised your alert level while condoning his action. Do your sympathies lie somewhere?!

Now now. Don't assume malice as an explanation where lack of sleep will do.

rob,

Here's a note for you.

185 · rob said

Wow, I never would have thought of PBS as a font of wisdom, but I'm watching "The Story of India" right now and they just mentioned "Islamic conquest" "forced conversion" and "intolerance of Hindus [in Rajasthan]" in the same minute. I have no idea how this is going to evolve, I just tuned in, but for a short, short moment, right-side-up world reappeared in spite of all attempts to re-write history. Woot!

179 · NV said

You really ought to take more care before threatening to swing the ban hammer around like that.

When did they threaten to ban him? Wow, the assumptions and exaggeration are staggering. That read like a caution, to me. If they wanted to ban him, they could have done it by now. They obviously see some value in keeping him around. But don't let that you from inferring some nefarious bias about a moderator's comments.

Linzi in #181, said is so much better than I did, in the following about both you and Kiran:

Those sort of statements remind me a lot of the people who say "I'm not a racist but..." and then follow with an extremely racist statement.. Is it really different to say, this analogy sounds horribly hatefilled, but I am still going to use it?

189 · Kiran P said

rob,
Here's a note for you.

Hey. He properly calls it Aryan Migration rather than Aryan Invasion. That is good enough for me.
As far as the scholarship is concerned it is probably the most likely explanation in my eyes. Migration of pastoralists from central Asia make beautiful babies with the remnants of the Harrappan civilization. They are fruitful and they multiply. This is in contrast to modern India, where all we do is multiply.

191 · CR said

But don't let that you from inferring some nefarious bias about a moderator's comments.

My apologies, NV. In the time it took me to try and format my comment, I missed yours at #188.

Kiran, we do try and be fair. At the same time, it's a private site with no guarantees about anything, so YMMV. It's not my thread- Anna's offline. I'm just trying to keep things constructive, so the discussion can stay open until she's back Back to religion and South Asia, everyone, and this is a wide interpretation of that topic. No more comment from me.

Fair enough and I agree with NV regarding lack of sleep possibility too!

You said "religion and south asia". Hope people know about RISA and Wendy's Child Syndrome

what is YMMV ?

191 · CR said

Linzi in #181, said is so much better than I did, in the following about both you and Kiran:

Those sort of statements remind me a lot of the people who say "I'm not a racist but..." and then follow with an extremely racist statement.. Is it really different to say, this analogy sounds horribly hatefilled, but I am still going to use it?

Thanks for backing me up... feeling a bit frustrated over here. :(

But don't let that you from inferring some nefarious bias about a moderator's comments.

I am frankly a bit sad about being pigeonholed as the racist curmudgeon. I was really going for more of a sanctimonious, smarter-than-thou asshole thing.

193 · CR said

191 · CR said

But don't let that you from inferring some nefarious bias about a moderator's comments.

My apologies, NV. In the time it took me to try and format my comment, I missed yours at #188.

Well I guess we're even now. Because I missed your reply #193!

@Kiran

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary

YTMND = You're The Man Now Dawg and is a much cooler reference, but not at all relevant to anything going on.

196 · NV said

I was really going for more of a sanctimonious, smarter-than-thou asshole thing.

you aren't succeeding on the smarter-than-thou, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad, and you did manage to succeed on the bigot thing, so aces to you!

199 · stand up said

196 · NV said

I was really going for more of a sanctimonious, smarter-than-thou asshole thing.

you aren't succeeding on the smarter-than-thou, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad, and you did manage to succeed on the bigot thing, so aces to you!

Is that the end? Should I go to sleep now?

182 · stand up said

Even S-M lovers like the missionary position every once in a while.

Heh heh. Brilliant

166 · NV said

164 · LinZi said

157 · Jayz said

The notion that minorities in India are treated poorly is absurd. In India, Christians, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists are treated the same, if not better than, Hindus. It's absurd propoganda to suggest otherwise.

hmm:
Fear and fundamentalism in India
In the Indian state of Orissa, Chris Morris finds communities in shock following a wave of anti-Christian violence, which has forced thousands to flee. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7672228.stm)

So was the murder of the Swami and his two attendants in a school classroom full of kids by armed thugs that set that whole conflagration off an example of Anti-Hindu violence as well?

I love how when you say "minorities aren't discriminated against in India" and I give one obvious and recent example of discrimination against minorities, then you just turn what was said to mean "Hindus are never discriminated against", which of course, I never once said. So let me make this clear. Communalism is BAD. Discrimination is BAD. Racism is BAD. No matter who does it, against who. End of Story.

Back to the topic.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402815

Pictures of some beautiful churches in Pakistan. Looks like almost all are constructed in British period. I'd be interested to know if there are new churches being built. I see new churches / temples / masjids coming up in India every time I visit.

More importantly do people know of any new temples being built in Pakistan after 1947. I'd be very curious to know.

"Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found it." - Charles Dickens

I give one obvious and recent example of discrimination against minorities

Do you even know what is happening and what happened before that in Orissa? Will you care to know? If missionaries were not indulging in what they were doing this wouldn't be happening in the first place. That is why Charles Dickens said what he said. Do you even know how the social fabric was getting torn apart with missionaries' social and religious engineering there? Read these 3 parts and get back to me.
Christian Conversions and Attack on Hindu Swami in Orissa

Communalism is BAD. Discrimination is BAD. Racism is BAD. No matter who does it, against who. End of Story

No other country treats minorities better than India does. If Islamic terrorism and Evangelical terrorism is eliminated from India the country will get back to normal automatically. As long as these forces exist and government fails to control these elements Indians will react as humans do. Evangelical Tourists visiting India and commenting here in defense of missionary activities need to read all the following below before making inane statements. -1 is not the same as -1000000 just because both are -

Mahatma Gandhi on Conversion
CHRISTIAN AGGRESSION
BUSH and CIA plans and activities to convert India
The Conversion War and Religious Freedom

and

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

204 · Kiran P said

Do you even know what is happening and what happened before that in Orissa? Will you care to know? If missionaries were not indulging in what they were doing this wouldn't be happening in the first place.

Let me translate what you mean for you:
"If those missionaries didn't come to into Orissa, we wouldn't have to burn all those INNOCENT peoples houses down!"

linzi,

What do you think about this?

Christian Terrorism in Northeast India

And here are missionary sites promoting secession from India and abetting armed struggle

Crusade aims to revive ‘Nagaland for Christ’
Free Nagalim
http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-10/a4_03_10.html

See how those trends are getting to Orissa where the missionaries are demanding split in Orissa too.

As an American tourister I don't expect you to be concerned about India's union and national interests! But I do. My request is don't tell 10% of the story conveniently fitting the missionary agenda while suppressing the rest 90% which will shed the truth.

I think the problem here is that you are speaking in circles, with no sensible argument.... It's just going to keep going like this:

You: India is a HINDU nation, and if the minorities get bigger, than we will lose our culture and identity. India is under attack by the 'disease' of Islam and Christians.

Me: but all the different kinds of religions in India are a distinct part of the history and cultures of India!

You: No they are all either part of Hinduism or evil evil outsiders (i.e. Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians)

Me: But what about the people that aren't Hindu and don't fit into those two categories?

You: Umm....... umm.... but... Forced conversion is bad and is ruining India and destroying Indian lives! We treat our minorities better than the entire world!

Me: What about when you discriminate against them?

You: Then it is the Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians fault. If they weren't here we would all have a peace parade, be Hindus, and hug each other everyday!

Let me translate what you mean for you: "If those missionaries didn't come to into Orissa, we wouldn't have to burn all those INNOCENT peoples houses down!"

Don't translate anything for me and neither will I for you. Those tricks don't work any more. We are sick and tired of your propoganda and PR crap. We know your tricks of the trade

Did you read my links?

My request is don't tell 10% of the story conveniently fitting the missionary agenda while suppressing the rest 90% which will shed the truth.

Kiran, I haven't had time to follow everything in this discussion. I love what you said above though.

Though my question to you is - do you think that Hindus who feel they are oppressed through their religion shouldn't convert to another religion?

in orissa ppl were in hunger n poverty...misionaries came n gave them shelter then BJP made AADIVAASY KALYAAN SANSTHA .....missionaries shd be thanked as they gave a sense of self respect to them

Here are the major faults in your lines. You will figure them once you come out of missionary mindset. Of course, you need to spend some time and energy to educate yourself. Just touring won't do.

You: India is a HINDU nation, and if the minorities get bigger, than we will lose our culture and identity. India is under attack by the 'disease' of Islam and Christians.

Me: but all the different kinds of religions in India are a distinct part of the history and cultures of India!

You: No they are all either part of Hinduism or evil evil outsiders (i.e. Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians)

Me: But what about the people that aren't Hindu and don't fit into those two categories?

You: Umm....... umm.... but... Forced conversion is bad and is ruining India and destroying Indian lives! We treat our minorities better than the entire world!

Me: What about when you discriminate against them?

You: Then it is the Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians fault. If they weren't here we would all have a peace parade, be Hindus, and hug each other everyday!

dear kiran
for ur kind information tribles were never Hindu they were a whole different community i think u need to read G.S. ghuriye's Writings
thanks

PS

Hindus who feel they are oppressed through their religion shouldn't convert to another religion?

What a moot question?
Of course, everyone in this world is free to switch religions on their volition.

well u say that we treat the minorities best in the wrld..... hmmm.... what about gujrat 2000.. ayodhya 1992....and jamia nagar encounter..

211 · Kiran P said

Just touring won't do.

Luckily, I'm not a tourist, thanks. Don't pretend to know me or who I am. Your assumption that I must be some silly tourist with no knowledge of India just proves to me that you categorize me using the same faulty logic you use to understand India. You claim it is all a "missionary agenda" and assume I am a missionary, just because I don't espouse your views. I am not a missionary, in fact, I think forced conversion is evil and vile and every human being should have their own right to worship as they see fit. But if you use 'forced conversion' to place all the blame on the people who may or may not even being changing religion by force, you are doing humanity a grave injustice. Not everyone who converts to Christianity in India is forced.

Your problem is that you want to see everything in one way, and that way justifies your own belief system that also happens to protect your interests above all other. If you are unwilling to open your eyes and see beyond your narrow definitions of India, Indian Culture, and Religion, than what can I do?

vivek,

for ur kind information tribles were never Hindu

You are wrong! Divide and rule has been the policy of British and now the missionaries. Read on.

Whether Adivasis are Hindus or not has always been a question of great controversy. The Niyogi Commission's Report of the Christian Missionaries Enquiry Committee MP, Nagpur, 1956 (Vol I, Part I, Chapter I) states, "The Missionaries have throughout claimed that they are not Hindus. A continuous attempt has been made by these organisations to foster a sense of separateness amongst the Tribes from the rest of the Hindus. Speaking about the separation of the aborigines from the mass of the Indian population Gandhiji remarked: 'We were strangers to this sort of classification -- animists -- aborigines, etc, but we have learnt it from the English rulers.' To the question put by Dr Chesterman whether Gandhiji's objection applied to areas like the Kond hills where the aboriginal races were animists, the unhesitating reply was, 'Yes, it does apply, because I know that in spite of being described as animists these tribes have from times immemorial been absorbed in Hinduism. They are, like the indigenous medicine, of the soil, and their roots lie deep there'." (I wonder what our Gandhivadis have to say now.)

Whatever the Adivasis may have been originally, there's no doubt that they were gradually absorbed into the Hindu fold -- just like the pagans of Saudi Arabia and northern Africa were into Islam, but only many, many centuries earlier. So does that give Hindus poaching rights over Arabs...? The Niyogi Report states, "Where a tribe has insensibly been converted into a caste, it preserved its original name and customs, but modified its animistic practices more and more in the direction of orthodox Hinduism. Numerous examples of this process are to be found all over India and it has been at work for centuries."

Besides, what's the difference between Hindu forms of worship and the Adivasis' "animism" anyway? Don't Hindus worship trees on Vat Savitri, snakes on Nag Panchami, and cows everyday? In 1891, J A Baines, the Census Commissioner, considered as futile the distinction between tribals who were "Hinduised" and those that followed a tribal form of religion because, "every stratum of Indian society is more or less saturated with Animistic Conceptions but little raised above those which predominate in the early state of religious development."

Please read here http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Conversion.htm

What a moot question?
Of course, everyone in this world is free to switch religions on their volition.

It wasn't moot to me; I couldn't tell in this argument, if you were arguing that Hindus who switch religions are being manipulated. It doesn't seem you mean to say that - I'm sure some people are manipulated and some aren't; I'm just trying to figure out the argument against b/c your points seem completely valid.

what about gujrat 2000.. ayodhya 1992....and jamia nagar encounter..

Hope you know what preceded them. What happened after is bad and I condemn them. Hope you have the civility to agree on this.

Luckily, I'm not a tourist, thanks

Your shallow comments coupled with lack of Indic knowledge and dynamics indicate so. Thanks.

219 · Kiran P said

our shallow comments coupled with lack of Indic knowledge and dynamics indicate so. Thanks.

Well, I suppose that's a good way for your to belittle others points of views. I can't possibly know anything about India. So I guess then the only way I could know about India is if I was born with the knowledge written in my BLOOD?

Well, I suppose that's a good way for your to belittle others points of views

Wrong! You consistently and conveniently seem to ignore my responses and replying in a tourist mindset. There is no value addition in such interactions. Respond to posts #204 and #206 and then get back to me.

that's it. had been trying to follow this debate. But, can't take any more of this pompous, condescending, righteous badgering. It's not an argument or debate, just a lecture. It was a lost case from the beginning - my inferior, shallow, 'missionary' brain of kiran p's superior amazing indic knowledge. She/he has seen the light - am i glad to be still in the dark.

dammit - there is a reason for the preview button's existence

revised

that's it. had been trying to follow this debate. But, can't take any more of this pompous, condescending, righteous badgering. It's not an argument or debate, just a lecture. It was a lost case from the beginning - my inferior, shallow, 'missionary' brain against kiran p's superior amazing indic knowledge. She/he has seen the light - am i glad to be still in the dark.

So a "tourister" (That's not a word, by the way) mindset is someone that disagrees with you?

And btw, as I already said (in response to your links and whatnot (let us entertain them for a moment, though all your links conviently seem to go to sites that push Hinduism as an agenda)) Communalism is bad (Oh wait, I did say this before!). If Fundamentalist Christian Terrorists are killing innocent people (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, ANYONE) it's bad. I am just saying, it is not so black and white as you make it out to be.

Your basic argument is that India is A.) Hindus B.) Fundamentalists and those who are forced to convert.

This entire argument undermines all the diverse populations that exist throughout India, that are not part of the fundamentalists. That also ignored the fact that there are Hindu fundamentalists in India as well, and the violence in India occurs on the part of fundamentalists (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc) against innocent people trying to go about their lives.. so if we really want to talk about the problem in India.. it is fundamentalism, not religious plurality.

And I get an inkling of where your own religious beliefs may lie.

207 · LinZi said

I think the problem here is that you are speaking in circles, with no sensible argument.... It's just going to keep going like this:
You: India is a HINDU nation, and if the minorities get bigger, than we will lose our culture and identity. India is under attack by the 'disease' of Islam and Christians.
Me: but all the different kinds of religions in India are a distinct part of the history and cultures of India!
You: No they are all either part of Hinduism or evil evil outsiders (i.e. Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians)
Me: But what about the people that aren't Hindu and don't fit into those two categories?
You: Umm....... umm.... but... Forced conversion is bad and is ruining India and destroying Indian lives! We treat our minorities better than the entire world!
Me: What about when you discriminate against them?
You: Then it is the Fundamentalist Islamists/Fundamentalist Christians fault. If they weren't here we would all have a peace parade, be Hindus, and hug each other everyday!

You're also interpreting his stance of no organized conversion agendas to mean no conversions at all and that is also not what he has been saying. He has been complaining about right wing evangelists coming out and taking advantage of the poor to actively try and Christianize India.

I love how when you say "minorities aren't discriminated against in India" and I give one obvious and recent example of discrimination against minorities, then you just turn what was said to mean "Hindus are never discriminated against", which of course, I never once said. So let me make this clear. Communalism is BAD. Discrimination is BAD. Racism is BAD. No matter who does it, against who. End of Story.

it is fundamentalism, not religious plurality.

225 · NV said

LinZi, i think you two are talking past each other too. Kiran is using Savarkar's definition of "Hinduism" that is anyone who regards India as their spiritual homeland (so Indian Muslims and Christians qualify as long as they don't owe their first allegiance to anyone or thing outside of India.) You are interpreting Hindu to mean followers of the Sanatana Dharma which isn't what he is saying.

NV, thanks for trying to bring the debate back to, well, a debate rather than an attack on assumed credentials. The definition I am using of who would call themselves a Hindu is based on self-identification. I would allow people to define their own religion to me, not tell them who they are. If we are going to say a Hindu is anyone who regards India as their spiritual homeland, then should we not include all Buddhists worldwide as Hindus, seeing as how Buddhism's spiritual homeland is India as well? My argument has been that Kiran P's definition system doesn't make any reasonable sense, and undermines the religious diversity in India and tries to paint as many people possible as "Hindu" to advance his agenda.

It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?. Is India such a horrible place ? Maybe we should all become like other countries then.

@LinZi:
No problem.
Kiran P's only doesn't make sense if you assume he's using your definition. Most people who self-identify as Hindu do it out of convenience. "Hinduism" (in the Sanatana Dharma sense) is diverse enough to encompass many many religions if you wanted to divvy it up into sects the way that Abrahamic religions do. So it's just easier to say "I am a Hindu" than to try and explain exactly which Gods you regularly pray to, which temples you frequent, what kind of puja you do in the morning, which bhajans you sing, and what your personal/family's religious philosophy is.

As for Buddhists, yes they count provided they regard India as their spiritual home. But Buddhism is very diverse as well, so they could alternatively look to Tibet, China, Japan, or any of the SouthEast Asian Buddhist traditions.
Ditto for Christians. We have Eastern Orthodox churches in India with long traditions and deep roots in Indian civilization. Islam has also Indianized to a significant degree (and probably would have Indianized further had the Mughal mullahocracy not installed Aurunguzeb on the throne instead of Dara Shikoh).

So the idea of equating Indian = Hindu isn't to say all Indians should follow one dharma. The idea is to say that Indians should try to keep their spiritual roots to India. I really don't care if all of Kerala joins the Malankara church because the Malankara church doesn't make it a religious commandment to eradicate non-Christian religions from the face of the Earth the way the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches tend to.

228 · zee said

It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?. Is India such a horrible place ? Maybe we should all become like other countries then.

Zee, I have nothing against Hindus. My argument is, and has always been that, each religion should have a right to worship. If people chose to convert, then so be it. That is their right, and why should Hindus feel threatened by that?

The problem is fundamentalism. Forced conversion, intimidation, destruction of religious building, riots, bombings, etc are all carried out by fundamentalists in the name of their religion on a whole, while the vast majority the people following that religion would not espouse those views. Fundamentalists put a bad name on religions that effect the normal people who are part of that religion. Fundamentalists exist in ALL religions worldwide, and just as they exist in Islam, they also exist in Hinduism. My argument has always been a response to others generalizations, not my views on any religion.

It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?. Is India such a horrible place ? Maybe we should all become like other countries then.

I don't think this is an argument about Hindus being evil...it seems more as NV says that two people with valid points are talking past each other. I do think there's a lot of

I think India's record in comparison to other regions of the world, including most Muslim countries, is 100 times better. This sort of dialogue that happens in SM wouldn't be tolerated in other parts of the world, and it is in India. India has a relatively free press, and it shows a confidence with it's culture to have these rights; and freedom of religion where mosques and mandirs can be built and worshipped in; unfortunately such religious pluralism isn't evident in many other parts of the world.

The thing is if you are going to criticize some problems in India, don't be a troll and ignore it's record compared to other cultures or countries. Don't act like misogynist practices by some Indians, are supported by our laws, whereas in other countries misogynist practices are part of their laws. Don't be a troll and not acknowledge the very fact that religious pluralism is part of our culture and our laws, freedom of speech is part of our culture and our laws, which it isn't in most other parts of the world.

Happy Republic Day!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7850848.stm

229 · NV said

So the idea of equating Indian = Hindu isn't to say all Indians should follow one dharma. The idea is to say that Indians should try to keep their spiritual roots to India. I really don't care if all of Kerala joins the Malankara church because the Malankara church doesn't make it a religious commandment to eradicate non-Christian religions from the face of the Earth the way the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches tend to.

I certainly agree with you that fundamentalist Christians who want to convert the world are completely horrible. But at the same time, isn't is strange to say that "The idea is to say that Indians should try to keep their spiritual roots to India."

Honestly, do we have a right to limit people, to say, you can worship, but only so long as it keeps its spiritual roots in one place? That seems like limiting peoples rights to me. That was where my argument stood in the beginning: If someone in India, willingly and openly, decided to convert from a religion with spiritual roots in India, to one with spiritual roots elsewhere, is that not their choice?

209 · PS said

do you think that Hindus who feel they are oppressed through their religion shouldn't convert to another religion?

Of course. Kiran is perfectly understanding of other religions. People can convert to any religion they want as long as Kiran decides that it's ok. That's all he wants from them - that they ask for permission before leaving. Is that so hard? Is that too much to ask from the poor saps who have the temerity to live in a country where, as NV has said, the values they bring are only incidental (of course, I am sure his statement is far more nuanced but what can I say, this kind of simplification is, what's that word again, a disease.)

willingly and openly, decided to convert from a religion with spiritual roots in India, to one with spiritual roots elsewhere, is that not their choice?

Even that's OK as long as they don't demand Christian homelands vivisected from Indian territory. Read post #206.
We have lost enough.

It makes me really sad to see so much hatred against Hindus. Is there no minority who has been treated well ? Seriously ?.

Last time I checked, India's Prime minister (one who occupies the most powerful constitutional post) belongs to a minority, and a couple of years back, the chief of army staff and the chief of air force belonged to a minority religion, and there are quite a few state chief ministers, judges and high officials who belong to the minority communities. I see a lot of new mosques / churches come up every time I visit India in the last 10 years. And the population of the minorities increased from around 10% in 1951 to around 20% now.

So the short answer is no.

That's all he wants from them - that they ask for permission before leaving. Is that so hard? Is that too much to ask from the poor saps

As an Indian and a Hindu, I've never heard of this attitude, but I'm not immersed in these issues. I do know that for many regions of the world, particularly with theocracies, changing your religion can result in death; people who feel oppressed by their religions or are inspired by another religion have no outlet; and indeed exposure to other religions is censored....so I hope India and our laws never become like that and hopefully the Hindu fundamentalists who think like that will be a minority and not control the country, like many other countries are controlled.

And no I don't the BJP was able to pursue religious persecution and religous oppression with complete free reign b/c of the politics of a parliamentary democracy (and I'm glad with my limited knowledge of Indian politics that they were voted out)...say unlike Saudi or Iran,former Yugo, Iraq or Turkey and their Kurdish population, Rwanda, and many other African countries that have had populations exposed to genocide. I never want India to get to a point that any religious group feels they have to leave the country to live or avoid genocide, like Kurds, Jews in many countries, Shias, Shiites, Zorastrians, Hindus in many countries, etc.

That seems like limiting peoples rights to me. That was where my argument stood in the beginning: If someone in India, willingly and openly, decided to convert from a religion with spiritual roots in India, to one with spiritual roots elsewhere, is that not their choice?

As for converting to establish spiritual roots elsewhere, it is really hard for me to imagine that this could ever happen in large enough numbers to matter in a real world (rather than a theoretical sense). Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one? I don't doubt it would happen sometimes, but in order for it to happen at any appreciable scale there would need to be something else going on. Either financial inducement or the more subtle imposition of "false consciousness."

Have you ever read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf? She's a feminist and in it she argues that norms enforced by Western culture (i.e. White Male patriarchy) pressure women to strive for an ideal of beauty that is simply unobtainable for the majority of women. Essentially her argument is that by judging women according to standards that are irrelevant or alien to them culture and society work to mold their behavior and attitudes to conform to the whims and will of a patriarchy rather than to make the women themselves happy or fulfilled.
I think Wolf's argument makes the mistake of assuming malice where ignorance will do, but the idea that cultural norms can impose a sense of insecurity and self-loathing in people is spot-on and part of my point is being drawn from that.

Basically the alien norms and biases of Western or Western educated people are being imposed on Indians and Hindus (defined broadly). In many cases these norms are being willfully propagated by people with an agenda (Marxists, corrupt politicians who want to exploit patronage networks, missionaries) in such a way as to constantly put them on the back-foot and burden them under the weight of their own insecurities. Once again, they don't necessarily need to propagate these ideas because they consciously want to undermine Indian traditions, but they are educated and raised to think a certain way and it will be hard for them to break out of that cognitive box.
It is only under these circumstances (that I previously termed as "false consciousness" that I can see people would be willing to spurn their own culture and traditions. But as you can see, allowing that to continue is not exactly healthy. Not for the individuals being made insecure and defensive and not for the society as a whole that has to suffer from the discord that comes with people who are encouraged to draw lines and distinctions between each other.

234 · Kiran P said

Even that's OK as long as they don't demand Christian homelands vivisected from Indian territory. Read post #206.
We have lost enough.

So you feel that, to keep the country together, it is better not to allow religious freedom, just in case more people ever feel like succeeding from India?

let me analyse some of linzi's statements:

your links and whatnot (let us entertain them for a moment

They are not here for a moment nor for entertainment. This is for humanity to ponder over eternity on the terrible nature of evangelization against people's will destroying countless cultures, traditions, diversity and values.

that there are Hindu fundamentalists in India as well

Do you expect people won't be labelled as fundamentalists once they react to Islamic and Christian fundamentalists?

violence in India occurs on the part of fundamentalists (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc)

Have you bothered to ask in each case how and how much? This is what I mean by asking: Just because -1 and -1,000,000 are negative numbers does not mean they exactly same! How can we arrive at a solution if you cannot define the problem.

It's fundamentalism created due to religious exclusivity that's engineered by Islamic and Missinary radicals in the name of monoethistic God demanding exclusivity to only their respective God and trashing everything else.

237 · NV said

not for the society as a whole that has to suffer from the discord that comes with people who are encouraged to draw lines and distinctions between each other.

Exactly! As long as everybody stays "Hindu", there won't be any reason to draw lines or distinctions. And if they're not "Hindu", they should just keep quiet and not try and pretend like they have an equal share. After all, Indian civilization magically and entirely appeared in its final and immutable form in the 11th century and anything that deviates from that is part of the immiseration that has been imposed on India for the past millenium. It is essential that everybody just realizes this, and realizes that Indian culture will just disappear - poof, gone! - if these minorities start acting up. And let me not even get started about that MTV that Clinton and Bush sent into India with their CIA.

238 · LinZi said

So you feel that, to keep the country together, it is better not to allow religious freedom, just in case more people ever feel like succeeding from India?

Look, how well it has worked for Pakistan! Theocracies are great!

So you feel that, to keep the country together, it is better not to allow religious freedom, just in case more people ever feel like succeeding from India?

So you feel that, to keep the country together, it is better not to allow religious freedom, just in case more people ever feel like succeeding from India?

See the highlighted part, please don't play with words when it's reality out there! It's not a 'just in case' fleeting can_you_ignore_it_for_a_moment thing!

Read post #206, you will find answers!
The idea is to keep the country together with religious freedom but not allow the breakup of the country by allowing the redefinition of 'religious freedom'

Exactly! As long as everybody stays "Hindu", there won't be any reason to draw lines or distinctions. And if they're not "Hindu", they should just keep quiet and not try and pretend like they have an equal share. After all, Indian civilization magically and entirely appeared in its final and immutable form in the 11th century and anything that deviates from that is part of the immiseration that has been imposed on India for the past millenium. It is essential that everybody just realizes this, and realizes that Indian culture will just disappear - poof, gone! - if these minorities start acting up. And let me not even get started about that MTV that Clinton and Bush sent into India with their CIA.

Also, Hindu (defined broadly) has already been established as including Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. So your rant is moot.

244 · NV said

So your rant is moot.

It's not a rant! I am agreeing with you!

BTW, I like how the Hindu definition shrinks and broadens. Amazing! It's like you're looking in one of those magic mirrors!

237 · NV said

Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one?

This statement holds a lot of assumptions! Why does anyone, ever, change religion? How come so many people left Buddhism in India? How did Christianity spread through Europe? How did so many people become Jains and Sikhs historically? They didn't just materialize out of the ground, someone had to convert. Sometimes things are spread through coercion, yes, but guess what, not always! Many people around the world choose an 'alien' religion all the time, merely because they see something in it that draws them... Maybe it fulfills a need, maybe it appeals to their view of the world. America is still made up of people who chose to leave thier own culture to be a part of an 'alien' one.

Is that so hard to fathom that people sometimes use their reason, intellect, and person preferences and that may led them to something 'alien'?

245 · stand up said

244 · NV said

So your rant is moot.

It's not a rant! I am agreeing with you!

BTW, I like how the Hindu definition shrinks and broadens. Amazing! It's like you're looking in one of those magic mirrors!

It's a VERY magical mirror, I daresay! :)

Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one?

I think almost all of those who comment/blog (or their parents) have willingly spurned the land of their culture and came to live in a foreign and alien land and culture. It is because people think they would have a better life. I guess it is the same reason that people voluntarily convert to another religion.

I like how the Hindu definition shrinks and broadens. Amazing! It's like you're looking in one of those magic mirrors!

That happens when ignorant westerners try to put a square peg in a round hole, when they try to define Himduism as one of the "ism"s ignoring the 'way of life' aspect and stripping the Indic roots of muslims, christians and others who are native to India. This is also one of the reasons why this dialog also goes nowhere!

Why does anyone, ever, change religion? How come so many people left Buddhism in India?

How did Christianity spread through Europe?

Is that so hard to fathom that people sometimes use their reason, intellect, and person preferences and that may led them to something 'alien'?

249 · Kiran P said

That happens when ignorant westerners try to put a square peg in a round hole, when they try to define Himduism as one of the "ism"s ignoring the 'way of life' aspect and stripping the Indic roots of muslims, christians and others who are native to India. This is also one of the reasons why this dialog also goes nowhere!

I have yet to meet an Indian Muslim or Christian in India EVER ONCE define themselves as a Hindu. Anyone?

248 · Ponniyin Selvan said

Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one?

I think almost all of those who comment/blog (or their parents) have willingly spurned the land of their culture and came to live in a foreign and alien land and culture. It is because people think they would have a better life. I guess it is the same reason that people voluntarily convert to another religion.

That qualifies as financial inducement no? I doubt my parents would have come here if they think they had equivalent economic opportunities in India.

I have yet to meet an Indian Muslim or Christian in India EVER ONCE define themselves as a Hindu. Anyone?

I suggest people to read these fantastic essays!

A Business Model of Religion - 1
A Business Model of Religion - 2

and why this dialog is going nowhere

The Asymmetric Dialog of Civilizations

253 · NV said

I have yet to meet an Indian Muslim or Christian in India EVER ONCE define themselves as a Hindu. Anyone?

Really? Did you miss this thread? http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005599.html#more

Nope. Let's ask Anna:

Anna, do you define yourself as a Hindu?

I have yet to meet an Indian Muslim or Christian in India EVER ONCE define themselves as a Hindu. Anyone?

That's not required. When some non-Hindus felt elated when Obama mentioned 'Hindu' is what I am alluding to. It's a feeling you will never be able to feel.

I think almost all of those who comment/blog (or their parents) have willingly spurned the land of their culture and came to live in a foreign and alien land and culture.

I don't think many immigrants to the US "spurned" their land. I think many Indians come to the U.S. b/c they can take advantage of economic opportunities, AND at the same time have the freedom to practice their culture, build their mandirs, mosques, churches etc and go about their business. I don't think too many are "spurning" their cultures or countries....if that was the case, they can have forced "spurning" going to another country, like the many theocracies that exits, that may offer them economic advantages.

256 · Kiran P said

That's not required. When some non-Hindus felt elated when Obama mentioned 'Hindu' is what I am alluding to. It's a feeling you will never be able to feel.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, oh my, hilarious. oh! Sort I am crying I am laughing so hard. Of course, I could NEVER feel elated hearing Obama mention Hindus! And I'm sure my Hindu fiance can't either, since he is spurning his cultures and beliefs and planning to marry an 'alien' outsider?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You laugh but don't educate enough to have a positive dialog. One of the techniques mentioned here is laugh it off!

259 · Kiran P said

You laugh but don't educate enough to have a positive dialog. One of the techniques mentioned here is laugh it off!

If only laughing off hatred, intolerance, discrimination, and fundamentalism were easier! Then I could be out enjoying my day by now, instead of wasting my time arguing on a pair of deaf ears.

P.S. "don't educate enough" matlab kya hai? Ye angrezi thori-si tutti-futti hai.

254 · Kiran P said

The Asymmetric Dialog of Civilizations

“The colonialist bourgeoisie… had in fact deeply implanted in the minds of the colonized intellectual that the essential qualities remain eternal in spite of all the blunders men may make: the essential qualities of the West, of course.” [16]

In the case of Indians, such persons are commonly referred to as Macaulayites, after Lord Macaulay, who developed this strategy in 1835 as a way to create Indian intellectual sepoys serving the British rule. The program was highly successful and has now assumed a postcolonial life of its own. Eurocentric representation systems have been installed into the minds of elite Indians, who now function as the internal agents working from within Indian society, typically remote controlled by a western incentive system – of visas, jobs, foreign travel, grants, and various forms of career advancement. The Eurocentric mental representation is commonly applied subliminally, and often there is only slight self-awareness that this is being done. Many westernized Indians are radically convinced that the indigenous tradition is a backward one, and that their mission in life is to uproot it and replace it with a superior western import – often done with a passion as though to earn a ticket to neo-white status. They often consider biases against Indic traditions as a great compliment to their own sense of modernity, and also as a great western gift to the Indians, and volunteer as partners to facilitate this process. When this mental colonialism is pointed out to them, it often evokes severe anger and defensiveness.

I don't think many immigrants to the US "spurned" their land. I think many Indians come to the U.S. b/c they can take advantage of economic opportunities, AND at the same time have the freedom to practice their culture, build their mandirs, mosques, churches etc and go about their business. I don't think too many are "spurning" their cultures or countries....if that was the case, they can have forced "spurning" going to another country, like the many theocracies that exits, that may offer them economic advantages.

That qualifies as financial inducement no? I doubt my parents would have come here if they think they had equivalent economic opportunities in India.

Let me try to understand, So, if your parents spurned India for economic opportunities to live in the US it is OK, but if some Hindus in India spurn Hinduism for economic oportunities, it is not OK. Your logic is hypocritical. If we agree with your premise that people are free to migrate to different countries for economic freedom, they should be equally free to migrate to different religions for economic benefits.

237 · NV said

Basically the alien norms and biases of Western or Western educated people are being imposed on Indians and Hindus (defined broadly).

What a load of BS. The inhumane aspects of brahminism that are being rightly criticized have been criticized by indians themselves throughout the ages. Buddha, Mahavira, the Sikh Gurus etc, not to mention numerous indian saints and sages who did not found new religions, all condemned casteism/brahminism and other abominations in indian culture. You dont have to be a westerner, or exposed to western values, to conclude that burning widows alive or treating widows like pariahs is not just wrong but EVIL. Ditto for untouchability, temple prostitution, child slavery, child marriage, callousness towards human suffering etc that brahminism has imposed on India.

but if some Hindus in India spurn Hinduism for economic oportunities, it is not OK.

Oh, I didn't say this...I think anyone who wants to convert should convert...but I'm aware of historical and political underpinnings to this.

I was just reading a book on Mormons in the U.S., it's a historical novel. From the protanganists perspective there was a lot of coercion and threats of physical violence if you left the fold (and for the Mormons out there who don't see this as part of their culture that's fine...this is just this writer's perspective expressed through a historical protaganist" --- I think that's horrible. If I was a Muslim and wanted to convert to Hinduism than that should be my right. If I'm a Hindu and want to become a Mormon than that should be my right.

Also from many anthropologists writings about missionaries in Africa, there was such exploitation and false promises, and no equality in Christian brotherhood that was promised, for converts. Sure people may have willingly converted but there is also potentially manipulation and no manipulation. And there is also potentially people who convert to say Christianity, who are inspired by the religion. Anyways I think Kiran brings up a lot of valid points b/c she doesn't ignore historically the role that conversion to different religions played in the colonized, colonizer history or empowered, unempowered history.

The problem with your statement, to me, was the word "spurn"; but I agree with you completely that everyone has a right to religiously convert if they want and I'm glad India doesn't have any laws that prevent this and I hope that that doesn't happen.

What a load of BS. The inhumane aspects of brahminism that are being rightly criticized have been criticized by indians themselves throughout the ages. Buddha, Mahavira, the Sikh Gurus etc, not to mention numerous indian saints and sages who did not found new religions, all condemned casteism/brahminism and other abominations in indian culture. You dont have to be a westerner, or exposed to western values, to conclude that burning widows alive or treating widows like pariahs is not just wrong but EVIL. Ditto for untouchability, temple prostitution, child slavery, child marriage, callousness towards human suffering etc that brahminism has imposed on India.

Let me try to understand, So, if your parents spurned India for economic opportunities to live in the US it is OK, but if some Hindus in India spurn Hinduism for economic oportunities, it is not OK. Your logic is hypocritical. If we agree with your premise that people are free to migrate to different countries for economic freedom, they should be equally free to migrate to different religions for economic benefits.

My point was that people don't typically leave their native culture unless they are somehow induced to do so. Leaving imposes a cost after all and they would need to have something to offset that cost. In terms of shifting religions the financial inducement is using the same model. If being Christian in and of itself made you better off that would be one thing. But it doesn't. What happens instead is that it often amounts to bullying or bribery as PS said.

249 · Kiran P said

stripping the Indic roots of muslims, christians and others who are native to India.

Ah, little did I know that that the phrase Hindu-Muslim does not allude to an aggregation of 2 collective nouns, but rather to the first word being applied as an adjective to the second. Hence India has Hindu Muslims, Hindu Christians, Hindu Sikhs, Hindu Jews (of course, we are all agreed that these losers are not really authentic contributors to Indian culture as has been clearly described above), and of course, first (among equals, of course, what do you think we are? bigots?) Hindu Hindus. The rest are Macaulayites, westerners or touristers. Viewed through this lens, Indian culture is crystal clear.

244 · NV said

Also, Hindu (defined broadly) has already been established as including Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. So your rant is moot.

Very funny. And very stupid and irrational. So genius, if muslims and christians are hindus as you have "established", why do you keep calling them "minorities" and keep whining so pitifully about them "minorities" overwhelming the hindu majority?

This is for humanity to ponder over eternity on the terrible nature of evangelization against people's will

The christian missionaries of today no longer have the power to force people to convert against their will. Do you have the same objections to hindutva missionaries converting non-hindu indian tribals to low caste (or outcaste?) hindus in an extremely oppressive religion that teaches them they are worse than dirt and fit only to be servants of the upper caste hindu minority?

Why would anyone willingly spurn their own family and culture to join up with an alien one?

Why did your parents escape from India to the land of the impure mlechhas? For material greed, right?

It is always amusing to watch these psuedo-patriots sing of the glories of the india that they were so desperate to escape from.

The fact that it was Hindus who led the movements to reform those very evils kind of undercuts your point that these evils are inherent parts of Hinduism doesn't it?

Seriously - Dhoni/Prema never gets this. I really hope these sort of reformers gain control and influence in other parts of the world as well and I hope their influence continues to permeate Indian culture and civil society.

They say the original St. Thomas made his way to Kerala, but I always had my doubts.

Yes, Catholics that followed St. Thomas to Kerala do exist.

265 · NV said

The fact that it was Hindus who led the movements to reform those very evils kind of undercuts your point that these evils are inherent parts of Hinduism doesn't it?

This actually makes sense to him. Buddha, the Sikh Gurus etc may have been born hindus but they rejected it and founded new religions. Casteism is inherent to brahminism, by definition. Rejecting the unjust, wicked absurdity of hereditary casteism is equivalent to rejecting brahminism.

If you admit these "evils" in hindu culture and deny that they are "inherent" to hinduism then why the heck are you trying so stubbornly to defend them??

10-C:

The history of Kerala Christians has a large gap between 300AD to Vasco da Gama. What happened in those years? In particular, Adi Shankara---who came from Kerala around 800AD---must have known of Kerala Christians. What are his views on Kerala Christianity? Can Kerala Christianity be considered a more authentic Indian Christianity than any denomination that came after Vasco da Gama? There are so many questions that arise because there is a gap from 300AD to Vasco da Gama.

In the case of Indians, such persons are commonly referred to as Macaulayites, after Lord Macaulay, who developed this strategy in 1835 as a way to create Indian intellectual sepoys serving the British rule. The program was highly successful and has now assumed a postcolonial life of its own. Eurocentric representation systems have been installed into the minds of elite Indians, who now function as the internal agents working from within Indian society, typically remote controlled by a western incentive system – of visas, jobs, foreign travel, grants, and various forms of career advancement. The Eurocentric mental representation is commonly applied subliminally, and often there is only slight self-awareness that this is being done. Many westernized Indians are radically convinced that the indigenous tradition is a backward one, and that their mission in life is to uproot it and replace it with a superior western import – often done with a passion as though to earn a ticket to neo-white status. They often consider biases against Indic traditions as a great compliment to their own sense of modernity, and also as a great western gift to the Indians, and volunteer as partners to facilitate this process. When this mental colonialism is pointed out to them, it often evokes severe anger and defensiveness.

I disagree with most of what NV and Kiran P are saying (and agree with most of what Linzi is saying although I think she is too kind to the Muslim fundamentalists in India), but the above quote about a certain segment of Indians is something I agree with 100%. Except I would add that this group does sometimes engage positively with Indic traditions too, but ususally from a Westernized perspective.

272 · Amitabh said

I think she is too kind to the Muslim fundamentalists in India

We weren't really talking about Muslim fundamentalists.. mainly this discussion was about Hindu and Christian issues, but as I have been saying throughout.. I condemn ALL fundamentalism... and trust me, that means from ALL angles,including Islamic fundamentalists... Seems like common sense, doesn't it?

273 · LinZi said

I condemn ALL fundamentalism... and trust me, that means from ALL angles,including Islamic fundamentalists...

It's only fundamentalism if Muslims or Christians to do it. It's called preserving the glory of Indian (or is that too Macaulayite? Should I use Indic?) culture, and protecting it from Bush and the CIA otherwise.

stand up,

Sit down and relax and read everthing I have said from top down. If you still have come to the conclusion you have come to then you are not getting it. Probably you will not get it. Let me say in another way - If an Indian values Indian way of life i.e tolerance, pluralism, inclusivity and such noble virtues that are basis of Indic religions ( Sanatana dharma or whatever you want to call it ) then you are a Hindu. Forget westerners typecasting Hindus as this and that. They have an agenda ( missionary whatever ) in doing that or simply may not get it from Eurocentric lens. Problem arises when missionaries driven by Church to increase their soul harvesting in foreign lands demand exclusivity to their God and thus introduce intolerance, intolerance leading to disturbing the societal calm, slowly resulting in seperatist movements like 'Nagalim for Christ' and now in split up of Orissa? It's similar to seperatist movement in J&K. These situations and trends are unwelcome. Those Muslims and Christians in India who support these seperatist movements on the basis of religion especially after engineering it through ethnic cleansing or using deceptive & forced conversions are the only kind which are not Hindu per my definition. Everybody else has learnt to co-exist with each other. If there are stray cases where people are switching religion on their own volition for economic benefit or just change in mood it's fine too as long as they practice tolerance and not abet seperatist movements.

We were OK about 20 years ago. Then started Islamic fundamentalism. For past 10 years, especially after Pope's visit to convert India situation has become very grim. There is Evangelical terrorism coupled with Jehadi Terrorism. Terrorism, riots, social unrest etc., everything has become ten fold.

We weren't really talking about Muslim fundamentalists.. mainly this discussion was about Hindu and Christian issues, but as I have been saying throughout..

It's interesting how the convo got to this angle - b/c the blog is about Christians in Pakistan - a country and a culture and a religion, that is often practiced w/o religious tolerance and much bigotry.

275 · Kiran P said

Sit down and relax and read everthing I have said from top down

Sorry, we Macaulayites and westerners like to do it standing up.

277 · stand up said

275 · Kiran P said

Sit down and relax and read everthing I have said from top down

Sorry, we Macaulayites and westerners like to do it standing up.

I know :) that's why you are not getting it!

278 · Kiran P said

I know :) that's why you are not getting it!

Oh, I get it. Any time I want. Any way I want.

276 · PS said

b/c the blog is about Christians in Pakistan - a country and a culture and a religion, that is often practiced w/o religious tolerance and much bigotry.

Give India time. We started poorly with a naive emphasis on secularism, but we are getting there.

275 · Kiran P said

stand up,

Sit down and relax and read everthing I have said from top down. If you still have come to the conclusion you have come to then you are not getting it. Probably you will not get it.

look out stand up, I think Kiran is recruiting for his cult of true Bharatis! Of course, make sure you don't taint his mind with any of the "Other" thinking... that is, anything he doesn't agree with!

look out stand up

Read post #206, you will find answers!
The idea is to keep the country together with religious freedom but not allow the breakup of the country by allowing the redefinition of 'religious freedom'

282 · Kiran P said

The idea is to keep the country together with religious freedom but not allow the breakup of the country by allowing the redefinition of 'religious freedom'

I agree completely! Like Henry Ford's epigram about car colors, in India, you can be any religion as long as you are...

Look to the sky, and you will find your answers! The time is near! All Hail the Mighty Fundamental Hindu Nation, coming to a community near you. We are tolerant of all, as long as you are one of us. We allow religious freedom, as long as its on our terms. And we love all, as long as they don't try to take our jobs, use our land, or get a political voice in the nation. Let's have a bear hug, oh wait, thats too western, a BHAALOO hug, please!

I agree completely! Like Henry Ford's epigram about car colors, in India, you can be any religion as long as you are...

I knew you would get it once you get some metaphors

275 · Kiran P said

We were OK about 20 years ago. Then started Islamic fundamentalism. For past 10 years, especially after Pope's visit to convert India situation has become very grim. There is Evangelical terrorism coupled with Jehadi Terrorism. Terrorism, riots, social unrest etc., everything has become ten fold.

BS. India was divided into two nations on the basis of religion more than 20 years ago, leading to FAR worse communal riots than have been seen since. India and Pakistan fought full scale wars over Kashmir more than 20 years ago. There hasnt been a full scale war since 1971. Sikhs were slaughtered by hindus in Delhi and hindus by sikhs in Punjab during the peak of the khalistani religious separatist movement, more than 20 years ago. Dalits were raped, murdered, humiliated every day by higher caste hindus at perhaps an even greater rate than today. And so on.

You call that "OK"?

285 · Kiran P said

I knew you would get it once you get some metaphors

That's as funny as... your other comments.

284 · LinZi said

Look to the sky, and you will find your answers! The time is near! All Hail the Mighty Fundamental Hindu Nation, coming to a community near you. We are tolerant of all, as long as you are one of us. We allow religious freedom, as long as its on our terms. And we love all, as long as they don't try to take our jobs, use our land, or get a political voice in the nation. Let's have a bear hug, oh wait, thats too western, a BHAALOO hug, please!

sounds like Missionaries to me who preached that for 2000 years and caused untold destruction to humankind!

Give India time. We started poorly with a naive emphasis on secularism, but we are getting there.

Well I hope we don't get to the point of Pakistan or Saudi,et al....I don't think it'll happen; There's a lot in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other religions that began in India and still influential in our civil society, that have had for a long time, no emphasis on religious dogma, and evangelism. So no, I won't be waiting but you are more than welcome to hold your breath.

The only thing is if Islamic fundamentalism continues w/o any introspection in their culture, and ideas from Sufism and the tolerant practices of Muslims don't gain precedence, THEN, it might cause quite a reaction in parts of the world that want a multicultural, multireligious democracy.

Did the sarcastic part slip right by you again, Kiran?

284 · LinZi said

Look to the sky, and you will find your answers! The time is near! All Hail the Mighty Fundamental Hindu Nation, coming to a community near you. We are tolerant of all, as long as you are one of us. We allow religious freedom, as long as its on our terms. And we love all, as long as they don't try to take our jobs, use our land, or get a political voice in the nation. Let's have a bear hug, oh wait, thats too western, a BHAALOO hug, please!

So when you can't actually argue on the points resort to strawmen and belittling?

You call that "OK"?

"OK" meaning what was done in 1947 was done and was over with it in that sense.

Sikhs were slaughtered by hindus in Delhi and hindus by sikhs in Punjab during the peak of the khalistani religious separatist movement,

Sikhs were slaughtered by Congress goons, encouraged by Jagadish Tytler( christian) and Sajjan Kumar. It was political matter and not a religious one. I totally support the sikhs and condemn every bloody Congress party member whether Hindu or not for this genocide.

289 · PS said

it might cause quite a reaction in parts of the world that want a multicultural, multireligious democracy.

yes, that's right. the only way bharat can be multireligious is if everybody is hindu.

There's a lot in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other religions that began in India and still influential in our civil society, that have had for a long time, no emphasis on religious dogma, and evangelism. So no, I won't be waiting but you are more than welcome to hold your breath.

as i said, we're making up for the apparently lost time. everybody thinks only the other guy is capable of being a monster, and what they are doing is just out of necessity and the purest of intentions. doesn't change the end result.

Did the sarcastic part slip right by you again, Kiran?

Sarcasm, LOL, HAHA etc., are convenient divergence for people with agenda or for those who don't want to speak up the truth as is. I am only interested in honest dialog! I am still waiting for your detailed answers to posts #204 and #206

294 · Kiran P said

I am still waiting for your detailed answers to posts #204 and #206

I already answered you at least three times regarding that. Do you have some sort of paranoia problem, you DO understand that I am not a christian, right? I don't even have an agenda, unless you count human rights as an "agenda".

yes, that's right. the only way bharat can be multireligious is if everybody is hindu.

Well it's multireligious now and all it's neighbors are war torn and highly oppressive of religious minorities, among other things; highly censored; never allowing people like you to have any voice.

Right now, in a part of a world, where it's mostly dictators and theocracies the Indian state is encouraging religious minorities (paying Muslims to their trip to Mecca); trying to coalesce secular laws with the religious laws of some religions (Muslims), etc., so unlike you I'll stay I'm logically hopeful.

as i said, we're making up for the apparently lost time. everybody thinks only the other guy is capable of being a monster

I don't think the Indian state and most of the religions and cultures in India view themselves this way...which is why we have a free press and democracy...If the Indian state was founded on xenophobic principles that only others could be monsters we wouldn't have had the courage to start a democracy or a have a free press to hear the different views. I'm afraid the very states and cultures that have found states that believe that only others can be monsters, have restrictive dictatorships - that's the only way they can handle their perception.

Dalits were raped, murdered, humiliated every day by higher caste hindus at perhaps an even greater rate than today. And so on.

Nice missionary propoganda material from where? Dalitstan and such sites? Fo their part they are complaining bitterly after getting converted and cheated!

297 · Kiran P said

Dalits were raped, murdered, humiliated every day by higher caste hindus at perhaps an even greater rate than today. And so on.

Nice missionary propoganda material from where? Dalitstan and such sites? Fo their part they are complaining bitterly after getting converted and cheated!

Kiran, you really do live in a dream world. I lived in rural Bihar and was in contact with low/untouchable communities who, to this day, are treated extremely horribly by the uppercastes. They are discriminated against, their children raped, people treated like cattle, not allowed to even come inside a building or sit at the same level as uppercaste people. I am talking about 2005, so it's not ancient history. It is still going on, and this is discrimination withing Hinduism, not even talking about other religious groups.

You can choose what you want to believe, and what you want to turn a blind eye to, that's up to you. Whatever viewpoint you want to espouse, you will find some website to back you up. And it is clear that you want to pretend that there are no Hindu fundamentalists, and all the communalism exists only do to outside fundamentalists coming in. If you can not clearly see the issues at hand, how will you ever truly find a solution?

204 · Kiran P said

No other country treats minorities better than India does. If Islamic terrorism and Evangelical terrorism is eliminated from India the country will get back to normal automatically.

Treating minorities like sikhs, muslims and christians to murderous pogroms is a good thing in your book? How many other countries have indulged in such pogroms in the last half century?

Forget about the mistreatment of minorities, India treats the majority of its citizens FAR worse than any other nation. Back to normal is not good. For the norm itself is so abominable. What is so great about the normal brahminical culture of misogyny, child abuse, brutality, callousness, superstition, casteism etc?

I already answered you at least three times regarding that. Do you have some sort of paranoia problem, you DO understand that I am not a christian, right? I don't even have an agenda, unless you count human rights as an "agenda".

posts #204 and #206

You did not answer but countered with blanket statements. Reply issue by issue.

1. what's your stand about 'Nagalim for Christ' type seperatist movements ( and Orissa split )
2. what do you think about what was happening in Orissa that lead to riots ( my reply to your BBC link )
3. What do you think about Mahatma Gandhi's statements about conversion
4. What about Bush/CIA activities in India?
5. What about US/western funding for Nagalim movements?

All OK in the name of human rights? That's exactly what missionaries say when they do what they do.

299 · Dhoni said

Treating minorities like sikhs, muslims and christians to murderous pogroms is a good thing in your book?

As all those who worry about rewritten history imply the only atrocities to worry about are by the phorens and the invaders. Internecine fights that have been a fact of life throughout history - we only kill them because we love them, you know that?

It is still going on, and this is discrimination withing Hinduism

No! societal evils, thanks to Brits, cannot be attributed to Hinduism. Do we have a problem? Yes. Is it getting better? Yes.
Is Racism a huge problem in USA? Yes. Is it getting better? Yes.
How long was US free nation? 300+
How long has India been a free nation? 60+ years

Have some perspective. Then we can have real dialog. By linking societal evils to Hinduism and magnifying them million fold missionaries are trying to harvest souls. That's well known fact.

297 · Kiran P said

Dalits were raped, murdered, humiliated every day by higher caste hindus at perhaps an even greater rate than today. And so on.

Nice missionary propoganda material from where? Dalitstan and such sites?

Not surprising to see this callousness towards human suffering coming from you. For selfish and cruel hard-heartedness is such an integral part of brahminism. Perhaps you think the following site hindu-com site belongs to a missionary organization and the govt figures of atrocities against dalits that it quotes are christian propaganda?

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2008/10/05/stories/2008100550090400.htm

"The National Crime Records Bureau says every day two dalits are killed, three dalit women are raped and a dalit is assaulted every 18 minutes. And this is the count of only cases that enter the records."

Let's all get something clear. All the good stuff in India - Hindu values. All the bad stuff - westerners, macaulayite apologists, invaders. Can I make this any simpler for you tourists?

300 · Kiran P said

You did not answer but countered with blanket statements. Reply issue by issue.

1. what's your stand about 'Nagalim for Christ' type seperatist movements ( and Orissa split )
2. what do you think about what was happening in Orissa that lead to riots ( my reply to your BBC link )
3. What do you think about Mahatma Gandhi's statements about conversion
4. What about Bush/CIA activities in India?
5. What about US/western funding for Nagalim movements?

All OK in the name of human rights? That's exactly what missionaries say when they do what they do.

Yes sir!

1.) I would not feel it good to comment on a seperatist movement that I have not studied extensively. I have not studied the 'Nagalim for Christ' movement so it would not be fair for me to comment on the movement at this time.
2.) Killing people is wrong. It's despicable. But it is not an excuse to burn, torture and threaten any people living in the area. Trying to find the people who commited the act is one thing, becoming a mob riot and hurting anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time is another thing entirely. Unfortunately, the second happens far too often (by fundamentalist Hindus, Muslims and Christians (I guess?) against all the other religious groups as well) all the time. This riot-raaj really breeds more violence, hatred, and pain for everyone involved than create any sense of justice for those originally killed/harmed/etc.
3.) I think I already stated my opinion on conversion. I don't really need to consult Gandhiji on that. (It is, in case you forgot, if someone, freely and openly, chooses to convert, this is their own personal right.)
4.) Bush is gone. I didn't vote for him. I have always been active in the U.S. towards pressuring the government to be more ethical and moral than it has been. It has done many unethical things, and I do not blindly support my nation just because I was born here. I examine it will a critical eye and fight for equal rights for citizens as well as people worldwide. I do not support the CIA. or how it attempts to undermine peoples rights and communities for American agendas.
5.) See the above.

Treating minorities like sikhs, muslims and christians to murderous pogroms is a good thing in your book?

You have convniently ignored my answer. True sikhs know what happened.

To be frank no else but Hindu civilization as a group has suffered the largest genocide and pogroms in history of mankind. Probably the native American elimination comes next. I am not sure how many Aztecs, mayans, incas were slaughtered. Jewish holocaust was smaller. Continue with your factually incorrect rants. If something meaningful comes up I will try to answer.

306 · Kiran P said

To be frank no else but Hindu civilization as a group has suffered the largest genocide and pogroms in history of mankind.

It's PAYBACK TIME, mofos!

"My name is Indraneel Maitreya. Your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather might have killed or otherwise known somebody who might have caused harm to my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. Prepare... to die!"

human suffering

Isn't that the excuse and even the premise for conversions, like nun teresa made a businss out of poverty!

"The National Crime Records Bureau says every day

That fact has not changed after conversion. So why cheat dalits with false promises?

302 · Kiran P said

It is still going on, and this is discrimination withing Hinduism

No! societal evils, thanks to Brits, cannot be attributed to Hinduism.

Yeah right, blame the british for hindu casteism, untouchability, misogyny etc. Who do you think you can fool with such stupid lies?

These societal evils were around long before the europeans had ever even heard of India. Buddha condemned casteism and brahminism 2500 years ago, for example.

309 · Dhoni said

Buddha condemned casteism and brahminism 2500 years ago, for example.

Buddha was the original tourist. Did you know he came to India from Nepal? Without even a visa?

310 · stand up said

Buddha was the original tourist. Did you know he came to India from Nepal? Without even a visa?

hehe. I knew something smelling fishy about that man...

1.) I would not feel it good to comment on a seperatist movement that I have not studied extensively. I have not studied the 'Nagalim for Christ' movement so it would not be fair for me to comment on the movement at this time.

So you need to study. Agreed.

2.) Killing people is wrong. It's despicable. But it is not an excuse to burn, torture and threaten any people living in the area. Trying to find the people who commited the act is one thing, becoming a mob riot and hurting anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time is another thing entirely. Unfortunately, the second happens far too often (by fundamentalist Hindus, Muslims and Christians (I guess?) against all the other religious groups as well) all the time. This riot-raaj really breeds more violence, hatred, and pain for everyone involved than create any sense of justice for those originally killed/harmed/etc.

Instigated by missionaries. The converted and non-converted tribals were at each others throats. Take the missionaries out and this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place. And for 'Christians' it's only a guess! For the record they assasinated a Hindu saint doing social upliftment. My god! how this is all warped in your statement and disappeared altogether. I still agree with you with very important corrections!

3.) I think I already stated my opinion on conversion. I don't really need to consult Gandhiji on that. (It is, in case you forgot, if someone, freely and openly, chooses to convert, this is their own personal right.)

Agreed. You still need to refer Gandhi, what he says is beyond that regarding missionaries and their mischiefs.

4.) Bush is gone. I didn't vote for him. I have always been active in the U.S. towards pressuring the government to be more ethical and moral than it has been. It has done many unethical things, and I do not blindly support my nation just because I was born here. I examine it will a critical eye and fight for equal rights for citizens as well as people worldwide. I do not support the CIA. or how it attempts to undermine peoples rights and communities for American agendas.

Good.

5.) See the above.

keeping silent is approval. You need to react positively. Are you going to work in the US to dissuade policymakers about 4 and 5 ?
Of course issue 1 is self study. Talk to stephen Knapp. Thanks.

298 · LinZi said

297 · Kiran P said

Dalits were raped, murdered, humiliated every day by higher caste hindus at perhaps an even greater rate than today. And so on.

Kiran, you really do live in a dream world. I lived in rural Bihar and was in contact with low/untouchable communities who, to this day, are treated extremely horribly by the uppercastes. They are discriminated against, their children raped, people treated like cattle, not allowed to even come inside a building or sit at the same level as uppercaste people. I am talking about 2005, so it's not ancient history. It is still going on, and this is discrimination withing Hinduism, not even talking about other religious groups.

Then you have to worry about anti-Christian or anti-Islam complaints. So do you strike stuff like evolution from the curriculum or not? Then complaints that it's anti-Hindu because your history curriculum is too kind towards guys like Aurunguzeb. But crap! If you tell the truth about Aurunguzeb then suddenly it's anti-Islam! I guess we can just pretend nothing bad happened during Mugal rule in India. We'll just fast-forward from Akbar's death to British rule!

Now that you have a swiss-cheesed curriculum, you can start instituting a plan to build schools.
But wait! You don't have the money to build schools everywhere. So you're going to have to allocate where the schools go based on assessments of need. So now you have to fight with 1,001 politicians and special interests who all think their neighborhood or community is more entitled than everyone else's. Woe unto you if you don't put it in a Dalit area because that's anti-dalit. But if you put it there instead of the Christian area next door then you're automatically being anti-Christian. Or would you rather be anti-Muslim? Decisions decisions.

So you've hammered out a compromise and decided where you want to put your schools? Great. Now let's start disbursing funds and hiring teachers. Oh wait! Because of linguistic and religious issues we can't find qualified teachers to staff all these schools that don't draw the ire of various special interests. To make matters worse, the unionized teachers already there won't let you impose the kind of oversight and merit-based norms that would actually guarantee that they're going to work and teaching once they've been hired. We can't even fire them for not showing up to work because the Marxists will be down our throats about how we're oppressing the lower classes.
And not only that, the money we allocate to these schools is leaking away at every point in the chain. It's so bad that in places like Bihar almost 98% of all allocated funds for rural health-clinics never actually get there! Education money is slightly better, but not enough to matter. So how are we going to stem the corruption and inefficiency that makes all this money disappear? Especially since the bureaucracy that is responsible for this rank corruption is too entrenched and too powerfully unionized for the country's fragmented and unorganized government to effectively rein it in?

And then, once you manage all that you then have to figure out some way to actually persuade the parents to enroll their kids in those schools to begin with.

Accuse me of being a racist or a bigot or whatever else suits you, but don't you dare try to accuse me of not caring about or not paying attention to the plight of India's poor. I work in this field. I live and breathe this stuff. And people like you trying to say that just because I'm Hindu and refuse to apologize for it then I must automatically be some heartless monster is beyond insulting. It's not like people want the country's backwaters to be poor and uneducated. People all over India of all stripes are working as hard as they can to fix these problems. What gets in their way, however, are narrowly defined interests that are too busy fighting over where they get to sit to bother making any food.

why do you keep calling them "minorities" and keep whining so pitifully about them "minorities" overwhelming the hindu majority?

This actually makes sense to him. Buddha, the Sikh Gurus etc may have been born hindus but they rejected it and founded new religions. Casteism is inherent to brahminism, by definition. Rejecting the unjust, wicked absurdity of hereditary casteism is equivalent to rejecting brahminism.

Of course one should ask, how fast do you think someone would get banned around here if they unleashed half the vitriol you throw at Hindus towards Muslims or Christians? See how far Hindus are willing to bend over backwards to tolerate your shenanigans?

306 · Kiran P said

Treating minorities like sikhs, muslims and christians to murderous pogroms is a good thing in your book?

You have convniently ignored my answer. True sikhs know what happened.

You need to go to some sikh forums to see what they think of your kind.

http://www.panthic.org/news/129/ARTICLE/4495/2008-11-07.html

"Sikhs still vividly remember the November 1984 State-supervised nation-wide pogrom in which nearly 10, 000 innocent Sikh men, women and children were put to death by Hindu mobs lead by ruling Congress party leaders

As no one has been found guilty for that crime against humanity, despite passage of a quarter century, the Diaspora Sikhs are lobbying for a boycott of the October 2010 Commonwealth games in Delhi, a major venue of the November 1984 bloody Sikh massacres

Washington, D.C. Wednesday, November 05, 2008: If India’s morally repugnant rulers think that the Sikhs, after a short passage of only twenty four years, have forgotten that thousands of innocent Sikh men, women and children were murdered mercilessly in India, by armed Hindu mobs, in a state-supervised nationwide pogrom, (Oct. 31 to November 3, 1984) launched with a ‘wink and a nod’ by the then Indian Prime minister (Rajiv Gandhi) then, they have another thing coming."

312 · Kiran P said

For the record they assasinated a Hindu saint doing social upliftment. My god!

Seriously, you seem really really sad about Hindus getting killed. And of course it is wrong. But I don't hear you crying for all the unjustly murdered Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, or Jews in India. And please, please, educate me on all the genocide and pogroms the Hindus have been subject to? How are they at the TOP of the list worldwide? Please fill me in!

313 · NV said

Do you think modernizing a country as vast and diverse as India is going to be quick or easy?

No, but I don't think sticking your head in the stand, or idealizing a situation will help. You need to study and understand the issues, and work towards a goal. Communalism and reactionary attitudes will only worsen the situation, not help.

315 · LinZi said

But I don't hear you crying for all the unjustly murdered Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, or Jews in India.

Were they Hindu Christians, Hindu Muslims, Hindu Sikhs and Hindu Jews? Seriously, I love this construct. All my friends will be so happy to hear I got them the gift of a shiny new religion this new year. Change has come to India!

Hindu mobs lead by ruling Congress party leaders

Highlighted for your clarity. I still condemn those Hindus. I have done it before and I will do it again.
The less said about Congress party the better!

Hindu mobs lead by ruling Congress party leaders led by christian Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar whould have clarified it better.

318 · Kiran P said

Hindu mobs lead by ruling Congress party leaders

Linzi, don't you understand. Kiran's staunch opposition to the evils of pornography, same sex experiments, spouse swapping and blind dating in America also extend to the prospect of seeing Hindus engaged in congress.

319 · Kiran P said

Hindu mobs lead by ruling Congress party leaders led by christian Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar whould have clarified it better.

I love this. It's a political problem, except that "christian" has to be highlighted. I wonder if these are Hindu Christians. And wonder what strain of Macaulayite HKL Bhagat was...

316 · LinZi said

313 · NV said

Do you think modernizing a country as vast and diverse as India is going to be quick or easy?

No, but I don't think sticking your head in the stand, or idealizing a situation will help. You need to study and understand the issues, and work towards a goal. Communalism and reactionary attitudes will only worsen the situation, not help.

Fine. If you can't dispute the message shoot the messenger. Go ahead and assassinate the character of everyone who is actually gives a shit about India if it suits you.

251 · LinZi said

249 · Kiran P said

That happens when ignorant westerners try to put a square peg in a round hole, when they try to define Himduism as one of the "ism"s ignoring the 'way of life' aspect and stripping the Indic roots of muslims, christians and others who are native to India. This is also one of the reasons why this dialog also goes nowhere!

I have yet to meet an Indian Muslim or Christian in India EVER ONCE define themselves as a Hindu. Anyone?

I have no interest in fueling an argument, but I have heard my Syrian Christian aunt, who isn't the most open-minded person in the world, saying that Hinduism (in it's broadest definition) is part of our heritage and that people who reject that are fools and this was said in completely Christian company. People might not voice it, but I'm sure many Muslims and Christians feel that there is ideally a "desi way" of being religious. A not desi (or Indic, if you will) way of being religious would be thinking like the evangelicals, Wahhabis, or those who share the RSS mentality.

I don't think sticking your head in the stand, or idealizing a situation will help. You need to study and understand the issues, and work towards a goal. Communalism and reactionary attitudes will only worsen the situation, not help.

What makes you think this is not happening?
Just because the western funded english media does not report it very often?
Or is it because it does not report fairly regarding indegenous efforts compared to "cloak of charity" christian missionary organizations? Do you read regional newspapers?
Or do you think it's because we believe in nishkaama karma and we dont need to advertise the good work what we do compare to missionaries who are seeking souls in return?

322 · NV said

implying I'm some kind of reactionary communalist radical.

No, no, just reactionary and communalist. Unfortunately, that's not all that radical these days.

Go ahead and assassinate the character of everyone who is actually gives a shit about India if it suits you.

What? You were called a Macaulayite missionary brainwashed by westerners???

I love this. It's a political problem, except t

check with dhoni, he wanted to paint anti-sikh riots as hindu-muslim riots. So I put in details. huh!

After assasination of Indira Gandhi, Rajiv said - "when big banyan tree falls earth shakes" justifying the riots that was instigated later by Congress leaders. Painting this as Hindu-Sikh riots is intellectually dishonest.

Dhoni said

Treating minorities like sikhs, muslims and christians to murderous pogroms is a good thing in your book? How many other countries have indulged in such pogroms in the last half century?

Forget about the mistreatment of minorities, India treats the majority of its citizens FAR worse than any other nation.

What is so great about the normal brahminical culture of misogyny, child abuse, brutality, callousness, superstition, casteism etc?

322 · NV said

316 · LinZi said

313 · NV said

Do you think modernizing a country as vast and diverse as India is going to be quick or easy?

No, but I don't think sticking your head in the stand, or idealizing a situation will help. You need to study and understand the issues, and work towards a goal. Communalism and reactionary attitudes will only worsen the situation, not help.

Oh please spare me this contrived bullshit. My patience is at an end. I just gave you a 1,000 word essay about all the bullshit that gets in the way of actually getting anything done and you reply by telling me I haven't studied the issue thoroughly enough or have my head in the sand or have idealized the situation?
God damn are you ever stuck in your way of thinking. You've caricatured everyone who disagrees with you to the point where you can't even reply to what I'm saying without retreating to pre-digested talking points and implying I'm some kind of reactionary communalist radical.

Fine. If you can't dispute the message shoot the messenger. Go ahead and assassinate the character of everyone who is actually gives a shit about India if it suits you.

Hey man, it's hard to keep track of everything everyone said said last night.. it's been a very loooong debate.. kya karu? You and I agree on more points than I do with Kiran, and I don't discount everything you are saying. I may not agree with you on quite a bit, but I don't disagree with you on any of the things you say about difficulties in creating a curriculum, for example. I understand all those issues, and I know it's difficult. The "sticking the head in the sand" part is more addressed at types like Kiran, who only see, (as someone before said) the other as the monster,but doesn't fairly examine how his own behavior and beliefs could affect the situation.

I have no interest in fueling an argument, but I have heard my Syrian Christian aunt, who isn't the most open-minded person in the world, saying that Hinduism (in it's broadest definition) is part of our heritage and that people who reject that are fools and this was said in completely Christian company. People might not voice it, but I'm sure many Muslims and Christians feel that there is ideally a "desi way" of being religious. A not desi (or Indic, if you will) way of being religious would be thinking like the evangelicals, Wahhabis, or those who share the RSS mentality.

Interesting Lea; I remember reading in Brick Lane, a story about Bangladeshi immigrants in UK, that the character of the father (who was a strange man) say that in the beginning all Bangladeshis were all Hindu, and they shouldn't forget that.

contrived bullshit

that is why a tourist is incapable of understanding Indian problems.

324 · Kiran P said

Just because the western funded english media does not report it very often?

I read the Hindi media too, thanks

329 · PS said

say that in the beginning all Bangladeshis were all Hindu, and they shouldn't forget that.

Akhand Bharat, FTW!

Also what on earth is this Brahminism that you keep whining about?

He has been whining on that since y'day. I am not falling for it. Typical missionary tactic of bring nonsense and justifying conversion.

330 · Kiran P said

that is why a tourist is incapable of understanding Indian problems.

If by "Indian problems", you mean the views of people like yourself, I congratulate you on your self-awareness.

322 · NV said

Go ahead and assassinate the character of everyone who is actually gives a shit about India if it suits you.

Who are you kidding? Why did you or your parents run away from India if you are so deeply attached to it?

Psuedo-nationalists like you, wallowing in denial, delusion and dishonesty, blaming whites for every social and economic problem in India, are the real enemies of India. People who dont give a rats ass about the inhumane conditions in India are the ones who dont give a shit about India.

330 · Kiran P said

that is why a tourist is incapable of understanding Indian problems.

A Hindi speaking, Hindu Marrying, Bihar/Delhi/Jaipur living-in dirty ignorant tourist! That's what I am! I just realised, How can I know ANYTHING about India, my skin is the wrong color... oops... I must be lost.

If by "Indian problems", you mean the views of people like yourself, I congratulate you on your self-awareness.

anything concrete other than 1 liners while standing up!

my skin is the wrong color

They have wrong color? But talk to Francois Gautier and you will know. Or Koenrald Elst. to get a better picture. they have gotten it right, how come not you? why? It takes time atleast a few years with western/missionary propoganda off.

my skin is the wrong color

337 · Kiran P said

anything concrete other than 1 liners while standing up!

I'm actually pretty sold on your anti (Bush-western inspired non-Hindu) Christian program. Is there any way I can fund something that will expand awareness of this important social problem among Indians in America so they can donate more to this fight? I am definitely going to use your comments to publicize this important aspect of right-wing Hinduism to all my friends here. Too many people fixate on Gujarat to the detriment of understanding the broad bold compassionate conservative vision of the Sangh.

339 · NV said

Put on some sun-screen. You'll be fine.

And stay Hindu, Linzi!

Is there any way I can fund something that will expand awareness of this important social problem among Indians in America so they can donate more to this fight?

No, I think with Obama things might get better. That's why he is a man of hope. He might shelve this faith based initiative that's funding missionary intolerance causing internal turbulence in India. That's why his mention of Hindus is of such significance to people of Indic origin. Your ideas are welcome.

342 · Kiran P said

No, I think with Obama things might get better

I wouldn't be so complacent. It is the typical deviousness of the west that they will strike when you least expect it. There are many wealthy westerners who will continue funding these programs, which in the long term, pose a bigger problem than Islamism. Best to be prepared and create big nationwide awareness programs - both in America and Bharat - of the threat posed by the west to Hindu values. That's the only way Hindutva will win.

Dhoni said

Who are you kidding? Why did you or your parents run away from India if you are so deeply attached to it?

And stay Hindu, Linzi!

I don't think that's what Kiran is saying at all; why do you keep twisting the argument. No wonder this discussion has almost become useless. She doesn't want India to become like Saudi, Sudan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Eqypt, etc - she wants it to be a society where people have the freedom to worship how they want...which is what goes on now.

She's describing a situation of conversion, that exploits and draws on the unequal power dynamics. Do you not think this goes on? And it doesn't go on as well. Even in my American schools we discussed this.

It's so funny that a blog about Christians in Pakistan, no freedom of religion, has become a silly diatribe against India, a multireligious, multicultural democracy that actually pays it's Muslims to go to Mecca....what a joke! Of course religious persecution has happened and we should decry them and try and change the situation (even Indians aren't perfect; I know the standard is so high for us) but have some perspective or better yet, move to Saudi or Burma and convert in those countries or try and practice your religion in those countries the way you want. Let's see if the Saudi govt is going to fund the building of a temple, synogogue, the wrong mosque...have fun.

327 · Lupus Solitarius said

Dhoni said

Forget about the mistreatment of minorities, India treats the majority of its citizens FAR worse than any other nation.

Ever heard of Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc etc etc? you need to seriously get some perspective. Or to stop eating all that opium.

India callously tolerates more hunger, humiliations, degradations among its citizens than any other nation (in hunger Bangladesh comes closest to India). Who do you blame for this inhumane mistreatment by India of its own citizens? Are white westerners to blame like your ilk keeps insisting, or is the native culture guilty? Heres Nobel Laureate Economist Amartya Sen on India's abysmal record:

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:qU_yAvQiigAJ:www.righttofoodindia.org/data/amartya.pdf+endemic+hunger&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

"India has not, it should be absolutely clear, done well in tackling thepervasive presence of persistent hunger. Not only are there persistent recurrences of severe hunger and starvation in particular regions, but there is also a gigantic prevalence of endemic hunger across much of India. Indeed, India does much worse in this respect than even Sub-Saharan Africa...... It is astonishing that despite the intermittent occurrence of famine in Africa, it too manages to ensure a much higher level of regular nourishment than does India. About half of all Indian children are, it appears, chronically undernourished, andmore than half of all adult women suffer from anaemia. In maternal undernourishment as well as the incidence of underweight babies, and also in the frequency of cardiovasculardiseases in later life (to which adults are particularly prone if nutritionally deprived in the womb), India’s record is among the very worst in the world"

I wouldn't be so complacent.

If most Americans can trust Obama I can trust him. The day he throws away the Hanuman statue that he reportedly has may be the day I will begin to worry :)

There are many wealthy westerners

nah. Their wealth is dwindling. Millionaires are checking their 401k balances too. On the other hand Bill Gates is awesome. So is Warren Buffet. Let their tribe increase. They are true do gooders.

you are right, ps. i stand corrected. the standard we should aspire to is to be better than pakistan or saudi, the highest common denominator of modern civilization, and look how wonderful they are for their citizens as a result.

347 · Kiran P said

If most Americans can trust Obama I can trust him

hey! most americans trusted bush too. these people are the epitome of the missionary western agenda.

hey! most americans trusted bush too. these people are the epitome of the missionary western agenda.

Bush did not have Hanuman statue. Instead he came to the office with a belief that Hindus go to Hell.
So 2 reasons to trust Obama v/s Bush. Great comedy from you standing up.

Goodbye folks for now.
I hope I will not be banned by SM for speaking the truth.

350 · Kiran P said

Great comedy from you standing up.

To you too. Thanks for all your comments and your articulation of the anti-west non-Hindu-christian mission of the Hindutva movement. It will be very helpful.

he standard we should aspire to is to be better than pakistan or saudi, the highest common denominator of modern civilization, and look how wonderful they are for their citizens as a result.

No, India should aspire to such an unrealistically high standard that it gets mugged repeatedly by the bad, rough men of the world. Filipinos, Thais, etc. can be smart enough to focus on the enemy without and within, but Indians--must turn the other cheek repeatedly.

And, BTW, "stand up," I am really impressed by the compassion you display in repeatedly mocking Kiran P. You're really a figure to be emulated.

Prema Dhaoni said

Psuedo-nationalists like you, wallowing in denial, delusion and dishonesty, blaming whites for every social and economic problem in India, are the real enemies of India.

People who dont give a rats ass about the inhumane conditions in India are the ones who dont give a shit about India.

articular regions, but there is also a gigantic prevalence of endemic hunger across much of India. Indeed, India does much worse in this respect than even Sub-Saharan Africa...... It is astonishing that despite the intermittent occurrence of famine in Africa, it too manages to ensure a much higher level of regular nourishment than does India. About half of all Indian children are, it appears, chronically undernourished, andmore than half of all adult women suffer from anaemia.

LOL DhoniPrema, et al, I find this hilarious...obviously you've taken Sen out of context. Among the living in India, since it doesn't suffer famines like many parts of Africa, there is a malnourishment issue.

Next up, in malnourishment is China...if only INdia and China both had famines like many parts of Africa then perhaps their malnourishment problem would be better.

You are always good for a laugh Prema.

And, BTW, "stand up," I am really impressed by the compassion you display in repeatedly mocking Kiran P. You're really a figure to be emulated.

It certainly does spare him the trouble of ever having to critically examine his own beliefs.

352 · rob said

And, BTW, "stand up," I am really impressed by the compassion you display in repeatedly mocking Kiran P. You're really a figure to be emulated.

Not just Kiran P. Don't set your sights so low. All of Hinduism. Think big!

No, India should aspire to such an unrealistically high standard that it gets mugged repeatedly by the bad, rough men of the world. Filipinos, Thais, etc. can be smart enough to focus on the enemy without and within, but Indians--must turn the other cheek repeatedly.

No, you're right. Those tribals are the enemy within, and should be treated with the same extreme prejudice that Saudi and Pakistan treat their non-believers.

And this thread has been very valuable to me. As I said, Kiran P's articulation of the Hindutva agenda for Christians has been invaluable.

And, BTW, "stand up," I am really impressed by the compassion you display in repeatedly mocking Kiran P. You're really a figure to be emulated.

Seriously, all Stand up has done is try and give clever one-liners when Kiran P has been articulate and taken his silly responses with a straight face and responded respectfully. When you have nothing to say I guess you have to try and be glib.

357 · PS said

when Kiran P has been articulate

You're funny, PS.

If you can't argue the message belittle the messenger. It's an old trick that he must have picked up from Chris Hitchens.

It certainly does spare him the trouble of ever having to critically examine his own beliefs.

Word.

358 · stand up said

357 · PS said

when Kiran P has been articulate

You're funny, PS.

What's with the superfluous comma?

357 · PS said

Seriously, all Stand up has done is try and give clever one-liners

With a name like stand up, whaddya expect?

360 · NV said

What's with the superfluous comma?

It's not superfluous. Check your Strunk.

Kiran P
Don't quit just yet.
Things are warming up quite nicely...

Boy, people sure do have a lot of time around here! Must be all those layoffs.

Kiran, I think you are new here, that is why you keep arguing. Most people here are PC, they will accept Islamic/Christian fundamentalism only if you agree that 1) you are a Hindu fundamentalist for raising the issue, and 2) Hinduism has lots of bad points. Just grant them that (and I think you don't lose much by granting that) and they will go back to their little corners, frothing happily.

I think such debate is pointless. More on what else to do is here.

I suggest you read a little beyond Rajiv Malhotra. Even though he makes interesting points, and gives money for interesting projects, if you are really interested in Hinduism, you should go beyond the political discussion, and understand the philosophic schools. All this rhetoric about protection of Hinduism is pointless if you don't understand what you are trying to protect.

350 · Kiran P said

I hope I will not be banned by SM for speaking the truth.

You mean "truths" like: whites are to blame for India's societal evils (even though these evils have been around long before whites ever came to India)? Or your claim that the charge that dalits are raped, assaulted and murdered on a daily basis is christian "propaganda" (despite the Indian govts own data)? Or that "true sikhs" do not care that thousands of them were murdered in a pogrom conducted overwhelmingly by hindus (despite sikh websites that say the opposite)?

Getouttahere you shameless liar!

364 · Sarvepalli said

Most people here are PC

I'm a Mac.

>I'm a Mac.

ROTFL. As I should.

364 · Sarvepalli said

they will go back to their little corners, frothing happily.

Not me. A self-aware Hindu fundamentalist is still a Hindu fundamentalist.

353 · Lupus Solitarius said

Yes. Our white masters shall not be blamed for colonising us, looting our economy, creating famines which killed millions,exploiting our religious divides and catalysing the partition of our country.No sir. How can they - they are white after all!

India has been independent for 3 generations now. When will you spineless, callous ostriches stop blaming whites for all of India's social and economic problems?

>blaming whites for all of India's social and economic problems?

Why just India? They are responsible for pretty much all of the world's problems.

Hear out self-aware Susan Sontag:

"Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." (Partisan Review, Winter 1967, p. 57.)

Sontag later offered an ironic apology for the remark, saying it was insensitive to cancer victims.

354 · PS said

I find this hilarious...obviously you've taken Sen out of context.

I guess you find hungry children hilarious then? When you are not studiously ignoring them that is.

The context here is India's callous indifference to the hunger of its own citizens (most of the hungry indians happen to be hindus BTW). So what part of Amartya Sen's quote do you find "out of context":

"India has not, it should be absolutely clear, done well in tackling thepervasive presence of persistent hunger. Not only are there persistent recurrences of severe hunger and starvation in particular regions, but there is also a gigantic prevalence of endemic hunger across much of India. Indeed, India does much worse in this respect than even Sub-Saharan Africa...... It is astonishing that despite the intermittent occurrence of famine in Africa, it too manages to ensure a much higher level of regular nourishment than does India. About half of all Indian children are, it appears, chronically undernourished, and more than half of all adult women suffer from anaemia. In maternal undernourishment as well as the incidence of underweight babies, and also in the frequency of cardiovasculardiseases in later life (to which adults are particularly prone if nutritionally deprived in the womb), India’s record is among the very worst in the world"

Prema said

India has been independent for 3 generations now. When will you spineless, callous ostriches stop blaming whites for all of India's social and economic problems?

you spineless, callous ostriches

Close to 400 comments and not even 10 are relevant to the subject of religious discrimination in Pakistan. Good job commenters. :-)

370 · Sarvepalli said

>blaming whites for all of India's social and economic problems? Why just India? They are responsible for pretty much all of the world's problems. Hear out self-aware Susan Sontag: "The white race is the cancer of human history."

Wow, so much hatred for whites among the hindutva gang. Did whites teach you how to treat low caste and outcaste hindus with cruel inhumanity and contempt? Did whites teach you to treat widows like pariahs and even burn them alive? Did whites teach you temple prostitution, child prostitution, child marriage? Are whites stopping Independent India from feeding its children? Are whites forcing indians to keep millions of hindu children in slavery/bonded labor? etc, etc?

372 · Lupus Solitairus said

Prema said

India has been independent for 3 generations now. When will you spineless, callous ostriches stop blaming whites for all of India's social and economic problems?

Do you think India's colonisation has nothing to do with her economic situation at present?

India's record is shabby even when compared to the nations that were also colonised by europeans. Hunger is the most extreme form of poverty and India leads the world in both percentage and absolute terms in this damning statistic. People like you who keep blaming whites for India's miserable performance economically (even after 60 years of independence from whites) and even for its numerous ancient social evils are the real enemies of India.

>so much hatred for whites among the hindutva gang

Now Susan Sontag is also part of Hindutva?

She is kinda cool, Susan Mata ki Jai, Sontag Mata ki Jai!

Prema
First of all a warm namaskar to your glolious mothelland.
I
Can
search google too.

Did whites teach you how to treat low caste and outcaste hindus with cruel inhumanity and contempt

Did whites teach you temple prostitution, child prostitution, child marriage

Are ostriches known for being callous or are Dhonis narrow-minded stereotypes of that venerable bird as wrong-headed as his understanding of Hinduism?

Kiran - I would like to second the the comment above that you need to move beyond Rajiv Malhotra, even though I agree with most of what he says. He criticizes the colonial mindset but does not acknowledge that he himself is a victim of it. All of us are, of course, but once one understands this, I think it's a bit absurd to think that all of the Indian elite fell victim to this phenomenon except the few of us who read an article here or there and were somehow cured. These things are deeply internalized and one has to relearn everything from scratch. One of the first things to reconsider is how absurd it is to continue to call hinduism a religion. The "way of life" cop out does not serve any purpose.

I think a good way of looking at it is as a form of inquiry. Was there any knowledge produced as a result of this inquiry? What was this knowledge and how can we access it again? Notice how no-one condemns the west for "inflicting" science on the rest of us. If something is genuinely worthwhile the whole world welcomes it. This is precisely how the knowledge of ancient India spread to Indonesia, Cambodia, China, etc. It's not that anyone converted to anything. That would be like saying I've converted to using a calculator instead of an abacus! So it's about geometry, architecture, poetry, agriculture, medicine and of course self-inquiry - with a huge dollop of mythology (and alas superstition).

The only way that hindus can have a dialog with the monotheists is at the level of inquiry and the results of this inquiry. It is futile to address beliefs or to be coerced into respecting them. By beliefs I mean such notions as God, his son, his prophet, etc. These are central concepts in monotheistic religions without which the religion will fall apart. This rules out the possibility of any honest dialog with the establishment, including academia, and leaves open the possibility only of informal discussions, such as on SM.

Now, once the stupid religion business is out of the way, the social evils can be addressed. If we're talking about the status of women, let's compare and contrast. If we're talking about caste, let's again compare and contrast. We will likely see that the west does not come out with such flying colors as they think they do. And while India at least has poverty as an explanation for its ills, what's up with the west? There is much potential for having a go at really trying to tease out what is wrong and where, instead of the same old hindus suck and muslims suck worse type of stuff.

Good Post, Divya.

Karen #383, the minute you start paying the intern's salary, you can complain about their "being asleep at the wheel". Moaning about how a volunteer moderator on a private site is "slow" is pointless and ungrateful.

my beef is with the fact the post has nothing in common with most of the comments. Maybe if you scroll up and read the comments you will understand why.
Being a volunteer doesn;t give you an excuse for doing a shoddy job.

I thought the topic that Anna was talking about was the treatment of christians in Pakistan. Yet most of these comments seem to be about what going in India.

Karen, Suki
Why don't you guys steer the thread back to it's origin topic?

please, spare me you definitions and do your job, CR/ SM intern!!!!

Karen, if the job we do is "shoddy", go elsewhere. We've had internet issues today, so the thread went its own way, but that's no excuse to react in such an ungrateful manner.

You said "do your job, intern"? This isn't our job. Try and understand that simple fact, maybe then you'll be less irrationally disappointed.

India's record is shabby even when compared to the nations that were also colonised by europeans. Hunger is the most extreme form of poverty and India

This is just false. The worst hunger is where famines occur. It's funny that you even dare quote Sen, who has written much of India's conquest of famines, it's agricultural production is now enough that it can feed its population, the democracy that you, the self-racist deny is part of India's culture, Sen directly attributes to India's long history within Hindu philosophy. Back when the parts of the West were having untouchability stamped in its laws - blacks can only sit here or there, they must be separate from whites - India went right ahead and stated untouchability is illegal. MLK has written much of the influence Gandhi's hinduism in his own fight for equality in the US - his own fight to overcome "America's shameful untouchability". If a vast and incredibily wealthy country as the U.S. has taken .... let's start with the civil war....more than 100 years to overcome it's untouchability laws than I have much hope for India, and the tenets of our philosophy, much of it reflecting hinduism and buddhism, that would allow a democracy to flourish, in a part of the world, that is all dictators and puppet govts.

It's funny that you write so hatefully at Indians as spineless. When India becomes so insecure that it abolishes a free press, and people like you would be tortured in jail b/c it criticizes the govt, than you can talk about spinelessness.

Malnourishment in India is a problem as the Indian press readily stresses alongside fools in the press who ignore it. As Sen recently stated at the IIT's the fact that India is a democracy with a free press, has been a huge factor in having it overcome Famines - that have plagued AFrica, and China.

He also states "There were also glaring inequalities in the coverage provided to events affecting the rich and the coverage to the more chronic and continuous problems faced by the poor, and this had to be addressed to reduce poverty, Dr. Sen said." freely in Indian society and I am so glad he can state these issues.

He goes on to state there are more, malnourished in South Asian than subSaharan Africa - notice the word is malnourished, not famines not undernourished.

India, is and has been, since it's creation doing much better than many of these countries. We've got so much to improve but let's not self-racism, get in the way of what the data actually states. And then when you bring in factors such as democracy and a free press, well that makes me very glad that I'm born in India than in Sudan or China.

Malnourishment is something, Sen states, India should be able to overcome b/c we have the resources, despite having a population density much worse than say many countries in subsaharan Africa, and since our people aren't dying of famines, that means more people to suffer malnourishment - understand?

Here's a link to undernourishment --- Different than malnourishment. India is doing much better than parts of Africa, but all of South Asia have to do better, no doubt.

It's unfortunate that you are allowed to quote Sen, a man who heartily recognizes the equality in Hinduism, the tolerance of multiculturalism in Hinduism - something that you like to pervert and say only one interpretation of Hinduism exists and other cultures and religions is so much better...ha; It'd be interesting if you were born in Saudi, Prema.

Sen also goes on to state in his address to IIT Madras, that India will no doubt be a superpower and it can overcome the problems of malnourishment (doesn't talk about undernourishment or famine that is much worse in other countries) and he doesn't state that the only way we can overcome that is to become a tribal culture or convert enmass into Islam or throw out Hinduism. He specifically has stated that one major factor that prevents famines as those that plague Somalia, China (in earlier decades), Ethiopia, etc. is a democratic values...India is light years ahead in that manner.

Finally check your stats on the status of women - India is not near the worst countries in the world for women. I'm sure you'd like to pick one factor, female infancticide, as the only factor (b/c it looks bad for India) but you have to couple a myriad of factors to decide what is the most misogynist society --- it's a joke if you think India is. You have to look at education, education value, literacy, political voice, marriage choices, spousal abuse, etc, and India does not in any way factor close to the bottom.

You are full of shit.

No. We picked up a few tricks from China . Once again I warn you, if you start pointing fingers, you will miss your patriotic re-education classes. Capiche?

lol - that was funny.

So has anyone figured out what Prema's deal is yet? Why the irrational hatred of Hindus and Hinduism?

So has anyone figured out what Prema's deal is yet?

I think it's sad when people use a critical eye to look at their own culture, and this is labeled "self-racism".

I think it's sad that when people try to look at issues critically, and try to find solutions wile still respecting human rights, that they are labeled "Hindu Haters"

I think it is these kind of people, who use accusations and labels against people just trying to identify issues and work out problems, that discourage people from speaking up, that discourage people from trying to change things.

If trying to understand a problem, truly, with all it's complexities, is so wrong, how will we ever be able to work together, to move forward, to find solutions to problems that persist, like communalism, like discrimination, like poverty?

These people, who try to push this "Hindu Uber Alles" agenda above all, are the ones who cause problems to persist, while others are working towards solutions, one step forward, they are taking two steps back.

They love to spout the greatness of the Indian constitution, and it is great, but they leave out the most important part of the constitution. The part where it is a democratic, secular nation. They didn't chose to put orange AND green stripes on the Indian flag for no reason.

They use quotes of India's great attempts towards creating this democratic secular nation as an example when it serves their purpose, but ignore it when they feel threatened-- then suddenly they forget the secular and democratic ideals-- and talk about wiping out religious groups-- to make things normal again.

They talk about Indian history-- but they only refer to the parts that make those ancestors of their blood look good. They ignore the great history of Indian pluralism-- they ignore the immigration and emmigration that makes India and the countries of the world what they are today.

These people- they are the ones who are a sickness to the world-- a sickness of hatred, of twisted words, of inflammatory actions and the use of violence to reach their goals. While those who want to see a world were the human race can respect each other and live in dignity-- they want to divide us-- like a colonizer-- and pit us against each other.

As part of a majority and a dominate class-- they don't want to give up their positions to power- they don't want to compete with others who may, with access to what's needed to succeed, might actually beat them out for universities and jobs. They don't fear a disintegration of a nation- they fear the disintegration of their own positions of power.

387 · PS said

This is just false. The worst hunger is where famines occur. It's funny that you even dare quote Sen, who has written much of India's conquest of famines, it's agricultural production is now enough that it can feed its population

Utterly shameless and heartless. No amount of facts will convince this deluded lot. What part of Amartya Sen's quote is "false"? Show us:

"India has not, it should be absolutely clear, done well in tackling thepervasive presence of persistent hunger. Not only are there persistent recurrences of severe hunger and starvation in particular regions, but there is also a gigantic prevalence of endemic hunger across much of India. Indeed, India does much worse in this respect than even Sub-Saharan Africa...... It is astonishing that despite the intermittent occurrence of famine in Africa, it too manages to ensure a much higher level of regular nourishment than does India."

For you to try to dismiss chronic malnutrition, which causes millions of deaths every year in India, as being no big deal compared to famines is really disgusting. Grow a spine and cultivate your conscience.

Dhoni/Prema alias Jackass,

Every time you cut and paste some tendentious load of crap, there will be three posters who will take apart your BS in a trice. Your endless capacity for self-delusion, will get you nowhere on this blog. Even if this thread is closed, and you happen to have the last word, there will be another thread where whatever BS you post under yet another alias will be ripped apart. Keep posting, and you may yet learn something in about three generations. If you have nothing to say about Christian Pakistanis, you should simply take your tashreef elsewhere.

114 · Ponniyin Selvan said

I think Dalits should show some patience and remain Hindu and take the leadership role in Hinduism.

ah yes, nice work once again PS. not only is this unrelated, it's totally not your call. and what sage advice: clearly, all india needs is a replication of the divisive, corrupt, and morally bankrupt mayawati model.