You are generous, Shantanu. I would not give him this benefit of doubt.

You may be right, but I would not attribute it to his understanding of any complexity. See this:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jan/23cong4.htm

Shefaly: Good point…

I would probably bet on your side re. your last paragraph…However, if I were to give him the benefit of doubt, I think he probably sees himself as representing the diversity, the complexity and the richness of different strands that is Bharat…

At one level, that may be true…but the sad part is that he is forgetting the underlying bedrock on which this complexity, this multitude of beliefs and faiths and diversity has survived – which is in essence, “Hindu Dharma” (or Sanatan Dharma, to be more accurate).

As for his grandmother cultivating bearded “Hindu” gurus, that association had almost nothing to do with Hinduism or her desire to better understand the genesis of our rich cultural heritage…It was more motivated by personal interests or political calculations .

Politicians of almost all hues have cynically exploited “Hindu” causes when it has suited them and equally quickly abandoned them when it has seemed to be politically unwise…

The same thing has also probably happened with “Muslim” causes and there is the whole politics of minority appeasement to show for it.

Sadly, in this game, neither the underlying problems of Hindu society (such as casteism) nor the problems within Muslims (such as socio-econonic under-development) have ever been addressed…but thats probably a topic for another post.

Technically, Feroze Gandhi, who married a non-Parsi, would not have had his children ‘admitted’ to Parsi religion. So Rajiv Gandhi either did not belong anywhere or was a Hindu Brahmin (which his mother was, and she also famously cultivated bearded Hindu ‘gurus’ like Dhirendra Brahmachari or Chandra Swami etc).

Rahul then is the son of a father with no clear religious label or identity and a Catholic mother. His sister is married to a Christian person too.

My hypothesis is that Rahul Gandhi’s understanding of all this complexity is very sketchy and he just says what he can think of at the moment.. Which means he is in fine company in this world.

Anil: Thank you for your kind words.

Kanchan and Indian: You have hit the nail on the head…the problem is within ourselves and unless we act/behave like one, we cannot really blame anyone else for this – as Shefaly has pointed out in her comment.

Shefaly: I agree with you that it is a challenge to create a positive, unified identity – especially given the underlying complexity within our great religion…

I have some thoughts on this and will post them in the next few days….

What we really need is a “Swami Vivekananda”.

However I see a richer side to this. A multi-layered identity, none of which is an add-on to anything else (unlike words such as African-American), is a uniquely Hindu phenomenon.

As for successful branding, so that Hindus are proud to call themselves Hindu, perhaps a better group of leaders than the British Hindu Forum etc. is needed. The challenge is to produce a unified concept and identity – which may be very complex for a nuanced, rich context such as this.

Good post.

* I believe when people convert from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam, they carry this caste system with them, as also noted by Ed Luce in his recent book. This is probably a uniquely Indian phenomenon then..