Home » A Hindu Identity, An Indian Identity, Identity, Political Ideology

“People are the Nation” – Excerpts

1 February 2011 852 views 80 Comments

In the context of recent happenings in the Kashmir valley and the debate in blogosphere on nationalism, identity and history, please read these extracts from People are the Nation by Sh M G Vaidya (emphasis added):

…My question: what was newly created on 15August 1947? A new ‘State’ or a new ‘Nation’?…So, then, what is a ‘nation’?

I quote French thinker Ernest Renan: ‘It is not soil any more than the race which makes a nation…A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things which are really only one go to make this principle. One of these things lies in the past, the other in the present. The one is the possession in common of a rich heritage of memories, the other is actual agreement; the desire to live together, and the will to continue to make the most of the joint inheritance. Man cannot be improvised. The Nation, like the individual, is the fruit of a long past, spent in toil, sacrifice and devotion.’ (Ernest Renan: What Is a Nation, quoted in Modern Political Thought by William Ebenstein.)

In short, a nation is not a system. People are the nation. What sort of people constitute a nation? There are three major requirements. One is their sentiment about the country in which they live, the country that has been the substratum for their struggle and labour. Any piece of land is simple matter, and therefore inert; it becomes a living entity when it becomes a motherland, as adorable and sacred as one’s birth-giving mother. And, therefore, revered Bankimchandra can say ‘Vande Mataram’, which inspired the millions who fought for our Independence. True, it is a notion, but it is a valued notion, required to hold together people of different hues, perceptions, faiths and persuasions.

The second condition is a shared history. Is it a drawback that it is a millennium old? And the third is a shared value system, i.e., culture. The third requirement is the most important of all the three. We adopted a value system that appreciates plurality, tolerates differences of opinion, and values different modes of worship. These are our national values and they are enshrined in our Constitution.

Ram is one such historical personality that embodied these values. I said people are the Nation. Who are the people who fulfill these three conditions? They are Hindus; therefore, this is a Hindu nation. It has nothing to do with whether you are an idol-worshipper or not, whether you believe in the ultimate authority of the Vedas or not, whether you put a mark on your forehead or not. In pre-Independence India, the word Hindu had no notoriety attached to it.

Look at the writings of Vivekananda or Mahatma Gandhi. A nationalist paper, started 125 years ago, was named The Hindu. Hindustan was a common name for our country. It is post-Independence vote-bank politics that has showered abuses on ‘Hindu’. Let us be proud of our nation, our value-system, our name Hindu, whose cultural heritage was instrumental in determining the character of our Constitution.

As many of you would know,  Sh M G Vaidya is a leading RSS ideologue and its former spokerperson. Comments, thoughts and counter-points welcome, as always.

P.S. Interestingly, Andrew C McCarthy, writing in a very different context, makes a very similar point:

A nation is a big, bumptious thing. It needn’t agree on everything. It can even bitterly disagree on major things. But to be a nation, a People, it has to agree that it has a shared destiny: that its unique culture, core principles, and independence are worth preserving, protecting, and defending.

80 Comments »

  • 1. bhuvan said:

    Thanks for sharing this article Shantanu.

    When people start digging out their origin/identifictaion and the reasons for the current rot around the world. They often stumble upon the eternal and universal knowledge VEDAS. Rest is only artificial theories created, propped up and based primarily on artificial manipulated economics. And this trend is quite new (in terms of history), merely 500 years old. Not everyone can understand this concept REPEAT NOT EVERYONE. To do that one has to walk out of his/her skin, his/her daily usual routine. But then no one said any Tom, Dick and Harry CAN BRING CHANGE.

    All it takes is 3% of the people to change the world. The rest have no taste for deep conviction or extended conflict and will always follow the trend. Just 3% and not any TOM, DICK AND HARRY.

  • 2. AAryan said:

    Nation is bigger than the people or land itself. It’s an ideology.
    “NATION” is where the people share, belief and practice the same ideology. You can form Nation within a Nation.
    Say, in UK you can find India town and termed as “Little India”. If you look closer it is formed by Hindus. This little nation will try to defend its ideology based on its size, like right to build temples, run Sunday schools etc. Thus in today’s context it has no boundaries.
    “HINDUSTAN” is a state formed by the people with the ideology of Hinduism. Others are just guests as the Hindus in foreign countries. The guests have a right to demand a fair share and practice their ideology. But if the ideology of the guests is detrimental to the state and its affairs or it conflicts with the native’s ideology then it need to be restrained in the same way as it is done to Sikhs and Muslims in Canada and France.
    I believe it is a common sense and we have right to protect it as we know that “Hinduism” in Bhaarat is the only religion which believes in the betterment of the society based on its belief system about the life, Karma and reincarnation.

    ||NamO Bhaartam, NamO Sanskritam||

  • 3. Ashish Deodhar said:

    “Who are the people who fulfill these three conditions? They are Hindus; therefore, this is a Hindu nation. It has nothing to do with whether you are an idol-worshipper or not, whether you believe in the ultimate authority of the Vedas or not, whether you put a mark on your forehead or not. In pre-Independence India, the word Hindu had no notoriety attached to it.”

    “We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls… We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”

    Adolf Hitler speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler)

    ———————————————————————-

    “Let us be proud of our nation, our value-system, our name Hindu, whose cultural heritage was instrumental in determining the character of our Constitution.”

    “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” – Adolf Hitler, Proclamation to the German nation, Berlin Feb 1933.

    ———————————————————————-

    HEIL Vaidya!

  • 4. Kishan said:

    Mr Deodhar what is the similarity between what Vaidya said and what Hitler said. In fact they are quite opposite. Hitler says “we tolerate no one” but Vaidya practically says “we tolerate everyone, with or without tilak,even the atheists”.
    I will request Mr Deodhar to come out of the mindset that is the hallmark of those who call themselves secular but are really anything but that.But if he doesn’t the Vaidya’s of India will still tolerate him.

  • 5. Kaffir said:

    Ah, the anti-Hindu bigot Mr. Deodhar returns to the blog. :D

  • 6. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Kishan

    “Who are the people who fulfill these three conditions? They are Hindus; therefore, this is a Hindu nation.”

    How is that tolerant?

  • 7. Morris said:

    I think the day we used religion as a basis for any nation is gone past if it ever was. I do not like all these Islamic republics. And I cannot bring myself to accept the concept of a Hindu nation. If we have to say that we tolerate everyone, one can ask who is tolerating who? Why is’nt everyone a part of that “we”. That is a muslim concept. They divide the world into two parts believers and non-believers. That concept is not acceptable to Hinduism. And any one who tries to bring that into Hinduism is tempering with the basic tenets of Hinduism.

  • 8. ashwani said:

    ad:”How is that tolerant?”

    if inspite of being a hindu nation the christos and islamists continually give a free run to their hindu-antagonastic antics without requisite response from the nation is not tolerant then what is tolerance.

    not that this tolerance is a virtue.these antagonisers should have been long back shown their place.

  • 9. Sid said:

    @Morris,
    That concept is not acceptable to Hinduism. And any one who tries to bring that into Hinduism is tempering with the basic tenets of Hinduism.
    Politics was never part of the Hinduism to begin with. However, Hindus have every right to indulge into the politics and every struggle to remove any threat that exists because they are Hindus. If I am threatened because I am a Hindu, it is my right as well as Dharma to take measures for self preservation – including mass mobilization of Hindus. A hindu nation is not necessary for that, but a Hindu nation will be the logical conclusion of such a mass mobilization.
    The very moment you are hated because you have some attributes that make you different, you are already part of the classification and like it or not you have to fight the hatred and the classification. But the moment you dislike the particular classification under discussion, you will be declared a communal Islamophobe.
    I would encourage self-declared preachers of tolerance to go and preach their tolerance to those who are creating the threat, not those who are struggling to put an unified resistance to the threat.

    @Kaffir,
    The burning lamp of objective secularism has spoken again. Wait before pants are taken or suggestion of shoving the cultural heritage is made. Wait and watch the fun.

  • 10. seadog4227 said:

    Well said!
    MGV has put forward the points well: what was taken for granted yesterday needs to be put down and discussed today because Kkkangress-created “secularism” has wreaked havoc on our society.

  • 11. Kishan said:

    Mr Deodhar, pls just once again go through the three conditions. Let us debate if you have any objection to those.
    Another fact. America has 77% Christian population, it is a Christian country.But it is a secular democracy. Any objection to that ?
    India has 85% Hindu population, so it is a Hindu (majority) nation. Even so,we are also a secular democracy and everyone is free to follow whatever religion he wants. It is a different matter that the secularism practiced in India has many distortions.
    Another aspect; a basic tenet of Hinduism is :Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti, meaning that the Truth is One but wise people describe It in different ways.
    I am not sure if any Muslim majority country calls itself a secular democracy.

  • 12. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Kishan

    Fair enough. Let’s discuss the three conditions:

    1) Sentiment – do only Hindus have sentiments for India?

    2) Shared history – Do only Hindus share India’s history?

    3) Shared value system – what values? whose values? Hindu values of tolerance and plurality are in stark contrast with those of the proponents of “Hindu rashtra” who don’t even allow their non-Hindu counterparts a shared sentiment and history. Birds of their flock beat women up for drinking alcohol and dressing immodestly, burn Christian missionaries to death, demolish places of worship and massacre innocent non-Hindus for being non-Hindus. Tolerant? Inclusive? Hardly!

    I don’t think that only Hindus meet these three conditions (assuming that these conditions are the only requirement of a nation, which I don’t agree with). So if you happen to believe that only Hindus have sentiments for India, that only they have a part in India’s history and that if only they are tolerant and inclusive, then we don’t have much to discuss further. By that logic, even I won’t find a place in this “Hindu India”, leave alone the millions of non-Hindus.

    Now on to your other points:

    I think you are confusing between a majority religion state and a religion-inspired state. America is a Christian majority country but that doesn’t necessarily make it a “Christian country”. This misinformation is spread by the American counterparts of the RSS (Glenn Beck for example). Here’s a link to the US constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html). You won’t find a single mention of “Christian” in it. In fact, the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Speaks for itself.

    Britain, on the other hand, is a Christian nation. But it is also a monarchy. Is that enough justification for India to be a monarchy too?

    And that brings me to the most important question. Is religion sufficient to hold nations together? If it were, the arab world would be one nation. The UK would still be together. Pakistan would still be intact. But that’s not the case. In this increasingly fluid world, we can’t define national boundaries based on the imaginary friends people worship.

    If you are not one of the Hindu nationalists and if you haven’t yet bought into their propaganda, I will urge you to reflect on a bit of history. You will see many similarities between this “Hindu India” and Nazi Germany – anti-establishment sentiment, a manufactured sense of victimhood and a made-up enemy in the minority community. Give that a nationalistic fervour and we’ve got a dangerous cocktail.

    Ignore this history and the history will not look back kindly upon us.

  • 13. Kishan said:

    Mr Deodhar,
    Vaidya’s term for anyone who meets these three conditions is “Hindu”.
    If you have a problem with that then it is your choice, you have the right as Vaidya has his right to hold his views.
    You are inverting Vaidya’s terms.
    You want to term “a way of life” in the words of the Supreme Court as the Hindu religion like other structured religions.Vaidya means it in a broader way.
    Fanaticism is not the monopoly of what you call “Hindu” religion. In fact fanaticism has come to India from foreign religions.And this is not a very old phenomenon in India.
    Monarchy is not the issue here, the issue is tolerance.Voices are being heard in UK and USA also which can be termed as intolerant of some non-Christian religions.
    Those like you who are critical of Vaidya choose to keep silent on many instances of intolerance happening in India and elsewhere. That is the real problem.

  • 14. Rakesh said:

    “Ignore this history and the history will not look back kindly upon us.”
    And still we ignore the biggest part of the History and learns from the selected one.

  • 15. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Kishan

    “Vaidya’s term for anyone who meets these three conditions is “Hindu”.”

    That’s a strange logic. Since you consider the US to be a Christian nation, could we extend your logic to say that anyone who believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a Christian?

    I never said that fanaticism is related to Hinduism. I said that the RSS isn’t related to Hinduism. They don’t espouse the values of tolerance and plurality and that alone discards them as the torch-bearers of Hinduism, if anyone could bear the torch of Hinduism in the first place.

  • 16. Kishan said:

    Ashish Deodhar
    The logic is being stretched by the likes of you. The word “Hindu” itself was not coined in India. Foreigners gave it to the people living in this subcontinent.
    Vaidya’s concept is more cultural than religious, perhaps what the inventor of the term “Hindu” meant.
    All your interpretations are borrowed from the discourse of foreigners who were and are no friends of India.

  • 17. Ashish Deodhar said:

    The word “Hindu” itself was not coined in India. Foreigners gave it to the people living in this subcontinent.

    All your interpretations are borrowed from the discourse of foreigners who were and are no friends of India.

    errrrrrrr???

    Beats me!

  • 18. Indian said:

    These news is for: Intolerant people teaching others how to be tolerant!

    http://deshgujarat.com/2011/01/29/a-group-of-violent-muslim-youths-kills-a-hindu-boy-in-public-in-vv-nagar/

    —A group of Muslim youths of Bakrol on Friday killed a Hindu school student in public in central Gujarat’s Vallabh Vidyanagar using baseball bats and pipes. The incident has created tension in this peaceful town known for its educational institutes—-.

  • 19. Kartik said:

    Hello Comrade Deodhar,

    >>3) Shared value system – what values? whose values? Hindu values of tolerance and plurality are in stark contrast with those of the proponents of “Hindu rashtra” who don’t even allow their non-Hindu counterparts a shared sentiment and history.

    This is bad logic. To prove Vaidya wrong, you either have to show that Hindus are intolerant or that Muslims, Christians etc also “appreciate plurality, tolerate differences of opinion, and value different modes of worship”. Ranting that your bete noire the RSS is not tolerant does not prove your point, because Vaidya did not claim that “Hindu” and “RSS” are one and the same.

    Warm regards.

  • 20. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Kartik

    I said: “Hindu values of tolerance and plurality are in stark contrast with those of the proponents of “Hindu rashtra””

    You said: “To prove Vaidya wrong, you either have to show that Hindus are intolerant…”

    Go figure.

    “Vaidya did not claim that “Hindu” and “RSS” are one and the same.”

    Great then. We don’t have anything to argue about :)

  • 21. Morris said:

    Sid

    I want to go back to your #9. But before I do that let me say that I agree with Deodhar.

    Now you said
    “Politics was never part of the Hinduism to begin with.”
    That is precisely what I meant. But then you proceed to justify why politics should now beocme a part of Hinduism. You said that it is necessary to remove the threat to Hinduism. What threat you are talking about? You have seen nothing compared to your ancestors endured 3,4, and 5 hundred years ago. That was a real threat. But they did not deviate from the path of inclusiveness and managed to survive. The war has been already won without getting into politics. What you are seeing now are skirmishes. A Hindu rashtra was never there and they never tried to establish one. They did not knowingly make christians, muslims and others feel that they are outsiders in spite of the atrocities they suffered. The threat that you are experiencing to day is nothing that good governance and administration of law and order could not remove.

    Long before the word secular was coined, Hindus had vision of such a society. Universal brotherhood is not new to hinduism. The fact that India has adopted a divisive secular system and is being administered for political advantage only is not the fault of the concept. So if the present rulers are making you feel insecure throw them out. But Hindus will not buy you concept of a Hindu nation. It is not in their blood. If it was, millions would have marched on for Ayodhya temple. And that would have politicised the issue. But Hindus are not interested in mixing religion and politics. Hindu rulers in the past practised their religion the way they liked but never insisted that that is THE way. Hindus respect multiplicity and diversity but not division. When you talk about a Hindu nation, it is not the same Hinduism. You are changing it. A universal religion, you are changing to paochial one.

  • 22. Prakash said:

    #21 Morris. Very well said. Someone else, looking at some other set of events every reader of this site is familiar with, essentially came to a similar conclusion and said something very similar. More about that later (could take weeks – perhaps in a new topic).

  • 23. Sid said:

    @Morris,
    You have seen nothing compared to your ancestors endured 3,4, and 5 hundred years ago. That was a real threat.
    I disagree with your threat assessment. The threat was always there. Today the nature of this threat was changed. Whatever was overt then is covert today. A person like Robert De Nobili could come, identify himself as a “Roman Brahmin”, forge a Sanskrit document to back his claim and win some converts five centuries earlier. What he started survived because of Hindu tolerance. Today it resulted into a gigantic corporation of soul harvesting. Today this corporation has grown so strong that they can force supreme court of India to change their statement and can hope to get away with any derogatory statement about Hindus in their own country.
    But they did not deviate from the path of inclusiveness and managed to survive.
    You said that it was their tolerance that helped them to survive. Show me some examples, will you? In places like Sindh, Balochistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan there thrived a civilization which was largely Buddhist. I would like you to analyze how the tolerance of these Buddhists helped their future generations to take the path of their Dharma. In places like Goa, the Hindu king tolerated Catholic priests and then received inquistition of 1560-1774 as a reward.
    On the contrary, the places where Hindus dominated Hindus survived and prospered (south and central India) because there stood powers like Vijaynagar and Marathas which could challenge Muslim attrocities.
    What you are seeing now are skirmishes.
    Skirmishes were there…always. In the pre-independence days, newspapers carried about “political” skirmishes between Congress and Muslim league. Everyone knew who worked for Congress and who worked for Muslim league. Then a Mopla happened along the way and preachers of tolerance failed to acknowledge it. Finally, those small skirmishes resulted into the riots of 1946. Are not skirmishes so insignificant? Today’s “small” “insignificant” skirmishes like Deganga and Bareily and Bhagalpur would result into tomorrow’s something whose scale will be similar to 1921 or 1946.
    The threat that you are experiencing to day is nothing that good governance and administration of law and order could not remove.
    Oh, please!! What world do you live in? Good governance? Which government provided it? If the secular government could meet those objectives we would not be talking about Hindutva movement at all.
    Universal brotherhood is not new to hinduism.
    Universal Brotherhood and Hinduism. New thoughts. Let us hear which upanishad talked about it. In fact, it is Hindu teaching that you do not have to divide the others into brothers and non-brothers to co-exist with the them.
    The fact that India has adopted a divisive secular system and is being administered for political advantage only is not the fault of the concept.
    I have asked this before and I am asking again. Show me a secular state that has more than 5% Muslim population and has not attempted appeasement. Secularism is a concept born out of a necessity of negotiation between two opposing christian sects, any idea that followers of other religions would follow them regardless of their religious orientation is a pipe dream and opening for appeasement.
    It is not in their blood. If it was, millions would have marched on for Ayodhya temple.
    Millions did. Perhaps you forgot nineties.
    When you talk about a Hindu nation, it is not the same Hinduism.
    I have no mood to change Hinduism. Hindu nation is quiet different from a religious sanctioned state. Your main confusion is that you think Hinduism is only a religion. It is much bigger than what can fit the description of a religion…even spirituality. Hinduism is also about a Hindu culture and the Hindu life style.
    The foundation of Hinduism is so strong that it could withstand eight hundred years of abuse and hatred. However, it is not a savings account with a blank chaque so that it can tolerate infinite abuse. The previous abuses saw it weakening…slowly but definitely. Some of the worst abuses like caste related abuses and heap of superstition arrived only when it got weakened. If more attacks continue, more weakness would follow. For the sake of survival of Hinduism, Hindus should learn to protect themselves.
    A single Hindu life is more important than half baked ideas of secularism or tolerance.

  • 24. seadog4227 said:

    Despite MGV’s clarity on the issue, it is amazing to note the bickering in the comments section: as in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the maximum opposition is by misguided Hindus.

  • 25. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Wow so many strands hanging loose here. Let’s see:

    1) ‘Hindu’ is a foreign concept.

    2) ‘Nation’ is a foreign concept (correct me if there has been a change of mind in the Hindutva scholarship)

    But ‘Hindu nation’ is acceptable. It is, infact, mandatory for the very existence of the Hindus! But of course, secularism is a foreign concept coined by the mere mortals in the west and hence is not suitable for our grand out-of-this-world civilisation!

    3) Hinduism is tolerant

    4) But “I would like you to analyze how the tolerance of these Buddhists helped their future generations to take the path of their Dharma.”

    Perhaps tolerance isn’t such a great virtue after all(at least the Hindutva brigade doesn’t consider it to be.) Wonder what’s is store for the “Hindu nation”

    5) People of the subcontinent are Hindus

    6) Those who share ‘sentiment, history and values’ are Hindus

    Hence all those who live in the subcontinent and share the sentiment, history and values are Hindus, irrespective of their panth (again, correct me if there’s any change of opinion in the Hindutva scholarship)

    But considering that there’s a “covert threat” (to Hindus/India), there must be millions of foreigners (from outside the subcontinent) who don’t share our sentiments, history and values. Who are they? Can we identify them? Name them? (with suitable evidence, of course) Or is this threat imaginary?

    Who are those millions who don’t live in the subcontinent, have happily accepted foreign nationalities or enjoy the benefits of green cards etc. and yet call themselves Hindus? Who are those who clearly don’t think much of values such as tolerance and inclusiveness and yet call themselves Hindus?

    Seadog, not sure what clarity you see but there’s nothing but confusion floating around. This ‘Hindu nation’ is as absurd and abstract as it could ever get. The only clarity perhaps, as Kartik has rightly acknowledged, is that ‘Hindu’ and ‘RSS’ aren’t one and the same (and the RSS chief’s ‘Hindu nation’ idea should be seen in that light.)

  • 26. Kishan said:

    Ashish Deodhar is a nice guy. So according to logic used by Ashish everyone else is a bad guy.
    As Alice said; “every word shall mean what I order it to mean, nothing else”.

  • 27. Kaffir said:

    Ashish “Randroid” Deodhar,

    Last time we’d discussed secularism, you’d provided some examples (including one of Shivaji, if I remember correctly) in support of your idea, which weren’t even applicable and you weren’t able to explain your reasoning.

    The point regarding secularism is not that it is a foreign concept, but that it is totally inapplicable to, and unnecessary in India, Indian society and Indian history, given that majority of population is, and has been Hindu. Before secularism was even thought of, Hindus in India were providing shelter to Zoroastrians (Parsis) who lived peacefully, freely practiced their religion and there was no conflict with others based on religion. Same with Jews who have been living in India without being persecuted and have been free to practice their religion. Unlike Europe, there is no evidence of conflict between church/religion and state in India – historical or recent – which would necessitate secularism as an intervention and to protect the rights of citizens. Additionally, there’s the dubious case of secularism being forcibly added to the Constitution by Indira Gandhi (Congress) during Emergency without any due debate. Consequent to that has been the perverted use of the concept of secularism to appease Muslims and to get sanction for anti-Hindu behavior – a point with which you couldn’t disagree, when we discussed this issue last time. Still, you keep bleating about secularism – applied in some kind of pure form which only exists in your mind. Perhaps you need to examine the reasons why you are so obsessed with secularism in such an irrational manner and what will it achieve in Indian society if it is applied in the manner you speak of. Unless, of course, your comments regarding secularism are nothing more than Hindu-baiting.

  • 28. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Ah so secularism-is-no-good-because-it’s-foreign is out the window now. Good. And why is it not applicable? Because it’s been practised in India since time immemorial? Wouldn’t that make it more applicable?

  • 29. Manish said:

    @Ashish Deodhar,

    Can you explain once again that how MG Vaidya’s comments above breeds intolerance please? I am asking because, I read, re-read and I could not see any shred of intolerance in them.

  • 30. Morris said:

    Sid Your #23

    You did not refute a single point I made and poured out your emotional outburst without any logic. So there is no need for me to respond. But here goes my brief comment.

    You disagreed with my assessment of threat. You gave no reason why and proceeded to tell me about that Roman Brahmin. Let me remind you of some specifics about which you must be very familiar. Ayodhya and hubdreds if not thousands of other temples were destroyed during this period. Millions of hindus perished just because they were hindus. Read the real history not the sanitized one written by these pseuo-seculars and then make a judemnet about the threat then and now. Look around the world now. Hindu temples are being built all over the world. Hindu gurus are criss crossing the world spreading hindu thoughts NOT hinduism. Yes indeed you are seeing skirmishes now compared to what your ancestors went through. Don’t take my words consult any historian. Your assessmnet is like that of a blind man’s assessment of an elephant. He grabs a tail and says that an elephant is somewhat like a rope. He misses the grace, beauty and strength of this magnificent animal.

    Millions did not march for Ayodhya and certainly not enough were convinced to vote for the party that supported this cause. Keep dreaming some day they may.

    You want me to tell you which upanishad talks about Universal brotherhood. I must admit I am no expert on Hinduism. Let me ask you to tell me which upanishad talks about hinduism, let alone its relation to other religions that could imply separation among mankind based on religion. Now that you raised the subject, hinduism is not even a religion in the conventional sense. That is why almost all these gurus going around the world, have a little or no interest in converting others to hinduism. They are simply interested in teaching hindu thoughts and showing a path they think will give you divine experience.

  • 31. Kaffir said:

    “Ah so secularism-is-no-good-because-it’s-foreign is out the window now.”

    I never claimed my opposition to secularism on foreign grounds.

    “Good. And why is it not applicable? Because it’s been practised in India since time immemorial?”

    “Secularism is not needed” is not the same as “it’s been practiced in India since time immemorial.” You still haven’t explained why secularism is good for India. Going by your logic, it’s good in India because it is applied in the west – which is about as nonsensical/irrational as one can get.

    “Wouldn’t that make it more applicable?”

    As for application, the proof is in front of you – the perverse application of secularism in India since Emergency by appeasing minorities. I need not mention the events again – you are well-aware of them.

  • 32. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Kaffir

    “I never claimed my opposition to secularism on foreign grounds.”

    Okay. Will keep that in mind for future reference :)

    ““Secularism is not needed” is not the same as “it’s been practiced in India since time immemorial.””

    Eh? Then what is same as what?

    “You still haven’t explained why secularism is good for India.”

    Considering that you are a regular visitor to my blog, trust you read my opinion on this subject. If not, here it is for your reference. – http://www.indianliberals.org/2010/09/in-defence-of-secularism/
    I have also made the same case here on this blog. http://satyameva-jayate.org/2010/12/16/pro-hindu-anti-muslim/

    “the perverse application of secularism in India since Emergency by appeasing minorities”

    On this point I agree with you. We’ve been through this discussion earlier, which could be found on the two links above.

    But let’s not divert this discussion to secularism. This is about “Hindu nation”.

  • 33. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Manish, I don’t blame you. I couldn’t see it for the first 16-odd years of my life. Follow my comments on this thread and you will see why it is intolerant. But if you don’t see it, you probably never will.

  • 34. Sid said:

    @Morris (#30),
    So there is no need for me to respond. But here goes my brief comment.
    Wonderful. At one point you are arguing that I can not argue. Fair enough, it is your view point. Then you go and try to refute my “emotional outbursts”. Now, that is a real secular self-contradiction. The “Ashish Deodhar” field effect is getting apparent.

    You disagreed with my assessment of threat. You gave no reason why ...
    I already did with multiple examples if you can read.
    Ayodhya and hubdreds if not thousands of other temples were destroyed ... Millions of hindus perished just because they were hindus. .. not the sanitized one written by these pseuo-seculars ... Hindu temples are being built all over the world. Hindu gurus are criss crossing the world spreading hindu thoughts NOT hinduism.
    Oh spare me the thought of how great Hinduism Hindu thought is doing!! I have zero respect for self-styled global Hindu gurus. They only matter to themselves and their western devotees, brown Hindus are a liability to them.
    Please do not read History, look out of the window for some time; sense of past is incomplete without knowing what the present looks like. Look at the border areas of India with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Situation has not changed much. In the villages of the border areas there are good number of cases where temples were desecrated, idols were drenched with urine, Hindus where told not to perform puja or suffer dire consequences, Hindu shops are looted and burnt down (from the very village I came from), minor Hindu girls were kidnapped and high court of secular state declare their forced conversion and marriage as legal. Few months back, I was involved in an effort to document these attrocities for a human rights group. After speaking with the victims over the phone during the weekend and looking at the photos of destroyed temples and Hindu property, I lost sleep for few days. Please do not tell me how good we are doing in secular India, I feel nausea.
    Most educated and well-to-do Hindus were always a traitor to their community and their uneducated less-privileged coreligionists. They were that way when Turks ruled and then Mughals ruled. They did not change during British rule and now they are the main carriers of secular flag. What happens to the uneducated villagers of a border area village who where threatened by illegal foreigners seeking 72 huris in after life? Well, they would serve as wonderful sacrifices at the altar of secularism. After all, high priests and priestess of secular liberalism need sacrifice and as long as it comes from the people they do not care about it is good, I am sure.
    Millions did not march for Ayodhya ...
    So if that support was so minuscule, why are the seculars so worried? The mis-information spread by your clan is the actual measure of the success of the Hindutva movement. Keep it up and our rank would grow faster.
    Keep dreaming some day they may.
    Since that is a nightmare seculars often have and love to talk about it, I would leave that to their area of expertise. I would rather use my spare money and time to work towards it.
    Now that you raised the subject, hinduism is not even a religion in the conventional sense.
    Please do read what I wrote in the last post. If you read it then you would not write this.

  • 35. Manish said:

    @Ashish Deodhar,

    I asked you a simple question but you evaded that by asking me to read your comments on this post. Considering the way you have been lecturing everyone, I expected you to take little pain to educate me.

    I did read your comments. Your first comment was to correlate Vaidya’s comments with Hitler’s comment, and that is anything but juvenile. I still do not see any relationship in contents of those two comments.

    Rest of your comments are demonizing RSS (and splitting hair based on comments from others). So, you are not attacking the content of Vaidya’s comments but attacking him because he belonged to RSS? Based on my rudimentary knowledge, this is classic ad-hominem attack.

  • 36. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Manish

    I didn’t intend to evade your questions. I simply didn’t see a point in regurgitating what I have already said.

    I see Vaidya’s idea of a ‘Hindu nation’ as intolerant because he claims that ONLY HINDUS fulfil the three conditions that HE HAS SET for a nation! I don’t see how that’s tolerant. I asked that question but nobody ventured into answering it. You may if you please.

    Do you think that only Hindus have a sentiment for India, that only Hindus share India’s history and that only Hindus are happy to co-exist with each other? Then that’s not only intolerant but is also a blatant lie!

    Conversely, if you say that if you love India, share its history and are tolerant of your co-citizens, then you ARE a Hindu, then you are imposing a label on me which I don’t accept. Why must a person be Hindu to be an Indian? Is such an expectation not intolerance?

  • 37. Sid said:

    @Manish,
    To know more about liberal AD’s pet theory, consult comment #137 at this thread:
    http://satyameva-jayate.org/2009/06/05/rss-debate

  • 38. ACH said:

    No. 36, Ashish – “if you say that if you love India, share its history and are tolerant of your co-citizens, then you ARE a Hindu, then you are imposing a label on me which I don’t accept.
    Why must a person be Hindu to be an Indian?”

    Label has been there for centuries. Hindu and Indian are from same word.

  • 39. Akhand Bhaarat said:

    पल में तोला पल में माशा !
    यह देवधर साहब बार-बार क्यो कुद पडते है? इन्होने तो आप के ब्लोग से सन्यास लिया था?
    कम अकल हो तो उसकी नुमाईश नहीं करनी चाहिये |

  • 40. Ashish Deodhar said:

    akhand bharat ji

    sanyas nahi liya tha. baas maine bevakufon se baat karna chood diya hai.

    waise, agar aap mein akal hai toh aap mere sawalon ka jawaab de.

  • 41. Akhand Bhaarat said:

    अगर बात करना छोड़ दिया था तो फिर से क्यों शुरुआत की? ऐसी क्या आफत आन पड़ी जो फिर से बात करने लग गए?
    किसी विद्वान ने ठीक ही कहा है, चोर चोरी से जाए पर हेरा-फेरी से न जाए !

  • 42. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Ab bhi baat nahi kar raha hu unse. Aapse baat kar raha hu kyon ki aapko mein bevakuf nahi samazta… abhi tak.

    Lekin chaliye. kichad nahi uchalte hai ek dusre paar. Maine kuch sawal puche hai. aap uske jawab de. agar aapke paas jawab nahi hai toh jinse poocha hai unhe dene de.

  • 43. Indian said:

    @sid

    I liked your last comment on after life theory. Have you heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali? She explained very well on one of the TV show and the questions she replied to in the end. I will post it here only because it has something to do on similar lines and also how their ideology is threat to any Nation, not only India. It gives the clear picture of why only Hindus can have the sentiments for India as the Nation.

    http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?608192830001

    I hope my link don’t get deleted by moderator.

  • 44. Morris said:

    Sid

    I like this one
    You said
    “Oh spare me the thought of how great Hinduism Hindu thought is doing!! I have zero respect for self-styled global Hindu gurus.”
    I guess you are the spokeperson on Hinduism and Hindu thought and you and your kind deserve all the respect.

    “Please do not read History, look out of the window for some time; sense of past is incomplete without knowing what the present looks like.”
    Yes I agree. But your present is incomplete if you see it wearing blinkers. And that is what you are doing.

    “Please do not tell me how good we are doing in secular India, I feel nausea.”
    I did not tell you that you are doing good in secular India. That is your interpretation. Criminal activities have nothing to do with what kind of system it is, secular or religious. If the government is lousy that is not the fault of the secular system.

    You said
    “In the villages of the border areas there are good number of cases where temples were desecrated, idols were drenched with urine, Hindus where told not to perform puja or suffer dire consequences, Hindu shops are looted and burnt down (from the very village I came from), minor Hindu girls were kidnapped and high court of secular state declare their forced conversion and marriage as legal.”

    These are all criminal activities and I will say it again that good administration of law and order can easily stop them. But any way what is your point? Are you suggesting that this proves that the threat to hinduism now is greater than that suffered by Hindus in the past when millions died, thousnds of temples including the Ayodhya one were destroyed and perhaps millions were forced to change their religion against their wish? If that is your logic, then you are welcome to consider that threat to hinduism now is greater than in the past. And that is your justification for creating the Hindu nation. Makes sense.

    “Most educated and well-to-do Hindus were always a traitor to their community and their uneducated less-privileged coreligionists.”

    Well, well, well. They are traitors because “I Sid” said so. An excellent point. Give you A+ for this.

    No further comment from me. You win.

  • 45. Sid said:

    @Morris,
    1) I guess you are the spokeperson on Hinduism and Hindu thought and you and your kind deserve all the respect.
    2) Well, well, well. They are traitors because “I Sid” said so. An excellent point. Give you A+ for this.
    What relevance do these comments have with this discussion? Or are they your juvenile attempts at sarcasm? If latter is correct, then here is a suggestion: do not attempt it until you master it otherwise it fails to bring in intended results.

    Are you suggesting that this proves that the threat to hinduism now is greater than that suffered by Hindus in the past when millions died, thousnds of temples including the Ayodhya one were destroyed and perhaps millions were forced to change their religion against their wish?
    No…I am trying to say that just because threat level is no longer there in the administrative level, it has not gone down or it has disappeared. The temple destruction or forced conversion on massive scale did not happen on everyday but small atrocities like kidnapping women or killing because a Hindu dared to ride a horse was part of daily life under Muslim mis-rule. That situation has not changed in certain parts of this country. There were times when atrocities happened on massive scale: like Akbar ordering the death of more than 30000 men after fall of Chittor in a single day. Those atrocities are no longer there but such casualties are attempted with the events like Godhra train burning every now and then. If Hindus stop their mobilization then the scale of these incidents would move up rapidly. A Hindu nation would at least guarantee that such action would not go unpunished. Amid the hyperbole against Modi, your secular nation failed to bring justice to those who suffered because of Godhra train burning.
    No further comment from me.
    You have not yet answered how secularism is great if every implementation of it in every nation with considerable Muslim population resulted in appeasement. I am seriously interested to understand the answer. You also need to justify that if "the government is lousy that is not the fault of the secular system."
    I am also interested to know about your prescription for this secular nation so that atrocities that I talked about in my previous post can be prevented. If you actually know those answers do tell us or else stop singing the secular song, it makes no sense.
    You win.
    I am not sure if I started a debate to win anything. What did I win, Morris? Was there any money at stake?

  • 46. Morris said:

    Sid

    It appeared to me that your mind is made up and there is no point in us coninuing the discussion. I am sorry for the sarcasm. You want to have some serious dicusion on the issue I am willing to stay on and see where we go. I like to think that I am open minded and am willing to understand your views.

    Moraly I have difficulty accepting more than one category of citizens. How good you are as a human being should not judged by how you treat yourself and your kind but should be judged by how you treat others. To me they need to be all considered equal regardless of their gender, race, religion etc, and whether they belong to majority riligion or minority religion. Nothing to do with western thinking, just common sense. Therefore I have always always opposed the concept of these Islamic republics. In almost all Islamic countries minorities are second class citizens. So I cannot justify creation of a Hindu nation any more than a Muslim nation.

    Secularism is not a panacea to begin with. And to make the things worse India has accepted this perverted concept of giving separate civil codes for each religion. This is not found in the western world. But they too are gradaully moving towards accepting the muslim sharia. So you are right about the temtation to nurture the vote bank in almost all countries. But then no one said that democracy is perfect. But a religiously based nation is less perfect, in my mind. You will have to continue to fine tune the system until you reach some accptable level of imperfection.

    In India separate codes should be removed right away. There should be no discussion about that. But I realize that it is unlikely to happen. They must make people feel they are equal and not unequal. That is quite the opposite of what should be done. And India has a lot of other wrong. How in the world they jutfy subsidising for Huj trips. That is beyond me. They need a lot of political will to get rid of this kind of secularism.

    But the answer is not to go to a Hindu nation. I feel, and I could be wrong, that hindus are not that excited about a hindu nation. If they were they would have embraced it after so many years of independence. They do not march into political rally singing Raghupati Raghav. And when they do they are a small minority. I think Hindus by nature are secular because their religion teaches them all paths will take you there. They have respect for all paths in their blood. Unfortunately at present there is only one national party that calls itself secular however convulated their secularism is. The other national party BJP has been branded communal. And if I am correct in my thinking that hindus by nature are secular, then who are they going to vote for? The media and educated elite whehter you like them or not are not going to support the communal party. And that is a big hurdle. If BJPs were politically smart, they would fight election on the platform of a new and improved secularism. But that would require a change in their core thinking and is unlikely to happen. But I just don’t think communal concept makes sense any more, that is if it ever did. Now Hindus are all over the world and I am sure they do not like to live in christian or muslim nations. If that is so, then I just can’t see how India can subject others to live in a hindu nation.

    As far as the vote banks are concerned, I do not see any easy answer. One possible answer to this is to remove the religion from the equation altogether. That is going exactly in the opposite direction to what you are suggesting. For example in the UK and the west you have religious freedom. And practice of your religion requires you to wear burtha. At present in the name of religious freedom you are free to do that even in places where it is not allowed. Perhaps the answer is that no religion should be allowed to trump costitution and the law of the land. Religious places should be treated like private enterprises no tax exemption and no charitable status. Religion should be considered as private matter. That may help removing vote bank problem.

    Vote banks are not necessarily due to religious minorities only. In India they could be due to caste system as well. So by creating a Hindu nation you will not get rid of vote banks unless you are thinking of some other kind of democracy.

    I am not totally unaware of what is happening to hindus in India. But I cannot bring myself to think that what you are suggesting is a) morally acceptable and b) will solve all your problem. It may creat a number of other problems.

  • 47. AAryan said:

    My answer to the person who asked about the “Hindu Nation” and why it is important for India. Assume –
    A = Those who are ready to die for the nation, share same values and history,
    B = Hindus,
    C = Not Hindus
    Sh. M.G.Vaidya is claiming that B&C is a subset A; Majority is of B thus they have a right to form B-Nation.

    Now my question:
    - In India was there any Mosque or Church got demolished to Build Temple?
    - In India was anybody converted forcefully to Hindu?
    - Did ever India sent Hindu missionries abroad to boast about their religiousity?
    If anybody has answer then please let me know.

    A little story:
    In a society there lived people from all community and had harmony, Hindus (60%) and Muslims (25%) and rest other. Mr.”A” was a Hindu but his neighbor “C” was a Muslim. Once there were riots and A’s house was ransacked by 2 Muslims. Mr. “A” went to Police station to complain but as usual Police said we are busy will see later. Days passed and during that time C’s brother D was in a search of a house. “C” thought it would be nice if D can live close to him. He sends 2 goons to ransack “A”s house, to scare “A” and compell to sell his house at cheap price. As an educated man “A” makes no hue and cry and lodge coplaint with Police. Days passed by nothing happened. AFter 3 months goons came again to ransack “A”s house. This time the son of “A” who was just 15yr old, tried to fight back, but got hurt. Seeing this “A” got angry, picked up the rod lying by and beat the shit out of them. Listening to this commotion perople gathered around the house. The goons ran away with blood oozing from their head. People saw this and got scared without understanding the real issue. Strange thing happened. People started behaving differently to “A”. Some people started avoiding “A”. Others stated paying respect with fear. Mr. “A” tried to explain the real issue but nobody cared. They just believe what they saw, a horryfying act of “A”.
    Q: What has gone wrong?

    ||NamO Bhaartam, NamO Sanskritam||

  • 48. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Morris

    “If BJPs were politically smart, they would fight election on the platform of a new and improved secularism. But that would require a change in their core thinking and is unlikely to happen.”

    You are bang on with this. You see, the BJP is wedded to this idea of Hindu nation and from my association with RSS many moons ago, I can tell you that it is based on xenophobia and extreme hatred of anyone who’s not Hindu (especially Muslims and Christians).

    Because the mastermind behind this ‘Hindu nation’ idea, V. D. Savarkar, posited that India is for those who consider it their fatherland and holyland. Hence, all non-Hindus are not Indians. Now this theory lost acceptance in the wider Indian public before Savarkar could say ‘oops’. Vaidya’s (and by extension BJP’s) idea of Hindu nation is just an attempt to sugarcoat Savarkar’s theory of Hindu nation. But the requirement of this ‘Hindu nation’ – xenophobia and hatred – is still fundamental to them and that’s why they can’t change.

    Aaryan

    “Sh. M.G.Vaidya is claiming that B&C is a subset A; Majority is of B thus they have a right to form B-Nation.”

    That’s what I don’t accept. And even then, Mr. Vaidya’s contention is not as simplistic as your interpretation. And even if we take your interpretation to be true, how do your following questions logically justify that interpretation?

    As for your questions:

    As Morris rightly put it, there’s nothing in them that good governance and law & order can’t address. Besides, I am not confident that a ‘Hindu nation’ will not demolish mosques and churches to build Hindu temples. They’ve already done it with the Babri mosque after all.

  • 49. Indian said:

    @Morris

    Are you alright when you said: It’s law and order problem. and its just a criminal activities.??? So there is law and order problem in US, UK, Netherlands, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Germany, Israel, Russia ..and many more countries and cannot tame these Islamists.. that is all you want to say? and before you make any statement first go in deep in to the wounds of those who have suffered by these criminal activities.

    I posted one link in one of my above comment when one Hindu boy is killed recently by group of muslims. And also try to investigate what steps has been taken. Law and order fears these Islamists. And if it is Gujarat than extra hurdles.

    Before Hindus were blamed.. now what? isn’t it most of the religions are against there ideology? Once they gain majority they will apply their ideology. They have successful ruling in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan …many..why they want their share where ever they go without giving others their share?

  • 50. Indian said:

    Many here are assuming who post against are RSS or VHP supporters. Watch Ayaan Hirsi Ail video. She and many commentators here don’t belong to RSS. Her friend was put to death for speaking against women suppression. See the case of Salman Taseer of Pakistan. The killer is is martyr now. Action speaks louder than words!

  • 51. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali in that video makes a strong case for western liberalism based on Christianity. Perhaps we should take her advice and adopt that too?

  • 52. Indian said:

    May be because she has no knowledge of Hinduism, and that is the reason she never made case in many of her speech.

  • 53. Ashish Deodhar said:

    LOL

  • 54. Morris said:

    Indian

    Don’t try to bring Pakistan and Afghanistan here, because they are Islamic republics and for them religion and politics are together. For the rest, you are right. It is more than law and order. But not a single country you mentioned is trying to solve it by establishing state based on a religion. They are continuing to work with the existing system. I think the solution is not to create religously based state. In fact it is to go in exactly the opposite direction.

    I recognize Islam is somewhat unique and present a challage to the rest of those who are not muslims. All throughout the world they seem to be difficult minority. And once they are majority they have no respect for minorities. I think their scripture ie Kuran is clear about distinction between believers and non-believers, the latter being inferior. But for rest of the world to react to that by doing what they do, would be counter productive.

  • 55. Indian said:

    @Morris

    Really? Don’t you think their existing system already has established Christianity as the main religion. Did you miss the news Barrack Obama again and again has to prove that he is Christian before coming to the power? Ask them to throw away Christianity and congregation on Christmas at Vatican and bring everything on same platform. They may not be vocal or explicit about it but strongly follow their rule as per Christian bases. On higher level pope is the head and always consulted and on smaller level churches are the vehicles. Many reforms good or bad were initiated from small local churches. I don’t have any problem with that! Why do some Islamic miscreant has problem with that? Hindu and Muslim is the old story. Its now on larger scale!

    You are missing point here its not about reacting its about understanding the facts and taking actions. And every country after 9/11 is aware and understands these facts. They made stringent laws but still cannot tame these menace. Americans are more afraid now than Indians were.

  • 56. Manish said:

    @Ashish Deodhar,

    Do you think that only Hindus have a sentiment for India, that only Hindus share India’s history and that only Hindus are happy to co-exist with each other? Then that’s not only intolerant but is also a blatant lie!

    No, I do not think that “only Hindus” have sentiment for India. I also do not think that “only Hindus’ share India’s history. At the same time I want to point out that Vaidya’s comments also does not use the word “only Hindus”. As a matter of fact he goes on to say that “We adopted a value system that appreciates plurality, tolerates differences of opinion, and values different modes of worship.” So, where is the question of intolerance here?

    Having said that I do agree partially with your converse argument. So, best you can blame Vaidya is for use of label “Hindu”, which you do not agree with. And, as a result of this you go on and call him intolerant. Is it normal for you to label people “intolerant” and “Nazis” with whom you do not agree with?

  • 57. Indian said:

    LOL….

  • 58. AAryan said:

    @ AD
    The Fact: Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of the temple. Hindus wanted to reclaim the original temple.
    Secondly according to Mr.M.G.Vaidya – “Hinduism” will remain secured and protected under “Hindu Nation” and all the Hindus need to have a right to protect their religion. Bhaarat is built by Hindus and thus need to reclaim that.

    ||NamO Bhaartam, NamO Sankritam||

  • 59. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Manish

    “Who are the people who fulfill these three conditions? They are Hindus; therefore, this is a Hindu nation.”

    Ah. He didn’t say ‘only’. Sure, that makes him accommodating pluralist! You and I both know who you are fooling.

    So you do agree partially (??) with (my?) converse argument? – that if you have sentiment for India, if you share India’s history and that if you are tolerant then you are a Hindu? So if all these three conditions apply to a Muslim, a Christian or an atheist, s/he is a Hindu? Aise he? Jabardasti?

    And that’s not intolerance for some reason!

  • 60. Ashish Deodhar said:

    Aaryan

    “Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of the temple. Hindus wanted to reclaim the original temple.”

    I knew instinctively that you would say that! And I am absolutely certain that that would be the idea of justice in a ‘Hindu India’.

    So if demolishing Babri mosque is “reclaiming” the original temple, why wouldn’t you also convert muslims to Hinduism in this ‘Hindu India’ to “reclaim” all those Hindus who the Muslim rulers converted to Islam?

  • 61. Ashish Deodhar said:

    You guys have proved beyond doubt what this “Hindu India” really is. Thanks for making all my points for me.

    I will leave the rest to the good judgement of the unbiased readers of this blog. I rest my case.

  • 62. Indian said:

    @Aaryan

    What is the idea of Justice in a Hindu India? others too want to know this?

    Because I know reclaiming India is different to different people. Some will twist it to make it look like a monster. Same as Islamophobia people do suffer from Hinduphobia? What if tomorrow Hindu will rule us and need to convert?

    At least not like Islamic countries Right? As far as I know Hindus have co-existed peacefully with everyone.

  • 63. Manish said:

    @Ashish Deodhar,

    I am sorry, I still do not see where is “only” in between the word (literally or in any other way). If you have made up your mind that what Vaidya mean is “only” and nothing else then suit yourself. But please do not expect everyone else to be as delusional as you are about his comments.

    Also, this country is a free country. What this means is that people have right to hold their opinion as far as they do not impose it forcibly on others. I do not see any line in Vaidya’s comment where he is imposing his belief on others. I agree that, you may disagree with him but how can you call him “intolerant” and “Nazi” is really beyond me.

    Calling someone “intolerant” and “Nazi” just because of disagreement at the drop of the hat, is this what the liberal discourse in out country has been reduce to?

  • 64. Sid said:

    Morris (#46),
    How good you are as a human being should not judged by how you treat yourself and your kind but should be judged by how you treat others. To me they need to be all considered equal regardless of their gender, race, religion etc, and whether they belong to majority riligion or minority religion.
    Please note how you fell into a trap that you advise others to avoid. You asked me to to judge everyone equal and hen you determine that there is a “kind” which is similar to me. Apart from this contradiction, would you mind showing me which Hindu king treated his non Hindu subjects differently. Forget what happened before 1000 CE, show me a single princely state ruled by Hindu where a non Hindu was treated shabbily or mosques/churches were broken to make way for temples. On the contrary, I can give example of Muslim rulers treating Hindus badly or British officers ordering the destruction of temples.
    Therefore I have always always opposed the concept of these Islamic republics. In almost all Islamic countries minorities are second class citizens. So I cannot justify creation of a Hindu nation any more than a Muslim nation.
    I always found this thinking funny. If all Arabs think that they want Islamic republic and Sharih law then they are not supposed to get it because liberal blowhards (I am generalizing here) think that they should not. Same case exists for Swiss minaret ban or French burkha ban. But I digress.

    Secularism is not a panacea to begin with.
    Wow, that is a refreshing honesty coming from a secular. Most secular pujaris I know are not prepared to show that much improvement.
    This is not found in the western world. But they too are gradaully moving towards accepting the muslim sharia. So you are right about the temtation to nurture the vote bank in almost all countries.
    So, would not you agree that theories of secularism and mutliculturalism has failed to mix together. When you demand that church and state has to be separate then it is all great. But when you demand everyone has right to practise their religion, you avoid a question about how far are you going to allow everyone to practise their religion. Are you going to allow followers of religion X to go full hog even when followers of X would not accept a democratically elected ruler from religion Y as their leader? If not, then why not? By enforcing that restriction are you not enforcing your particular view of religion of X? When you say "Religion should be considered as private matter", can you enforce that by secular ideolgoy? The entire idea of “religion as private matter” arise from protestantism, unless that template is accepted, it falls falt. Those muslims who rallied around streets of London by saying that democracy is evil and they wanted Shariah were correct from their viewpoint. If seculars told them that they are free to practise their religion, then their expectation of shariah rule has stemmed fom that same secular promise. How would you deny it now?
    But a religiously based nation is less perfect, in my mind.
    Yes, religiously based state is bad, real bad. Who wants them? Hindu rashtra is only a religiously sanctioned state if Hinduism is a religion. It is certainly not a rashtra where parliament is supposed to start with a siv-bandana. The man who first talked about it was an athiest but rabidly nationalist. Do read what it is about and then talk about it.
    You will have to continue to fine tune the system until you reach some accptable level of imperfection.
    Accepted by whom Morris? Everybody? There is no such system. Majority? If you agree to that then what is wrong with Hindu Rashtra since Hindus are still majority here?

    In India separate codes should be removed right away. There should be no discussion about that.
    LOL….this is what SP Mukherjee tried to talk about. Poor guy!! He is not even mentioned in the very land that he prevented from being part of Pakistan. Then this is what BJP tried to talk about. It turned out that they are sooooo communal. Such untouchables!!!
    But I realize that it is unlikely to happen. ... jutfy subsidising for Huj trips... They need a lot of political will to get rid of this kind of secularism.
    Let us see the state of “tolerant” Hindus if by some miracle that “political will” would not arrive within scheduled time i.e. let us say a century. What answer do you have for tolerating Hindus who can not hold a puja because followers of Allah would not approve or the devotee of bajrangbali who can not place an idol of Bajrangbali in his own lawn because he happened to live opposite to a mosque? Would you ask for them to wait more for their secular saviour? Since that savior is already 800 years late, they can afford to wait another millenia? When I said that educated secular Hindus have sacrificed their less privileged coreligionists at the altar of secularism, I meant exactly this suggestion of waiting for the arrival of political will.
    But the answer is not to go to a Hindu nation. I feel, and I could be wrong, that hindus are not that excited about a hindu nation.
    If they actually know what it is, they can make a decision. But in an independent free society of ours, it is a blasphemy to discuss the ideas that were branded as Ohh-sooo-communal!!! If secularism is so weak that merely discussing few communal ideas would jeoperdize it then people should question whether the idea is robust enough to solve India’s problems.
    They do not march into political rally singing Raghupati Raghav.
    That is hardly the thing any knowledgable person means by Hindurastra or Hindutva.
    I think Hindus by nature are secular because their religion teaches them all paths will take you there. They have respect for all paths in their blood.
    As much great as this tolerance is, you have not yet shown how this attitude forced a Muslim nawab or European governor to stop their atrocities.
    Unfortunately at present there is only one national party that calls itself ... other national party BJP has been branded communal ... hindus by nature are secular, then who are they going to vote for? ... If BJPs were politically smart, they would fight election on the platform of a new and improved secularism.
    I agree to much of it. I find myself unwilling to shed any tears for BJP (they had their chance under the sun and blew it big time) or the festish for a new and improved secularism. Let us hear about that supposed improvement which would not turn itself into appeasement.
    Now Hindus are all over the world and I am sure they do not like to live in christian or muslim nations. If that is so, then I just can’t see how India can subject others to live in a hindu nation.
    1. Like it or not the secular/tolerant nation like Italy does not want Durgapuja to be held in Rome. Like it or not, a person named Sonal Shah had to resign from Obama’s transition team because she was once a member of VHP. Like it or not, a secular/tolerant west can not tolerate the mere existence of Roma people who carries the legacy of their Hindu-Buddhist Indian ancestors. Like it or not, a tolerant Christian west could not bring themselves to talk about the destruction of religious sites of native Americans in the name of tourism development. If this is tolerance of a secular west, please count me out.
    2. A hindu nation is not same as rule of pope or Caliphate. Please educate yourself on this. You are assuming Hindu rashtra as something that it is not.

    That may help removing vote bank problem.
    I am least concerned with minority vote bank. If Hindus can be united, no vote bank or vote vault would matter. Modi showed this in Gujrat. But then caste problem is very low in Gujrat. Nitish Kumar is actually solving the problem of Muslim vote bank by introducing reservation much the same way VP Singh divided BJP’s support base by introducing reservation.
    But I cannot bring myself to think that what you are suggesting is a) morally acceptable and b) will solve all your problem. It may creat a number of other problems.
    Morality is subjective, what was morality of previous generation is backdated today, what we think correct today would be a luggage tomorrow. Merely establishing Hindu rastra would not solve all problems, it would be like secular state today. I want to work for uniting Hindus so that the atrocities can be prevented. If that can be achieved in my life time, I would like to leave it to the fellow Hindus on whether they want an explicit Hindu Rashtra in the Savarkerait sense or not. But till then nothing in the name of political correctness or secularism or morality should make a Hindu apologist for atrocities on a fellow Hindu.vvv

  • 65. Sid said:

    @Manish (#63),
    Calling someone “intolerant” and “Nazi” just because of disagreement at the drop of the hat, is this what the liberal discourse in out country has been reduce to?
    You do not know it yet? Liberals have not adjusted to the idea that world is colorful, everything to them is either white or black… my way or high way.

  • 66. AAryan said:

    @ Everyone:
    It seems that the discussion came to an agreement that India should be a “Hindu Nation” where every individual irrespective of their faith and belief can raise his family securely without fear and practice liberalism “Liberty to live and die with respect”.

    I guarantee that people will be more safe and secure in purely Hindu Nation and can practice multiculturalism with dignity.

    ||NamO Bhaartam, NamO Sanskritam||

  • 67. Morris said:

    Indian #55

    “Did you miss the news Barrack Obama again and again has to prove that he is Christian before coming to the power?”

    I am fully aware of that. That does not make the US a christian country. If Sonya Gandhi became PM and if she had to keep saying that she is a Hindu, that will not make India a hindu country. It is what is enshrined in your constitution and laws that count. If what is happening in all these chritian countries is what you are after then by all means go ahead with your concept of a hindu nation. No one is stopping you. And in that sense India is a hindu country any way. That is a matter of feeling. But when it comes to the law of the land their feeling does not count. For example they do not like a mosque being built on 9/11 site. But there is nothing they could do about it. The mosque is going to be built. A lot of them don’t even like Obama to be president becuase of his color and uncertainty about his religion. And let me just add that if it is proven that he is indeed a muslim, they still will not be able to do any thing about it. So don’t mix up the basic laws of governance with what people feel.

    Sid

    “Apart from this contradiction, would you mind showing me which Hindu king treated his non Hindu subjects differently.”

    Perhaps the answer is none. They treated all sujects equally. But you know why? Because they were secular at heart not knowing about it. Hindus have natural secular instinct as they have been brought with teaching of respect for all religions. It is the communal feeling that is not natural to them and they need to learn about it by reacting to events around them. It is important to note that none of those kings estabished a hindu kingdom. The concept of a Hindu nation in India is a 20th century invention.

    Evoltion is the key. Not just evolution in biological sense but also in the concept of how we relate with each other. Societal changes will remain difficult unless we minimize the impact of religions. Religions have done a lot of harm in the past and continue to do so to this day. Sure they have done some good as well. But I think those who want to relive the past will fail and suffer. Hindu rishes were smart. They said satyamevjayate, but they did not define the satya. Satya is an on going search. What appeared satya yesterday may not be satya today. So hindus are fortunate that they are free to search for the truth compared to some others who are told that truth has been found 14 or perhaps 20 centuries ago.

  • 68. Sid said:

    @Morris (#67),
    The concept of a Hindu nation in India is a 20th century invention.
    Agreed, but like every invention, there was a need for it. If your secularism (or the secularism of the Hindu kings or princes or more educated or better privileged Hindus) managed to deliver the security for the Hindus this invention would not have been required. In other words, demand for a Hindu nation is the consequence of secular Karma; the more failure you display stronger would be the demand. Three years ago I would have put faith in your goody goody secularism but I have seen enough to know that it would not cut it.

    But this did not irritate me. Following did:
    Hindu rishes were smart. They said satyamevjayate, but they did not define the satya. Satya is an on going search. What appeared satya yesterday may not be satya today.
    Decency indicates that do not get into things you have no understanding of. The philosophical meaning of the word ‘Satya’ is “unchangeable”, “that which has no distortion”, “that which is beyond distinctions of time, space, and person”, “that which pervades the universe in all its constancy”.
    Is decency too much to ask?

  • 69. AAryan said:

    Well said Sid.
    When Alexander was not able to understand “Satya” how can you expect it from others. “Satya” can be understood only who have mastered Vedas or has high common sense.

    ||NamO Bhaartam, NamO Sanskritam||

  • 70. Morris said:

    Sid

    Now enlighten me and go ahead and explain what Satymevjayate means using the meaning of Satya as you have defined.

  • 71. Sid said:

    @Morris (#70),

    Now enlighten me and go ahead and explain what Satymevjayate means using the meaning of Satya as you have defined.

    First, I have not defined it, that is how Adi Shankara defined it in a commentary of a Upanishad and I have no reason to doubt his expertise.
    Second, I would not explain the meaning here because it is out of the scope of this discussion and the “smart rishis” did a far better job in explaining it. So refer to item 6 in this page (mantra 3.1.6 in Mundaka Upanishad).
    I am, however, stunned at your audacity. You did not show any decency to answer any of the questions I raised for you yet you come up with a question that has no relationship with this discussion and expect me to answer it. May be it was my mistake that I thought that you have better capacity in debating than any other member of your secular brotherhood.

  • 72. Morris said:

    Sid

    I am not a philosopher and I have not read Shankaracharya. I admitted earlier that I am no expert on Hinduism. In fact I have just a sketchy idea of what Hinduism is all about. I interpreted meaning of Satya based on the context within which it is used and a bit of commonsense. You interpreted my use of the word Satya totally out of the context. Not only that you just copied what Shankaracharya had said without knowing what that means. Well, what can I say?

    I have a suggestion for you. I am sure you have heard the word Satyagrah. Gandhi and sevaral other indians practised it to push through the cause they believed to be the path of Satya. I suggest that you take up the cause of a Hindu nation for India as your path of Satya and campaign through out India with the slogan of ‘Satyamev Jayate’. And if people of India still do not go along with your idea, you could do Satyagrah to push through your cause. I am quite confident the parliament of India will respond favourably. If you do choose to try this method, my good wishes are with you. If nothing else you would have known by then that the word Satya has other meanings than just philosophical one.

    I do not know what questions you asked that I have not answered. Any way I am sorry for that. But I have no deisre to continue this debate any more. That was really revealing. I thank you.

  • 73. Sid said:

    @Morris (#72),
    Not only that you just copied what Shankaracharya had said without knowing what that means.
    On one hand you say that your knowledge on Hinduism is sketchy but then you are convinced that I do not understand the true meaning of “Satya” as if you are an expert – arrogance of true secular liberal.
    Then you invoked Gandhi (whose own understanding of Hinduism is questionable) and then satya-graha (as if that is solution to everything). I guess, if you could answer my questions, I would get those answers by now. If I ask you more I would get more of these clue-less rambling lectures that has no relevance with the subject matter under discussion. A self-professed defender of secularism who can not answer question about secularism. What a pity!!!

  • 74. AAryan said:

    Doors are open to any body who want to embrace HINDU Dharma.
    I assure you all that yes, its coming soon the “HINDU Nation”.
    I have no doubt about it.

    ||namO Bhaartam, namO Sanskritam||

  • 75. krishnadas said:

    Hari Bol Prabhus and Matajis
    Sri La Prabhupada had called the religious faith of India as Sanatan Dharma. Yes , it is eternal faith. I am from Poland. I travel all over the world. The feeling is that , India when it got freedom should have not have followed the labelling style of Abrahamic religions. The word Santan Dharma fits in very well with Indian culture. You can gauge the extent to which one aspect of Sanatan Dharma has percolated very well in Russia. This first one is for enlightening up your discussion with humour.

    http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/02/russian-hare-krishna-tv-ad.html

    Then see this Moscow yatra and see how Santan is Sanatan Dharma.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSq937S4RbU

    Please do not think I am doing propaganda here, but you will realise how the Sanatan Dharma has been lapped up in Russia. Slow, but steadily.

    It was WWII which taught us , yes, you can label us westerners, which opened our eyes and mind about the difference between religion and spirtuality. It was India which made many in the West realize that there is spirituality of deep levels which says first look at the Self,
    which is very different from founded organised religions.

    Sanatan Dharma is the right word for Indian faiths for it is truly eternal.

    Hare Krishna!!!

  • 76. Indian said:

    @Krishnadas

    I enjoyed watching both videos. I agree with you, what you said about Sanatan Dharma!

    Celebration and festivals are part of Santan Dharama which brings happiness, encouragement,and also spiritual and balanced mind!

    Take care!

  • 77. Indian said:

    @Krishnadas

    I missed to say Hare Krishna!

  • 78. B Shantanu (author) said:

    Two brief excerpts from unrelated sources..
    From Sufis strike back“..About 95% of Indian Muslims have Hindu ancestors. So, Hindu culture dominates India, the basis of which is tolerance. For extremism to flourish , a Muslim majority country, like Pakistan , is needed,” says Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.

    and the second from an email by Vijay Rajiva:
    The Indian liberal does not understand the Sanskrit word ‘Rashtram’ and identifies it with Italian fascism, Hitlerian views etc. Rashtram is from the Rig Veda and is specifically linked to the Goddess Sarasvati who says ‘aham rashtri sangamanii vasunam. . . .’ ( I am the Rashtram moving people together for their welfare’).

    I recommend Dr. S. Kalyanaraman’s recent book ‘Rashtram’ ( May 2011) which has an entire chapter on the concept of Rashtram. This would then also clarify Dr. Swamy’s position on a Hindu nation.Dr. Kalyanraman is the Director of the Sarasvati Research Centre.

  • 79. B Shantanu (author) said:

    From Arab origins By Salman Rashid, brief excerpts:
    Every single Muslim in the subcontinent believes s/he is of Arab descent. If not direct Arab descent, then the illustrious ancestor had come from either Iran or Bukhara.
    …Arab origin is the favourite fiction of all subcontinental Muslims. Most claim their ancestor arrived in Sindh with the army under Mohammad bin Qasim (MbQ). But, I have heard of lineages reaching back to Old Testament prophets as well. An elderly Janjua (Rajput), from the Salt Range told me of a forefather named Ar, a son of the Prophet Isaac. Ar, he said, was the ancestor of the races that spoke the Aryan tongue!
    Touted as a local intellectual, this worthy was unmindful of the fact that Aryan was not a tribal name but a linguistic classification. Neither could he tell me how the name Ar, not being in the Old Testament, had reached him. He insisted this name headed his family tree and was, therefore true. The chart, written on a piece of rather newish paper had been, the Janjua insisted, copied from an old original. The original was of course destroyed after the copy was made.

    Most of us are the progeny of converts. In their need to escape the discrimination of the so-called higher castes, our ancestors converted to a religion that in theory claimed to profess human equality regardless of colour or caste. I use the words ‘in theory’ because even as the Arabs converted our ancestors to Islam, they discriminated against them for being “Hindis” as we learn this from Ibn Batuta’s own prejudices. And he is not alone.
    Consequently, even after conversion, my ancestors, poor agriculturists, were looked down upon by the Arabs and even those who had converted earlier the same way as they were by the Brahmans when they professed their Vedic belief. Within a generation or two, those early converts began the great lie of Arab ancestry to be equal to other converts and the Arabs. This became universal with time.
    The challenge then is for all those, Baloch, Pathan, Punjabi et al, who have invented illegitimate fathers for ourselves to get ourselves tested and know the bitter truth.

    Published in The Express Tribune, January 7th, 2012.

  • 80. B Shantanu (author) said:

    “I have said that I am proud of our inheritance and our ancestors who gave an intellectual and cultural pre-eminence to India.
    How do you feel about this past?
    Do you feel that you are also sharers in it and also inheritors of it and, therefore, proud of something that belongs to you as much as to me?
    Or do you feel alien to it and pass it by without understanding it or feeling that strange thrill which comes from the realization that we are the trustees and the inheritors of this vast treasure?

    You are Muslims and I am a Hindu. We may adhere to different religious faiths or even to none; but that does not takw away from that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mine. The past holds us together; why should the present or the future divide us in spirit?

    Jawaharlal Nehru quoted in “Between Tradition and Modernity”, under section titled “Our Inheritance” (Pg 186).
    The book is a Twentieth Century Anthology dealing with “India’s Search for Identity”

Share your thoughts below.

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Share your opinions responsibly. Stay on topic. Please note that by posting a comment, you indicate consent to the terms and conditions of this site. First-timers, please read the comments policy here

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.