“The Westernized side of my background” – Excerpts
I first read this post by Rajiv Malhotra many many months ago but somehow never got around to making excerpts and publishing them on this blog…Late today afternoon, something else reminded me of it…I finally dug it out of my archives…and I am glad that I did…
From the very readable The Westernized side of my background by Rajiv Malhotra:
*** Excerpts Begin ***
Since this matter keeps getting raised by some very narrow-minded Hindus in the middle of any and every kind of column, here is what I have to say:
My upbringing in family, my education, my professional circles and my social circles have been and shall remain a combination of both Indian and Western influences. I deny neither and I am glad to have the gift of both. I synthesize them into a coherent worldview which I am happy with.
…To make matters more complex for the narrow-minded persons here, I have worshipped in every major religion of the world, have dear friends in each, have read their spiritual books, and have had numerous brainstorms with theologians in each in the spirit of learning. Furthermore, I intend to continue these practices.
My own sadhana is adhyatmika centric, and is neither history centric nor ritual centric. But I respect both those and also harmonize theme into my own views, while focusing my sadhana on the adhyatmika. I learnt a lot from Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh sources and practices. I was also influenced as a child by a sufi. I have gained a lot from some Christian mystics who I came in contact with years ago.
We have an ancient Indian tradition of engaging the ‘other’ using a technique called purva-paksha. This means you must first study the other’s viewpoint very seriously and become an expert in it. Only then can you debate against it.
But today, I cannot find swamis who know the western ‘other’ well enough to be able to do purva-paksha of western thought. This is why their followers are lost, confused about identity and unable to effectively respond to the dominant culture.
…To understand western thought one must master its three main branches: Christianity, Enlightenment, and Post-Enlightenment. Most Hindu preachers admit that their education did not include any of these. (Some do it as a matter of great pride.) So they lack a purva-paksha of the ‘other’ that matters so much in today’s global culture. Hence, by the methods of our own tradition, they are unqualified to be able to debate in the mainstream, and they are the blind leading their followers – the result is today’s catastrophes facing Hindus.
On the other hand, the west has invested serious resources to study Indian culture and thought rather than ignoring it….Today’s South Asian Studies replaces colonial Indology as the west’s purva-paksha of Indian thought and culture.
This means the west has extracted knowledge from Indic sources and developed sophisticated positions about us. In many cases, the most qualified scholar available in a university about some Indian text or tradition is a westerner.
…So rather than attacking me for my background, one might also see in it a rare ability to do purva-paksha of the west from the Indian perspective: I have invested most of my time since the mid 1990s to study all three strains of western thought from works of serious thinkers. Rather than this being a handicap, it is what enables me to debate the ‘other’ with authority and confidence.
…What this narrow mentality has produced is 800 Hindu temples in North America at a cost of about $2 billion, but lacking in intellectual content in most of them. They come across to the NRI youth as voodoo centers, doing some exotic ritual with no meaning. The pandits are ill-trained for 21st century discourse, many cannot communicate for nuts.
Any sincere visitor who wants to appreciate Hinduism would be well advised to stay away from them, and instead to spend quality time with someone knowledge in discussions first.
 Hindu temples have failed to project Hindu culture to mainstream society. Proof: in all these controversies we have been engaged here on Sulekha, the temple-wallahs are lost, disinterested, and ignorant. They have failed to educate our own youth in ways that would equip them to face the issues with confidence and not to run from Hindu identity as being shameful.
…So far I have made two points above for being a successful Hindu today: Do purva-paksha of the west, and teach/practice in accordance with the modern kshetra.
My next question is: Should we go back in the past and try to recreate the past, or should we advance into the future? Unfortunately, most Hindus and anti-Hindus don’t understand our tradition in this regard. It is falsely viewed that these are mutually exclusive options, namely, that one must be either orthodox living in Vedic times or one must be a “progressive†person who has rejected the past.
Abrahamic religions are based on discontinuous changes, each caused by a new prophetic revelation that overruled the past and so they had to reject prior knowledge. Hence, they have this mutually exclusive choice-making forced upon them. Indian secularists brought this idea into India and most orthodox Hindus (lacking in proper purva-paksha of the west) simple accepted this way of thinking. So we have fights between Indian orthodoxy and progressives. Both are wrong.
Indian traditions give you a combination: Change is not discontinuous but the new gets assimilated into the framework already in place…. Hinduism is not anti-modernity. There was never a Shankaracharya who denounced scientific inquiry or progress, and hence the 200 years of wars between medieval Christianity and science were simply unnecessary in India.
Sampradaya is a river that flows. It is neither a static pond (fixed in the past) nor a waterfall with discontinuities (“progressives’ idea of advancement). It is both: the same as the past (in terms of overall categories) and new (in terms of content)…
*** End of Excerpts ***
The post in full – and some 40 odd comments – can be found here…Do read if you have a few moments…You will find some of the comments thought-provoking.
If you have some more time, do also have a look at this category of posts under “Sanatan Dharma” and “Spirituality and Philosophy“
“…What this narrow mentality has produced is 800 Hindu temples in North America at a cost of about $2 billion, but lacking in intellectual content in most of them. They come across to the NRI youth as voodoo centers, doing some exotic ritual with no meaning. The pandits are ill-trained for 21st century discourse, many cannot communicate for nuts.”
Is this nutcase serious? Even disregarding the pompous and condescending tone of this statement… what does he expect the hindus of North America to do? Not patronize their own temples which are like a haven in an alien land? The NRI youth are a confused lot whose thinking starkly reflects how well or how rotten their parents have taught them about India. The rituals will of course seem exotic to any moron who thinks he can understand the ritual just by watching it. Knowledge of Sanskrit is crucial. Just how many NRI kids take Sanskrit language lessons?
While he is busy whining that the pandits are not trained in discourse, I’m sure he means that they cannot translate the sanskrit texts and mantras they know into the flavor of English that this nut case can understand. Perhaps his “western” upbrining has led him to believe that these Pandits are meant to act as the padres of the church? where the “father” dons the role of a psycoanalyst and deigns to solve’s society’s problems? Hilarious!!
This pompous fellow further has the arrogance to assume that if the pandits cannot communicate with him in English, they must be nuts? Why doesn’t this genius make some time to learn a regional dialect from India? Or atleast find a friend who knows the language and take him along to the temple and then ask him for translation? Rubbish article and rubbish logic.
@ CC: First point: please try and be civil in your language while arguing/making a point.
Two, I am not sure you know Rajiv Malhotra’s background…Please have a look at this link.
@C.C
I can understand your points and agree with you.
Although, my understanding from above post-Rajiv wants us to look at both side of the coin(if I have assumed rightly) to advance and progress. When u know both side it is easy to establish 100% faith in Hinduism or can say in any religion. To understand the right one must also know what is wrong. I have seen his videos and I found Rajiv Malhotra an ardent Hindu.
My experineces, I never understood the true spirit of hinduism and importance of its rituals till I learned about christianity and its follower. Learning from the follower of other religions made my faith in Hinduism more stronger and deeper. Now I know the religion of my birth is very potential and can shake the mountains if applied in true spirit. He is trying to solve the problems arises between orthodoxy and progressive and in this conflicts Hinduism is suffering.
For any debate it is importnat to know the both sides of the views.
I disgaree with Rajiv on temple on some way. I think temples are doing great service to the public. They teach instrument, dances, languages and many more to the children and adults. They are always in front praying for victims, when any calamities falls on the people of india. But I accept priest of the temples needs more education also on behavioural science. Like not to be rude, but not asking exactly to be like “Father” of the church. I enjoyed your point—“father†dons the role of a psycoanalyst and deigns to solve’s society’s problems? Hilarious!! —truly hilarious.
But In the end he solves the problem.
–Indian traditions give you a combination: Change is not discontinuous but the new gets assimilated into the framework already in place…. Hinduism is not anti-modernity. There was never a Shankaracharya who denounced scientific inquiry or progress, and hence the 200 years of wars between medieval Christianity and science were simply unnecessary in India.
Sampradaya is a river that flows. It is neither a static pond (fixed in the past) nor a waterfall with discontinuities (“progressives’ idea of advancement). It is both: the same as the past (in terms of overall categories) and new (in terms of content)…
I have read the above post only once and I assume I understood Rajiv correctly.
@ Indian: Exactly right…That is what Rajiv is suggesting we do: Look at both sides of an argument and enrich our own understanding in the process…and more importantly become better at defending our beliefs and faith in serious discussions and debates.
@Shantanu,
I have been reading your blog for quite a while now although this is the first post that goaded me enough to comment. I am disappointed that you think I wasn’t being civil in my language. Are words like “nut case” and “moron” not kosher? Rajiv Mlahotra himself referred to the ‘pandits’ as being nuts… how come that part wasn’t edited out before being posted here?
I completely support self-cencorship (who really wants NDTV breathing down your neck) but do we really have to use flowery language while offering counter views? Isn’t that a little too rigid?
On another note, thanks for the link to Malhotra’s background. And also… keep up the excellent work! 😉
@ CC: Good point. I over-reacted. Sorry…I hope this does not dissuade you from visiting and commenting here.
And thanks for the kind words…I really appreciate it…makes all this feel worthwhile.
@Shantanu. thank you for understanding.
@Indian. Thanks:) I see your point.
My chief complaint with Malhotra is his expectation or ‘mission’ of somehow equating a Hindu temple with how a church or mosque functions. In my view the Vedic religion differs fundamentally from the rest of the world religions in that it is entirely decentralized (for lack of a better word). The temple priest does not wield authority or mastery either over the understanding of the hindu texts, rituals, etc. or the conducting of these rituals. Every hindu home is a temple to god.
In exhorting the temples in North America and its priests to improve their “intellectual” capacity, he is unnecessarily transfering power and responsibility to these (institutions). Also, most if not all temple priests in foreign countries are native Indians who would have earned their education and training in regional schools with the local language as the chief means of instruction. I gathered from Malthora’s article that he expects superlative translations of sanskrit texts into English, so that he and his fellow westerners can better understand it. That’s a fair expectation I admit.
However, shouldn’t we be focussed on reviving the understanding and learning of Sanskrit among anyone who is sincere in his quest to understand Hinduism? Why the need to agonize over how this knowledge is not available in English? I am only advocating a balanced approach where the learning of Sanskrit goes hand in hand with making this knowledge available to westerners in their native language.
Malhotra’s rant led me to believe that he thinks these are mutually exclusive.
Also, I stand by my previous statement about the confusion of American born Indians… the knowledge they have about India is what they would have gathered from their parents and occasionals visits to India. Other than that, does Rajiv Malhotra claim he was educated in any Indian language or did he study Indian history as taught from India’s perspective? According to me he is trying to hoist his Americanized understanding of India and Hinduism on Indians as well as westerners… and that’s pitiable.
I agree with RM’s larger point of understanding the Western perspective to be able to debate better, but I’ll disagree with him using the example of temples (wrongly, IMO) – and that too somewhat disdainfully – to illustrate his point.
But he has identified the problem – that we are lacking a place, a space or a resource where a study of Hindu rituals and philosophy etc. can happen, where people can learn about Hinduism and where questions can be answered honestly. The blogsphere has many examples of parents writing posts on how they flounder when their children ask them questions about Hinduism, or newly-minted ‘atheists/anti-theists’ who feel ashamed of depictions of Hindu gods and goddesses. Ideally, parents should be able to impart that knowledge about rituals to their kids (without forcing them to participate), but that’s not always possible, since the parents themselves may not have that understanding in the first place. Currently, learning about it depends on one’s own initiative, and perhaps RM wants to have something in place which will give a push to that initiative, or make it a little easier. This issue may be somewhat peculiar to Hindus living as a minority in western countries, or living outside India.
Before we start criticizing Sri Rajiv Malhotra, let us all applaud him for the wonderful work he has done. He has, along with a few others, brought attention to the kind of biased research that goes by the name of south asian studies and Hinduism in many American Universities. His efforts and the fight he had to engage in is described in the book “Invading the Sacred”. As someone who studied Hinduism in an American University, I am happy that there are those like him who are prepared to do battle on behalf of us all.
On a side note, the reason why so many Indians are not familiar with their own scriptures or those of any other religion is partly because there is not a single university in India which offers Hinduism or comparative Religions etc. in their study program. Secondly , while temples are what they have always been–places of worship and social networking, the needs of the new generation have changed. While in the past, the gurukula system allowed students to get their theological and philosophical lessons, we don’t really get that through our educational system today. Thus we may need a “sunday school” type arrangement where kids go and learn about Hinduism. Many temples in the United States do have a Bal Bhavan program or something. However, in India I have not run into any such program for kids.
@CC: You seem upset with RM’s alleged use of words such as ‘nuts’ and ‘moron’
While reading through the excerpts again I found ‘nuts’ used as “The pandits are ill-trained for 21st century discourse, many cannot communicate for nuts” and no use of moron at all – though a passionate dismissal of the way ‘Hinduism’ is being portrayed in the US hints at an angry undercurrent. Nuts used here is means something other than nut-case or moron and is rather harmless though more something one uses in casual talk than in a serious post. However, NRI youths looking to neighborhood temples as church-equivalents and expecting someone in a temple to answer their questions is understandable and I don’t see what’s wrong in pointing this out if billions have indeed been spent to set up temples – asking youths to learn Sanskrit and learn the Gita sounds eerily similar to Jihadi apology (read the Quran in Arabic)
To have a conversation, as RM wants NRI’s in US to, with the locals curious about Hinduism, one would need to understand intimately the ‘others’ perspective and world view. As he points out this is an old Hindu tradition Purva-paksha. And NRI youth have no where to go to learn about their own paksha despite 8billon dollars worth of temples.
If learning about Hinduism requires learning Sanskrit compulsorily then maybe there are only a minuscule few true Hindus (if at all – for context-bound language used several thousands years ago will always be debated for its true meaning) and the fate of Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma is directly proportionate to the rise and fall of the use of Sanskrit!
I’m interested to know if you have any more solutions than learning Sanskrit to be a Hindu…
Rajiv has spent over a decade and considerable personal resources to do serious research and support other researchers, as a lone ranger. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly. Let us appreciate someone who is so rare and critique him sensibly.
To get a feel for his strategic vision, see his recent talk in Delhi
http://rajiv.malhotra.us/video1.htm
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=40
@Hrishi,
I kindly urge you to re-read my post because you have drawn serious mis-conclusions and wild extrapolations from what I have said. Also, some excruciating hair-splitting on the use and meaning of certain words which is quite unnecessary. If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I have not ascribed the word moron to Malhotra.
>>However, NRI youths looking to neighborhood temples as church-equivalents and expecting someone in a temple to answer their questions is understandable and I don’t see what’s wrong in pointing this out if billions have indeed been spent to set up temples
I am loath to repeat myself, but neighborhood temples are not to be treated as church equivalents. This according to me is fundamentally against the tenets of Hinduism where every hindu worships at home too. Investing too much authority in one institution similar to the abrahamic religions will only lump Hinduism in the same draconian category.
>>- asking youths to learn Sanskrit and learn the Gita sounds eerily similar to Jihadi apology (read the Quran in Arabic)
Perfect example of a wild extrapolation. Asking anyone who wants to understand Hinduism to learn a little bit of Sanskrit sounds like a Jihadi apology? Are you advocating that these NRI youths chant the Sanskrit mantras with no clue of what it means? Should anyone who doesn’t understand Sanskrit words be allowed to say “om peace peace peace†for his convenience?
Another elementary point worth making here is that if we begin to consider learning Sanskrit as useless and question its need in understanding Hinduism, then we’re looking at a bleak future indeed. The language is hard enough to master even with years of schooling. Are you really advocating that we kill it off and relegate it to museum status? So that only a few pompous “scholars†can then have a stranglehold on its understanding and then shove their own interpretation of it down the layman’s throat?
>>If learning about Hinduism requires learning Sanskrit compulsorily then maybe there are only a minuscule few true Hindus (if at all – for context-bound language used several thousands years ago will always be debated for its true meaning) and the fate of Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma is directly proportionate to the rise and fall of the use of Sanskrit!
Again, please re-read my post. Here are my exact words: I am only advocating a balanced approach where the learning of Sanskrit goes hand in hand with making this knowledge available to westerners in their native language.
Now what made you conclude that learning Sanskrit is compulsory?
>>I’m interested to know if you have any more solutions than learning Sanskrit to be a Hindu…
I am unable to understand why you have drawn up this extremely narrow conclusion that learning Sanskrit is a pre-requisite to being a Hindu. You be a hindu all you want without ever knowing that Sanskrit is said to be the language of gods.
Do I really need to repeat this common sense statement that Hinduism is the oldest surviving (thriving too) culture because Hindus have kept alive the traditions of the past by chanting even now the same mantras and shlokas that were in use thousands of years ago? What we need to change is the fact that many of us chant these verses without knowing the meaning. What we should not do is translate it into other languages and do away with the original.
@C.C
All your above points in #13 are valid.
While rennovating our home we need to take care of its basic structure too. The same goes here.
Very well said.
Another excellent post by Rajiv Malhotra.
Scholars and the media seem afraid to explain that the soil of Afghanistan is historically sacred to Buddhists and Hindus, in the same manner as Jerusalem is to Jews and the Kaaba is to Muslims. Today’s infamous caves were once home to thousands of Buddhist monks and Hindu rishis, who did their meditation and attained enlightenment there. How such sacred geography ended up in evil hands is something I am still trying to come to terms with.
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=32
@CC, thanks for your reply – it seems that we’re on the same page on some points and in others maybe not, so let’s see…
Temples are not churches – my point is what would be the common sense solution to the crying need that NRI youth need translations of Sanskrit (don’t we all?) apart from interpretations of texts of mantras they’re chanting.. If $2 billion is spent in the US to construct 800 temples and this need is not met then Rajiv has a point. That the requisite clarification hasn’t come in most Hindu homes means this need has to be addressed. I don’t see what’s wrong with a comfortable temple premises providing this with suitable regulation that it does not become a madrassa for indoctrinating militarist-political ideologies – I’m not a Veda expert (far from it) but I’m betting on Hindu scripture being more orientated to spirituality as in ‘growing beyond the ego’ and reconnecting with the Self/God and so on. Even sacrifices (yagnas) are reinterpreted with this goal for example. Correct me if I’m wrong but there’s not any ‘Hate him’, ‘Kill he who..’, ‘Stone those who…’ or for that matter ‘convert them or kill/damn them’ etc etc as one knows if one opens the Abrahamic books. Clarifying the meaning of rituals, mantras and texts in true Hindu spirit of open debate is not really investing too much authority in the priest or whoever else so that we may reasonably fear that a bin Laden may pop out of the interaction.
Knowing Sanskrit to be a Hindu – You seem to agree with me that one need’nt be a Sanskrit pundit in order to be a Hindu, which is my point. How did you conclude from my post that I wish to neglect and render to museum status the language of Sanskrit (which we remember everyday in every Indian language spoken by Indians)? Or that I want mantras to be translated into different languages at the expense of Sanskrit? In a lighter vein I’m tempted to ask – by wild extrapolation?
Learn Sanskrit hand-in-hand with educating Westerners – In light of your view which from statements such as “I am only advocating a balanced approach”, “this extremely narrow conclusion that learning Sanskrit is a pre-requisite to being a Hindu” when seen against “You be a hindu all you want without ever knowing that Sanskrit is said to be the language of gods” I admit I’m confused. Do you or do you not recommend that I learn Sanskrit ‘compulsorily’ to be a Hindu or do you mean just learn the meaning of the shlokas and mantras which I must recite and that will do to be a practicing Hindu?
Or taking the advice of the Gita and/or the Upanishads desist from typical Vedic practices to be a Hindu?
@Indian ref #15
I’m sorry but we may not advance our cause by trying to make an Israel out of Afghanistan. Sacred caves and whatnot are not what the assimilating, integrating, transcending traditions that Hinduism is is known for.
I believe Hinduism will lose out if it pushes its mythology and dogmas to compete with organized religions such as Xtianity/Islam and the like. They’ve had a head start on us and have lost out badly to Science and Reason (particularly Christianity) – Islam’s rigidity and repressive approach as seen in Saudi Arabia for example, may seem to save it from Science and reason for a while but like they say, the rigid tree breaks first when the wind grows stronger.
@Hrishi,
>> ….what would be the common sense solution to the crying need that NRI youth need translations of Sanskrit (don’t we all?) apart from interpretations of texts of mantras they’re chanting.. If $2 billion is spent in the US to construct 800 temples and this need is not met then Rajiv has a point.
I have given this some thought and here’s one solution.
As I have said in one of my previous comments, most NRI youth (just sticking to North America for now) understand only English. Most (if not all) priests in temples are native Indians whose medium of instruction would have been an Indian regional/state language and their mastery over English is limited. This also puts serious limitations on how well they can translate the meaning of Sanskrit shlokas into English.
One way to relate to these NRI youth at their level is if the priests were native to America, born there, but educated and trained to be a temple priest. Is this solution feasible? If a decent job pays well and is respectable, then I’m sure there would be no dearth of takers. What Malhotra should be advocating (what I advocate myself) is to train/educate native born westerners to be temple priests. They can even travel to India as part of their curriculum to learn about India’s culture.
Instead, Malhotra’s disrespectful rant about temples and the pandits was a cheap shot.
>> Clarifying the meaning of rituals, mantras and texts in true Hindu spirit of open debate is not really investing too much authority in the priest or whoever else so that we may reasonably fear that a bin Laden may pop out of the interaction.
Why look to the temple priests for Sanskrit translations? Why not advocate opening schools (courses in a community college for example) that teach Sanskrit so that a person can learn it for himself? I am advocating self reliance. Why should a handful of people wield mastery over Sanskrit and the power of interpretation? The dangers of meanings being lost in translation are well known.
Regarding my comment about Sanskrit being the language of the gods, yes I admit I made it in an exasperated slightly sarcastic tone. One doesn’t need to be a Sanskrit pandita to be a hindu. Agreed.
>> Do you or do you not recommend that I learn Sanskrit ‘compulsorily’ to be a Hindu or do you mean just learn the meaning of the shlokas and mantras which I must recite and that will do to be a practicing Hindu?
Most certainly the latter. Let me use a simple example to illustrate why. Since yoga caught the fancy of the western eye, 100s of “training centers†have mushroomed which teach yoga classes. The instructors are American or chinese who know not a single word of Sanskrit. And this is how “Adho Mukha shvanasana†becomes downward facing dog and “asana†becomes “poseâ€.
While it’s great that the western world is embracing yoga, I am pained at how they butcher and mutilate the Sanskrit language. In most cases, there is no mention of the original Sanskrit names of the aasanas, just these translations which I’m afraid will sooner or later morph into de-facto standards.
On a note about “mythology”. While indeed many of the Hindu stories are considered as parables to teach a lesson and are not considered historical, some are indeed historical and need to be seen as such and not as myths. What is surprising is that the Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered myths in India (at least by the secularized Indian), they are ususally considered most likely historical in many Hinduism courses in the US.
@Hrishi. Hinduism doesn’t really spread through the teaching of the puranas; at least in the US it seems to reach out through the teachings of Vedanta and yoga. Thus in almost every major city, we see Vedanta societies.
While we should want a more “Hindu” world i.e one that is tolerant and respectful of pluralism, it is more important to preserve Hinduism in India.
@CC. Before casting aspersions at the confused American desi (this is truly a myth), you might want to examine if the Indian born Hindus are any less confused. How many of them really understand Sanskrit or even the reason they perform the rituals?
If indeed RM is disrespectful to the priests, I think it is a part of a larger malaise prevalent in Hindu society. We as a people have stopped respecting our religious leaders. Look at how the Kanchi Shankaracharya was treated. How many Hindus protested that? Would the public kept quiet if it had been a Catholic priest or an Imam? There are numerous Catholic priests in Kerala who are being charged for misconduct and crimes against women–are they incarcerated and treated as the Shanakarcharya was? Every time we a see a Hindu priest in a movie or a tv serial, it is nothing but a insulting caricature–do we protest at this?
We as Hindus need the priests for all the religious rites from birth to death but we are unprepared to treat them with the respect they deserve. For many, priesthood is not a remunerative position and yet they do it. Instead of being grateful to a class of people who have memorized the scriptures and continue to participate in rituals which are indeed the living testament to our history and heritage, we allow politicians to revile them. I often wonder why a person would become a priest. Indeed it must be only a deep devotion and faith in God that allows so many to pursue this path.
@K Harapriya
>>Before casting aspersions at the confused American desi (this is truly a myth),
I am very curious to know on what basis are you so confident that it is truly a myth? I know from personal experience the kind of disdain ABCDs have for anything that is Indian including their own names which they Americanize very early on. They long to integrate into mainstream American culture. Their parents aid this in no small measure by giving them suspiciously western sounding names which masquerade as Indian names. Now please let’s not split hairs for I admit that there might well be exceptions.
Another important observation I have personally made is how these American born Indians treat native born Indians. Nowhere is this starkly evident than in universities across America. Most ABCDs form their own groups, associate more with the ‘white’ crowd and generally look down upon newbie Indians who arrive here looking green and naïve. This might seem like casting aspersion to you, but this is the basis of their inherent confusion. The first generation ABCDs (whose parents are native Indians) are confused if they are Indian or American. I have no doubt that the second gen of abcds will be much less confused and so on until the indianness is totally diluted and they are completely integrated into mainstream American society. I don’t have anything against this trend… it’s a natural outcome whenever people migrate across nations.
>> you might want to examine if the Indian born Hindus are any less confused. How many of them really understand Sanskrit or even the reason they perform the rituals?
Let’s be clear on this. The confusion that Indian hindus have is on a totally different level. Whether or not they study Sanskrit as one of the languages, there is no doubt that they would know Hindi and English at the very least. And they are brought up in an Indian culture which makes them inescapably Indian. And again I can speak from personal experience that many south Indian students still study Sanskrit as one of the languages until the 12th grade… this gives them more than enough basic knowledge of Sanskrit to not be completely clueless about the rituals and the shlokas. Are you unaware of this section of Indian hindus?
@CC. My observation has been somewhat different. Those children in the US whose parents make an effort to teach the religion and culture to are usually quite comfortable with their Hindu identity. Those children whose parents don’t make that effort, don’t get to that level of comfort. (They are no longer Indians anyway so they may not have an Indian identity). Of course, if parents themselves name their children american or christian names, how can we blame the kids. You are right though; unfortunately many people do give their kids christian names even though they are Hindus.
However, one good thing is that they all see India in a unified way as opposed to Indians in India who divide themselves based on language and caste etc.
As far as India goes, as a person from Tamil Nadu ,let me tell you that most educated Tamils prefer to speak English and those who buy into the Dravidian version of history, they would rather not learn sanskrit in school.
@Hrishi
I understand your point and what you are suggesting, but just to explore, R U sure Xtianity and Islam are organised religion?
The present day Jehova(christian) believes one day no human will die and will live forever. On question of crowd on earth’, they believe ‘God will arrange everything for us’. Later they showed a picture were animals and human were friendly and roaming around each other. Its their version of paradise. Than why should one be ashamed of place given to animals in the hinduism?. They believe in heaven and hell? I cannot digest this kind of jumbo myth and man made stories if I compare this to Hinduism. Karma and rebirth as per our karma. Action and reaction. What goes around comes around, that is the Karma theory. And its an experienced truth by each of us. But no one has ever seen heaven and hell. I believe caves, are part of spirituality, hinduism and evolution.
When today’s world can believe in paranormal science than definitely hinduism is going to stay for ever and not loosing its ground on science and reasoning.
@CC. The way that ABCD’s treat native born Indians may in fact be the most Indian character trait they have. As a people, Indians are usually very uncivil to their compatriots. Travel by any Air India flight and see the stewardess fawn over the white man while ignoring the Indians. Go to any government office and see how dismissive the officers are. Watch any Hindi movie and see how the south Indian (madarasi) is caricatured. When was the last time you stood in a queue in India where someone wants to jump the line?
I often think that many Indians vacillate between being a sycophants to their perceived superiors and arrogant self-important asses to all those they consider inferior.
Another important observation I have personally made is how these American born Indians treat native born Indians. Nowhere is this starkly evident than in universities across America. Most ABCDs form their own groups, associate more with the ‘white’ crowd and generally look down upon newbie Indians who arrive here looking green and naïve.
I only have the sample size of posts and comments at Sepia Mutiny, and going by that, yes, ABCDs do look down upon India, seem very ignorant of Indian culture and history, and do look down upon newbie Indians as well as Hinduism. Which is not to say that all newbie Indians are aware of, and well-versed in their history and culture, and haven’t been influenced by colonial upbringing.
Kaffir, I had a serious interaction at Sepia Mutiny for 3 days. I believe they are a bunch of Keralite Christians + some namesake Hindus + some whites blogging while roaming India. The anti-Hindu bias was crystal clear. While exposing missionary mideeds I was banned from there. See this thread.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005606.html#comments
Kiran, doesn’t surprise me. That’s why I don’t waste my time on that forum anymore. I used to hang out there long time ago, but after a few months, realized that it’s not worth my time or energy to engage in a debate or discussion. More power to you if you have the patience and time. 🙂
Hinduism forms the bane of society… mankind at large! As is the importance of a soul atman in body… mother earth simply cannot survive in absence of Hinduism! Rightly said… Hinduism can all be termed as Sanatana Dharma… a Dharma (righteousness) that exists from times immemorial! Hinduism is also stated as “a way of life”!
If we correctly understand meaning of Hindu Dharma… all becomes clear by itself! The simplest definition of Dharma is, “Your right to do what is just and right and not what was destined”. Mounted with this power of Hindu Dharma… Hinduism shall regain its lost shine in coming years… beyond 2014!