Posted on 04/12/2005 9:27:39 AM PDT by underlying
Heed the New Hindu Mood
March 11, 2003
It is not easy to be an Indian living abroad: Not only one has to retain one's Indian-ness while coping with the West's positive and less positive aspects which creep into one's life, but one is also subjected to the humiliation of seeing one's own countrymen spit on India in mainstream foreign newspapers and television. Recently, the Gujarat riots and the IDRF episode have been used by a few Indian academics/scholars/writers, particularly in the United States, to demean India and Hindus.
Many of us are appalled by the comments people like Pankaj Mishra or Angana Chatterji, both Indians -- and Hindus at that -- make about their country in mainstream American newspapers such as The New York Times. Americans are generally very ignorant about India and ready to gobble up any rubbish they are fed. Hindus are portrayed as Nazis killing innocent Muslims in Gujarat. But this is historical nonsense.
My experience as a Westerner living in India for more than 30 years and married to an Indian is that not only does this country owe a lot to Hinduism, but Hinduism must be the most tolerant spirituality in the world, recognizing the fact that God is One, but that he manifests in many ways, under different forms, at different times. To take the Gujarat episode and make it an absolute theorem of Hindu fundamentalism is not only bad academism, but unfair and highly biased. Do they mean to say that the 30 millions Gujaratis who voted for Narendra Modi in the last election are all Nazis and Hindu fanatics?
It is true that during the Gujarat riots horrible things, which no human being should condone, happened. But Chatterji and Mishra forget to mention that that 25% of the people killed during the riots were Hindus or that, according to police records, the 157 subsequent riots which happened in Gujarat were started by Muslims.
They are unable to explain how 125,000 Hindus, many of them Dalits, tribals, or even upper middle class, came out on the streets of Ahmedabad with such anger after Godhra. While condemning their terrible acts one has to at least understand the cause of their deep-rooted rage, as Hindus throughout the ages have shown that they are patient and tolerant of others. There is also not a single mention of Hindus reaching out to Muslims after the riots such as the Hindu businessman who built 90 houses in Ahmedabad for Muslims whose homes had been destroyed.
America is fighting a war against terrorism today. India has suffered most from Muslim fundamentalism. In 1399, Taimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. Professor K S Lal, in his Growth of Muslim Population in India, writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between the years 1000 and 1525, probably the biggest holocaust in world history. Today, Mishra and Chatterji are not without knowing that 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits are refugees in their own country, an ethnic cleansing without parallel. They must be also aware of what is happening to Hindus in Bangladesh today. I wonder why they do not mention all this in their articles.
Why is it that when for decades Saudi Arabia has funded madrassas in India some of which preach sedition, Mishra and Chatterji find nothing to say about it? Why is it that when foreign Christian organizations pour billions of dollars in India to convert innocent Harijans and tribals, teaching them to hate their culture and country, they also keep quiet? And why is it that when a few Hindu organizations, such as the IDRF, collect funds for harmless programmes like the Ekal Vidyalaya schools, which are doing a wonderful job for tribal children, they are attacked as fundamentalists?
The India Development and Relief Fund, a Maryland-based charity, has been targeted not only by Chatterji and Mishra, but also by the Federation of Indian American Christian Organisations of Northern America, Teesta and Javed Anand's Sabrang Communications for 'funding hate.' The irony is Indians have demanded a probe by the US Congress into IDRF and asked the IRS to blacklist it and withdraw its tax exemption status.
Last August in Washington I met IRDF's chief executives, Vinod and Sarala Prakash, two old, harmless, friendly people who would not hurt a fly. Their biggest achievement was to gather funds during the 1999 Orissa cyclone. It is true they are RSS affiliated and that they give first priority to Hindus afflicted by riots/cyclone/poverty. So what? We find nothing to say that Saudi Arabia only funds Muslims refugees in Bosnia, Palestine or Chechnya. Is it not time to call a spade a spade?
The specter of a 'dangerous' RSS, for example, is a creation of the British who understood, as the Muslims invaders did before them, that Hindus were the greatest hurdle to their grip on India. So their press started attacking anything Hindu or any group trying to protect Hindu culture or leaders such as the brilliant Hindu Mahasabha of Veer Savarkar who today is maligned by 'secular' Indians.
It is also time for Hindus of the world to face the truth: We are looking at the Gujarat riots only through the prism of what the Western press and the English-speaking Indian media have said -- mad 'fundamentalist' Hindus going after peace-loving Muslims. But the reality might be totally different: Are not tolerant, God fearing, peace-loving Hindus fed up of being constantly maligned, attacked, killed, their women raped, their temples sprayed with bullets and grenades?
The Western press and governments should take notice of this new popular mood of Hindus, who after all represent 1 billion people in the world, one of the most peace-loving, law-abiding, tolerant and prosperous communities of this planet -- one sixth of humanity -- and try to understand their feelings, instead of accusing them of being 'fanatics.'
Many black folks from the south would disagree with you. Theoretically they could vote but we all know the reality behind those "redemption" tactics
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm
Having said that the South of today is totally different from the south of the 70s. Today it is the liberals who are at fault.
Then it obviously wasn't working well. Those of the lower caste were treated terribly by those in the upper caste. Still happens today, although not nearly so often, and it has only been in the last 20 years that big change has occurred.
" in contrast ISLAMIC nations like pakistan treat non-muslims as half human"
Yep. Never said otherwise. My comments were directed at the author's claims that Hinduism was so wonderful.
Yes, perhaps for the last 20 years. But that wasn't the result of Hinduism.
Mohammedans don't seem to be able to get along with anyone.
it is more than 20 years from 1947 to 2005. if you go to india today you would be amazed at the reverse discrimination that is practised there. imagine quotas that in some cases go up to 70%.
a good chunk of india is ruled by parties that belong to the "lower caste" lobbies.
Gee, no kidding. My point is, no matter the 'government' policy, it obviously didn't have much impact until about the last 20 years. Hinduism didn't give India 'affirmative action.' It fought against it.
if hindus decided to fight against it - they wouldnt have given it to them in the first place. duhhhh...why give away something when you dont WANT to? as i said pushing a passive religion or people into a corner will only invite a backlash.
Oh, please. You made the claim this was right after the British gave India back to Indians. You think at that point the people of India cared about anything but the British leaving?
The Hindus sure didn't act as though 'affirmative action' were in place in their personal lives. Mother Theresa, if she were alive, could tell you story upon story of how the lower caste were treated. Article after article was printed in papers about it. Stories were on the news. No matter what was said on paper, it wasn't being carried out in reality.
Hinduism is a passive religion? Since when does a 'passive' religion favor beating someone up (even to death) for becoming a Christian or burning a woman to death because her dowery wasn't big enough?
Oh please stop your anti indian propaganda. If you go to India you will find that caste is going away in urban india. Hinduism is a passive religion and like all religions (including Chrisitianity) it has 'some' blood on its hands.
From what I remember - the Hindu god Krishna belonged to a "lower caste". Besides there is no other country or society that gives affirmative action on the scale that India does. The British never had affirmative action - it was after Independence that the Hindus took this corrective action. So your claims of British forcing this in India is propaganda. At that time the lower castes were in no position to dictate terms.
Right now parties that are made up of these castes rule a majority of indian states. this is with a country that is 80% hindu. speaks volumes about their tolerance.
And from what I remember - dowry existed in Europe and is also practised among Slammies and Christians in India. It has a lot to do with economic backwardness and illiteracy. It is foolish to think that this practice exists in urban india.
When did you see Hindus or Buddhists hijacking planes or bombing people. An unplanned incident here or there doesnt speak about a billion people in the same way that Scott Peterson doesnt represent all american men.
Pl stop your propaganda against a peaceful religion and a progressive nation. Your energies are better spent on tackling the real threat from Islamic fundamentalism.
IS going away. I'm not denying that India is changing. What I'm arguing against is the claim that India changed way back in the 40s. That is simply not true.
"Hinduism is a passive religion and like all religions (including Chrisitianity) it has 'some' blood on its hands."
LOL Well, if you think burning women and beating people up is 'passive' go for it.
"Besides there is no other country or society that gives affirmative action on the scale that India does."
Perhaps this has occurred over the last 20 years or so. Prior to that, it was not the case.
" So your claims of British forcing this in India is propaganda."
LOL Now where did I ever claim that? Please point to the post where I made this claim.
"And from what I remember - dowry existed in Europe and is also practised among Slammies and Christians in India."
And?
"When did you see Hindus or Buddhists hijacking planes or bombing people."
Ah, I see the problem. You think I'm comparing Hinduism to Islam. I'm not. No way. What I am doing is claiming that Hindus are not the loving, peaceful people they are cracked up to be.
"Pl stop your propaganda against a peaceful religion and a progressive nation."
Name one thing I have said that isn't true. And make sure I actually said it, because you seem to have a habit of reading things that were never posted.
By the way, it hasn't been all that long ago when the Hindus were allowing their kids to starve while cows, who were considered sacred, were wandering around freely.
You may think Hinduism is wonderful. I simply do not.
and did they send you the monkey's backside. /sarcasm. many hindus are vegetarians. if you depend on hollywood for your education - i can only pity you.
You do know that was a joke, right?
I will start with your last post. There are plenty "isnt trues" there
Perhaps this has occurred over the last 20 years or so. Prior to that, it was not the case.
affirmative action in india has existed since 1947. it is a part of their constitution. the constitution itself was drafted by a person belonging to the lower caste
http://www.india-seminar.com/2001/508/508%20soli%20j.%20sorabjee.htm
Well, if you think burning women and beating people up is 'passive' go for it.
a scott peterson killing his pregnant wife doesnt make all americans guilty..duh..similarly individual hindus killing their wives doesnt make all hindus wife beaters or murderers. they are the most affluent community in this country with the lowest divorce rate.
And here are some more "untruths" that your posts are sooooo full of. just sroll above
They did that (affirmative) for economic reasons (to gain more business from the U.S. and European nations) - post 14
You made the claim this was right after the British gave India back to Indians. You think at that point the people of India cared about anything but the British leaving? - post 29
again you should stop bad mouthing a peaceful people and turn your guns against the real threat - islamic terror.
oops sorry..my apologies. :-)
Dont worry you will get there some day. In the meantime you should read this quote by William Durant (he is the most read historian of the 20th century)..
"India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of European languages. She was the mother of our philosophy. . . of our mathematics. . . of the ideals embodied in Christianity. . . of self-government and democracy. . . Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all."
Or probably you prefer Mark Twain who said this
"In religion, India is the only millionaire... the One land that all men desire to see, and having seen once, by even a glimpse, would not give that glimpse for all the shows of all the rest of the globe combined."
While hinduism and India have their own drawbacks - it is an emerging and a tolerant democracy. India owes much of this to its Hindu traditions.
No prob. I made a joke like that once around my school friends (mostly Hindu and Buddhist); I've never seen so many pissed off pacifists.
LOL How arrogant of you to presume you know what I will think 'some day'. Check back with me 'some day.' I guarantee you I won't think Hinduism is 'wonderful'.
I do not base my views on what Durant and Twain have to say. Perhaps you do.
On paper perhaps, not in practice. The treatment of those of the lower caste has only been improving to any degree in the last 20 years. Doesn't matter whether the constitution was drafted by someone belonging to the lower caste. It wasn't being followed in every day life.
"a scott peterson killing his pregnant wife doesnt make all americans guilty."
We started out talking Hinduism, and it seems you've switched to nationalism. I never said all Indians were guilty of these things. You seem to equate being Hindu with being Indian. There is a difference, especially in the last 30 years or so. Probably why the caste system is falling away.
It is Hinduism that instituted the caste system in the first place. Therefore, your 'analogy' doesn't work with this discussion unless you are trying to claim that all Indians are Hindu and all Americans are. . .well, whatever you want to try to claim they are. We both know that isn't the case.
"again you should stop bad mouthing a peaceful people and turn your guns against the real threat - islamic terror."
Guns? This is a discussion thread. If it came to choosing which to shoot, I'd shoot the Islamic terrorist. But I still hold the opinion that Hindus are not such a 'peaceful' and 'passive' people as has been claimed.
And you still haven't proven that I've stated any untruths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.