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.'
Looks like they have something in common with American Christians.
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.
In their quest for "tolerance", the NYT will attempt to tear down anything which is seen as opposing Islam.
Anyone defending themselves and their nation BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY against the despicable, filthy, followers of the psychopathic child molester Mohammed should be CHEERED ON!!!
Hindus are fighting the war that has only just begun in the USA.
And they have been fighting a war of attrition for a thousand years which only goes to prove that lasting peace with Islam will only occur when the last Muslim is buried with his ass facing Mecca and his mouth stuffed with pork.
I personally do not care what the Hindus do to the Muslims so long as the result is dead Muslims. India belongs to Hindus and the Muslims should get out or die.
Islam is a disease and death is the cure.
For the most part, this is true. The long-term history of India is the history of Muslims conquering, murdering, and oppressing Hindus, until they were liberated, relatively speaking, by the British and set on an equal footing.
Most of us grew up reading about Muslim-Hindu riots and thinking that both sides were culpable; but after 9/11 and some reconsideration of history, it becomes evident that the worst troublemakers and oppressors are Muslims.
Nevertheless, Hindus are not entirely guiltless. They invented the caste system, which was far more oppressive then any western class system. And they have been known to persecute and kill Christians, burn churches, and forbid any Christian missionary work. Hindu nationalists are sometimes troublesome folks.
I suppose what this says is that nobody is perfect. But I would agree that Muslims are a worse problem by far and that Hindu rage against them is understandable.
really.. i am sure that the missionaries account for a good chunk of the $600 billion GDP in that country. /sarcasm
india is where it is thanks to herself and her people. if it had adopted market oriented policies it would have been much better off. her economy has little to do with missionary work or charity. we are talking about a billion people here.
the name Naom Chomsky comes to mind. these $%*# are scared of the mullahs and hence take the "easier" side. they know that rights in democracies can be abused without too many consequences. in fact they are even rewarded for this treachery..look up the list of professors in berkeley. we fund this nonsense through taxpayer dollars
the only thing India / Hindus are guilty of is not fighting hard enough. many a time they have turned tail and refused to take the battle to the mullahs.
india has the largest affirmative programs in the world. people belonging to the so-called lower castes get anywhere between 25% to 60% of jobs and college admissions. can you quote a parallel anywhere else in the world?
if you go to urban india - caste is going, going, gone. india is moving in the right direction and needs to be encouraged.
and pleaseeee the "missionaries" are not entirely blame free. freedom to practise a religion doesnt entitle them to abuse hinduism or call it a cult of the devil / darkness. once you do that there will be repraisals. many of them are simply counting the number of souls harvested instead of practising real religion.
hindus and buddhists are one of the most pacifist people on earth. which country have they invaded or conquered in their history.
This is sure a different understanding of Hinduism than I've ever heard or read. And as to tolerance? You might want to ask those form the lower caste about that. And maybe you could ask one of those brides without a dowery before she is burned to death.
India has a fair number of Christians living there. I'm sure there are some Buddhists and atheists thrown into the mix as well.
So, how do you really feel about the subject?
They did that for economic reasons (to gain more business from the U.S. and European nations), not because of their religion. Prior to India's drive for economic growth, people of the lower caste were treated worse than stray animals.
the lower castes have access to unprecedented affirmative action. i believe 25-60% in jobs and colleges. and dowry..lol..did you check europe? india is moving in a direction that is taking them AWAY from these two practices
india was a socialist country and had a closed economy. their affirmative action had little to do with "investments from the US and europe". india opened up her economy in the 90s and their affirmative action program was in place since 1947 when she got her independence from britain.
in comparison the civil rights movement didnt take off till the 60s and 70s here. if i remember right people of a certain color couldnt vote deep down south. that is a far cry from the south that we see today.
in contrast ISLAMIC nations like pakistan treat non-muslims as half human beings and this is the LAW OF THE LAND. if you are a non-muslim woman you are a quarter human being. i wont even bother about saudi arabia.
NEW DELHI, Jan 19 (IPS) - When Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen prescribed higher literacy rates as a remedy for poverty, Hindu fundamentalists saw in it a foreign plot to promote Christian missionary activity in this country.
Although the charge made and soon after withdrawn by Ashok Singhal, leader of the fundamentalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was dismissed by many as the ranting of a fanatic, it was a pointer to the current level of political dialogue in India.
Few can quarrel with the tremendous contribution made by Christian missionaries towards promoting education in a country where there is little investment in schools and half the population remains illiterate.
Nearly every member of the English-speaking Indian elite has acquired his or her education in missionary-run institutions and these include Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani and Arun Shourie, chief ideologue of the right-wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
While the ruling BJP has distanced itself from attacks on the church, it has done little to prevent sister organisations like the VHP and the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS) from running an often violent campaign against alleged forcible conversions.
After the year ended with an orgy of church demolitions in western Gujarat state, all that Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee could offer was a "national debate on conversions", thus falling in line with the fanatic groups.
Vajpayee has also gratuitously offered not to initiate any move to ban conversions although that would call for an amendment to the Constitution which guarantees the right to "profess, practice and propagate religion."
Conversions are not new in India. Nor are they surprising because the main religion Hinduism is the only one in the world that does not preach the brotherhood of people but actually gives sanction to a rigidly hierarchical, birth-ordained caste system.
Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were in fact rebellions against Hinduism and the tyrannical caste oppression enforced for centuries by the Brahmin priesthood which sits atop the Hindu social order.
While Buddhism moved away from the country of its birth and Jainism and Sikhism remained marginal, the advent of Islam in the 11th century and Christianity during colonial times provided the first escape for millions in India from the bondage of the rigid caste system.
But the people the VHP and RSS say are being converted are in fact long-neglected tribals and indigenous people who stand outside the pale of Hinduism and suffer both social and economic deprivation.
How real are the charges of forcible conversion? The Archbishop of Delhi, Alan de Lastic, points out that while the church runs more than 6,000 educational institutions in India few students who have passed out of them ever get converted.
In fact, church-run schools (or convent schools as they are popularly known) are much sought after by the elite for the high quality of education they impart. "Those who do not like our system are free not to send their children," the Archbishop said.
Even in the Dangs district of Gujarat where some 20 churches were pillaged and half that number burned down in post- Christmas violence, Christians form barely 15 percent of the 200,000 tribal population - after a century of missionary activity in the backward region.
According to the census, the population of Christians have fallen from three percent of the population in 1951 to a little over two percent in 1991. On the other hand, Christians have visibly benefited from better access to education and through organisation.
Archbishop de Lastic thinks that the good work of the Church all over the country may have resulted in some jealousy and resentment building up against it. Besides, he said, the established social order in the villages is being threatened.
Professor of Sociology at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) here, T.K. Oomen adds that resentment against Christianity may also stem from its association with the colonial past - although the British did not encourage conversions.
There is, Prof Oomen points out, a similar resentment towards Islam, another "alien" religion brought to India through conquest, and has been the main target of of Hindu fundamentalism till last year.
But where the Muslims are a large minority, constituting 20 percent of India's population, the sudden attack on Christians may have to do with the fact that the Congress party, the main political rival of the BJP, is currently led by a Christian - the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi.
Gandhi who married into the Gandhi-Nehru political dynasty is currently engaged in restoring to the Congress party its former image of being all things to all people and essentially secular as defined by the Constitution.
Evidently Gandhi's strategy is working. The Congress resoundingly defeated the BJP in recent state assembly elections, capturing the important states of Delhi, western Rajasthan and central Madhya Pradesh.
"The BJP and its sister organisations like the VHP and the RSS can respond to the defeats in the only way it knows - by whipping up communal passions," says Congress leader in Parliament, Sharad Pawar.
Certainly the RSS weekly, 'The Organiser', its mouthpiece, has in recent issues been more stridently communal than usual about the "dangers to Hinduism". It for example describes Christian educational institutions as a "wolf in sheep's clothing".
There are signs that Prime Minister Vajpayee, acceptable as leader of the shaky 17-party coalition only for his image as a moderate, is increasingly uncomfortable with the fundamentalism of the RSS and its agenda.
On Monday, Vajpayee had announced the Bharat Ratna, the nation's highest civilian award for Amartya Sen who has not only been vocal against the neglect of education in India but also champions a multi-religious, plural society.
Oh, and that caste system or whatever might be out but those tribes where the missionaries go to are still on the lowest end of the totem pole.
for starters you are referencing an article by a guy who is clearly biased.
about education in india - the schools run by the missionaries were most sought after because it wasnt easy to set up quality private schools in socialist india. from what i understand the indian government had laws that protected institutions by religious minorities and this made it easier for the misisonaries to run these schools without government interference. in fact they were probably the only private schools in existence at that time.
right now - the education sector in india has opened up to private investment and there is a chance that many entreprenuers would have set up good private schools giving these missionary run schools a run for their money.
once again i encourage you to go and visit india to get the real picture. some of the hindu or indian bashers on this forum happily use ignorance of other Freepers to paint whatever picture they choose.
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.