Mumbai Revival

Indian51,

You quoted that Hindu militants "present India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers"
The truth is that it is nonHindus (especially Muslims and Christians) and Hindu-haters who try to "present India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers". They have been trying to do this for centuries.

By the way, I am a scientist who has studied Vedanta and Hinduism and I have developed an understanding and appreciation for this profound and peaceful philosophy. I live in the West and I do not belong to any "Hindu fundementalist" group. I have a wonderful and loving wife and children. You (and others like Bostonbrahmin, Cantabb, hsnkhwj) have made several incorrect prejudgements about me in the past. I hope you learn something about prejudging people.
I have simply decided that unfair and prejudiced statements about Hinduism need to be refuted. There is much we can all learn from Vedanta and Hinduism that will make the world more tolerant and peaceful. But this will not happen until prejudices and wrong ideas are exposed.

Vast majority of Indians/Hindus are decent people. But, we also have Bajrangis, VHPs, RSS, Ram Senas and other elements like you who bring a bad name to India and its decent people. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had Hindu fanatics like you in his mind when he said, "The Hindu militant presents India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers."

Indian51,

You are a good example of how Islam is a religion of peace. Thank you.

Meanwhile, Muslims in India are:

enjoying free elections and representation everywhere, including Kashmir (unlike Azad? Kashmir).
watching and making Bollywood movies (all the Khans).
Making millions and enjoying young Hindu wives like Sharukh Khan.
Playing tennis (Mirza with her bare legs and arms).
making lots of money (Premji)
Serving as President of India (Abdul Kalam)
Winning Oscars (AR Rehman)

Could you please help the poor oppressed Muslims in India to a better life in a an Islamic country with angry hateful people like you instead of Hindus? I am sure they would follow you anywhere.

Talk about tolenant Hindus! Take the case of recent killings and rapings in Orissa. Criminals need to be brought to justice and punished for taking innocent lives. As it turned out, the killers of the Swami in Orissa are Maoists, who admitted that they killed the Swami because he incited communal hatred and the state invstigation proved that Maoists killed the Swami. Why did the VHP/RSS not seek out the guilty and bring them to justice? Is not that the way a "secular" Hindu governance is supposed to function? Instead innocent groups of Christians were targeted. Hundreds of churches and houses of Christians were damaged or destroyed. Scores of innocent people were murdered. The point is: do militant Hindu fascists want to convert India into a violent country that has no place for non-Hindus? Militant Hindu fascists have been targeting minorities for no reason at all, except a fascist ideology. India already has a secular Constitution. There is no need for militant Hindu fascists to abolish it and set up their own version of "secular." If the violence in Orissa is any indication of how violence is brought to justice, (read: by killing innocent people who had nothing to do with the original incident), then it is a kind of Hindu "secular" India doesn't need.

Bostonbrahmin,

You wrote, "Now you can probably see what happens when we allow "Hindutva" to take over the national agenda".

You are correct. People, including Hindus, are surprised by expressions of pride and strength by Hindus. They worry that this will be perceived as arrogant or extremist by others. Don't worry. Most Hindus are proud of their religion, and the vast majority of Hindus are NOT Brahmins or "Hindutva extremists". They are just proud of who they are and they are tolerant and peaceful. Just read the anger and hate that boils in the blood of Indian51 or HSNKHWJ. The lies, vitriol, and bile spewing forth is disturbing.

Hindus are tolerant enough as I have demonstrated with simple observations and facts about history and the present. Do people really expect Hindus to not even defend themselves. Think about this fact: Christians (including British), Muslims, and Sikhs have killed by far more Hindus than Hindus have ever killed (It's the most amazing fact). These same groups then have the temerity to claim that Hindus are the intolerant ones while surrounded by Hindus who have accomodated and conceded to "minorities" repeatedly. Sonia Gandhi(Christian 2%) has very real power. MM Singh (Sikh 2%) is the PM. 3 Muslims (12%) have been Presidents.

It is never enough and never will be. Can you image if some of the Hindu-haters on these blogs actually had majorities and power? Pakistan was 40% Hindu 60 years ago; now it is 1%. Facts are undeniable, and the truth will win.

bostonbrahmin:

Inter-faith dialogues are helpful if different sides to an issue WANT to understand each other's position/s. NOT when each side remains (or wants to remain) rooted in intensely ideological grounds, and parrot the 'talking points'. If one always blame others and never acknowledges or admits to the realities that make a mockery of its claims, and says how my child is better than yours (and repeating it endlessly), that leads only to a brawl of the already-closed minds. NOT a civilized discussion. And when you hear the tired old lines, YES, under these circs., such 'inter-faith' opportunities -- a shouting match, a total waste of time !

True, "Not everybody is a terrorist" but denying that one's own group EVER had any terrorism (or justifying it), AND using a broad brush to indict every other community (throwing terms like 'Sikh / Christian / Muslim terrorism') is something else.

What I have been trying to do to is to poke holes in "airy-fairy feel-good arguments" when the same is dished out. Having done that more than once, I just dismiss them, as I've also started to do.

YES, India offers a "fertile ground" with traditional societies, ingrained biases regularly fanned, low levels of literacy, politicians exploiting (rather than reducing) religious tensions, and ineffective law and order.
And, there has been a tradition of language-based 'States' dividing the country (instead of trying to unify it).

When concerns in such a pluralistic, secular society, remain unaddressed, things tend to flare-up periodically. And, with intolerant attitudes seen on this forum, the odds remain high, I am afraid.

Bringing up Gandhi/Nehru is fine but UNLESS one ALSO followed, lived by their philosophy, it invites other people to ask why certain realities don't quite reflect that philosophy.

Clearthinjing wrote:

"Hindus don't proselyltize because of the strength of their spiritual conviction."

*********************************************************************

Who in his right mind to want to convert to Hinduism? What would be the caste of the convert?

Hindus of India are known for urine drinking, burning alive of brides for the sake of dowry, burning alive of widows in the name of Sati, burning down Christian churches, demolishing mosques, committing genocide of Muslims in Gujarat etc etc. Who will convert to Hinduism?

India is the most religious country on Earth. When I goto India I think I'm in Jurrasic Park...elephants,monkeys & snakes are found inside the airport itself...
cow's are inside the airport lounge and monkeys following you on streets...as if u r not in India but in a Zoo.

I think Hindu fanatics are the most ungrateful, corrupt, cheating thieves in the world who treat their own people (untouchables and lower caste) like dirt. You might remember the blue sari-clad untouchable young women from India at the UN describing their inhuman treatment by the upper caste Hindus such as cleaning the human excrement by their bare hands and carrying heavy loads of that excrement on their head, etc. What a shame! A survey by Transparency International, a global anti-corruption group, listed India on top of its Bribe Payers Index. This on top of the Most Corrupt Nation in the World award. Some other facts: According to World Health Organization, about 770 million people in India defecate publicly. About 20 million fetuses were killed by Hindus in a ten-year period because they were females. A recent Lancet, British medical journal, study concluded that more than 100,000 young Hindu women were killed in bride-burning fires in India every single year because they brought less dowry. Hindus are also the worst kind of racists. I see that every day. Remember, the racial bias law suit filed by the hotel staff in Boston because former Prime Minister Vajpayee did not want blacks to serve or cook for him when he visited the US. India is also on top of prostitution and sending women and young girls for immoral traffic to foreign countries. Here, we’re subjected to a ranting of the “superior Hindu culture.” I sincerely hope that these Hindu fanatics will be born as untouchables in their next life of reincarnation.

cantabb1:

This is the trouble with people with little knowledge and loads of airy-fairy feel-good arguments, they end up pusing the single line "Not everybody is a terrorist", and you have been doing for a long while now.

Fine, but terrorism thrives on the fertile ground, where a plurality or at least a large portion of the silent masses believe that the methods applied will give them their object of desire (separate state, higher status, etc).

If you have been following the history of the Sikh terrorism in India, you would have realized that the ideal of a separate state (Khalistan) was pushed by a majority of the Sikhs in India, as shown by their repeated sending (by popular vote) to the parliament, politicians whose stated aim was to form their own separate state. These same politicians also called the terrorists "martyrs", and were openly supportive of their actions.

When Indira Gandhi was murdered, the Hindu community took to the streets to kill as many Sikhs as they could. The police stopped them, or tried to stop them everywhere in India, except in Delhi, where policians were seen leading the mob.

In my opinion, it was this Anti-Sikh riot that finally stopped the Khalistan movement. The so called silent majority of the Sikhs realized that as long as they allowed the terrorists to be their "face", they will be targets of the indiscriminate counter-strikes, when those happen. The movement lost its sting, when the average person realized that the cost was too high, and chose to accept the reality that they would have to remain within the political boundaries of India.

There is no single definition of Democracy. India has its own version, reflecting the realities.

Every country does that, and from the outside it is as ugly to watch the United States, where half the young people of color are languishing in prison, as it is to watch France where minorities resort to buring cars to protest their plight, and India with its myriad problems.

The problems in India are politcal, not religious. Political leaders are the ones that incite riots, not the religious ones. Thus interfaith dialog is meaningless, and a waste of time.

Clearthinking....

Now you can probably see what happens when we allow "Hindutva" to take over the national agenda, and become the face of India.

Whenever you talk about the fact that Hinduism has elements of tolerance built within it, and suggest that the broad-minded nature of our founding fathers (Nehru et. al.) was based on the basic principles of Hinduism, rather than the secular and socialist principles based on their acquired knowledge of the "enlightened west", people will smack you on the face with Babri Masjid, the Godhra incident and similar ugliness.

It is perfectly fine to be proud of the cultural heritage and the principles of the old Congress party (not the current version). However, whenever you try to justify "hindutva" and Narendra Modi. you are standing on thin ice.

To ALL:

For whatever reason, this BLOG sometimes does NOT post the comments soon. Could be the length, because it does when I break it into two. Then, it posts the one you thought it won't -- later.

Happened a couple of times. Sorry for the outcome (same post, repeated).

CLEARTHINKING1:

"Read your own posts and mine again. Who's ranting angrily (e.g."disembowel your arguments") and who's writing verifiable facts?.....................................
P.S. I guess you cantabb your cake and eat it too. But you seem to have eaten a lot of crow. (just kidding, don't go into another angry rant)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MORE OF THE SAME MEANINGLESS RANT. NOTHING RATIONAL, NOTHING BALANCED.

NOTHING I HAVE NOT DISMANTLED SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE.

Come back when you learn to get rid of your prejudice, bias and bigotry --- and CAN follow the principles of Gandhi/Nehru/Mother Teresa tolerance and goodwill.

CLEARTHINKING1:

"Read your own posts and mine again. Who's ranting angrily (e.g."disembowel your arguments") and who's writing verifiable facts?

The reason for your anger probably has to do with the following:

You seem to believe that tolerance and strength are mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to Hindus. You have probably watched the "Gandhi" movie and think that the source of Hindu peacefulness and tolerance is weakness. But the truth is the opposite, and it seems to have shaken you into a state of denial and anger.
You take the mere expression of support for Hinduism and its accomplishments as a sign of intolerance of others. Why? this is incorrect. You are given concrete examples of tolerance by Hindus in the face of recent Sikh and Muslim terrorism, but you are unable to acknowledge them. Hinduism and Vedanta develop strength of moral character and help the individual evolve spiritually.

Tolerance is not a sign of weakness, but of strength.

Nonviolent protest (Gandhi) is not a sign of weakness, but of strong moral character.
Plurality is not a sign of weakness of India, but a sign of its strength.

Vegetarianism is not a sign of weakness, but of strong ethics.

Hindus don't proselyltize because of the strength of their spiritual conviction.

In contrast, colonialism, proselytization, and begging for interfaith dialogue instead of facing facts are signs of weakness. Each faith needs to improve itself if it has the capacity. Otherwise, walk away from it.

Just look at the political, economic, and social trajectories of India and Pakistan. Both share common genetics, culture, and languages. One country is dominated by Hindus and is progressing into an economically vibrant, tolerant, pluralistic, democracy.(Can you acknowledge this statement or is that too difficult) The other is on the verge of becoming a failed state. Pakistan has misunderstood Hindu tolerance as weakness on many occasions, but has lost all 4 wars and their "war of attrition". Truth is always victorious.

P.S. I guess you cantabb your cake and eat it too. But you seem to have eaten a lot of crow. (just kidding, don't go into another angry rant)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MORE OF THE SAME MEANINGLESS RANT. NOTHING RATIONAL, NOTHING BALANCED.

NOTHING I HAVE NOT DISMANTLED BEFORE.

Come back when you learn to get rid of your prejudice, bias and bigotry --- and CAN follow the principles of Gandhi/Nehru/Mother Teresa tolerance and goodwill.

NABOB1:

Thanks.

In a secular democracy, protecting the rights of minorities is always a challenge. But IF the government and the laws can not protect that and allows (or watch things from the sidelines) violent acts by the majority or by one minority over others, then it is making a laughingstock of itself and its claims to democratic principles.

NO POINT IN HAVING LAWS unless THEY ARE EFFECTIVE AND serve the purpose and help ease the problem. Mere mentioning them is equally meaningless. I hope the minorities get the protection they deserve, and India a secular democracy it was supposed to be, and NOT what it has been allowed to deteriorate into (based on the widespread reports of religious extremist violence of one side or the other).

People from the majority religion, like CLEARTHINKING1, are mere 'un-thinking' apologists and ineffective mouth pieces of a religion intent on imposing their religion on what's supposed to be a SECULAR democracy. That's a disservice to Gandhi/Nehru philosophy.

I don't quite agree with Eboo Patel's articles, and have said so on other occasions (mostly I ignore), but what this Forum does offer is an opportunity to discuss "Inter-faith" in a rational, civilized manner -- NOT a place to beat one's own religious drum and how morally superior it is to the rest, denigrate other minorities, and deny or ignore or rationalize the atrocities committed by the violent extremists in the majority, as some participants have been doing here.

HATE begets HATE. And if people (blog-owners, WaPo, etc) are trying to use a forum to create and foster understanding and appreciation of other positions/viewpoints in a constructive manner, THIS is NO place for unreconstructed zealots and mouthpieces of extremism from one side or the other.

As I've said before: Imagine what will happen if one mother says to another: 'My baby is more beautiful, more intelligent and more of this or that than YOURS!' I'd love to talk to that mother after she gets her nose fixed.

I am here to look at, consider and understand different positions in an open and fair manner, and if the blog-owner wants this forum to be an effective venue for such a dialogue (NOT hateful, highly biased rantings), he will have to do something more.

Cantabb,

Read your own posts and mine again. Who's ranting angrily (e.g."disembowel your arguments") and who's writing verifiable facts?

The reason for your anger probably has to do with the following:
You seem to believe that tolerance and strength are mutually exclusive, especially when it comes to Hindus. You have probably watched the "Gandhi" movie and think that the source of Hindu peacefulness and tolerance is weakness. But the truth is the opposite, and it seems to have shaken you into a state of denial and anger.
You take the mere expression of support for Hinduism and its accomplishments as a sign of intolerance of others. Why? this is incorrect. You are given concrete examples of tolerance by Hindus in the face of recent Sikh and Muslim terrorism, but you are unable to acknowledge them. Hinduism and Vedanta develop strength of moral character and help the individual evolve spiritually.
Tolerance is not a sign of weakness, but of strength.
Nonviolent protest (Gandhi) is not a sign of weakness, but of strong moral character.
Plurality is not a sign of weakness of India, but a sign of its strength.
Vegetarianism is not a sign of weakness, but of strong ethics.
Hindus don't proselyltize because of the strength of their spiritual conviction.

In contrast, colonialism, proselytization, and begging for interfaith dialogue instead of facing facts are signs of weakness. Each faith needs to improve itself if it has the capacity. Otherwise, walk away from it.

Just look at the political, economic, and social trajectories of India and Pakistan. Both share common genetics, culture, and languages. One country is dominated by Hindus and is progressing into an economically vibrant, tolerant, pluralistic, democracy.(Can you acknowledge this statement or is that too difficult) The other is on the verge of becoming a failed state. Pakistan has misunderstood Hindu tolerance as weakness on many occasions, but has lost all 4 wars and their "war of attrition". Truth is always victorious.

P.S. I guess you cantabb your cake and eat it too. But you seem to have eaten a lot of crow. (just kidding, don't go into another angry rant)

CANTABB:

Yes the Civil Rights Act was inadequate and so the SC/ST Act(for atrocities against SC/ST s) was passed. Still a long way to go before the conviction rate is adequate but the law has teeth now. With Dalits now wielding real political power, it will only get better.

With regard to religious conversions i hope the Indian parliament can debate the issue as was hoped for by the former PM Vajpayee. It is indeed an emotive issue for India where the majority follow a non-proselytising religion i.e, Hinduism. As an aside, Dr. B Ambedkar (who drew up the Indian constitution) when he converted from Hinduism didnt convert to Islam or Christian faiths which are not native to the Indian subcontinent but to another faith which sprung up in India: Buddhism.

Part 2

CLEARTHINKING1: “Hindus did not judge the entire Sikh or Muslim community because of the heinous terrorism, ……“

YOU DID EXACTLY that in this and many other similar statements. There ARE militant religious extremists in every religion (INCLUDING in Hinduism, but you DON”T admit it). Blame them, NOT the entire communities – the same communities that produced Manmohan Singh, Abdul Kalam, the Dalit Constitution author, as well as Gandhi/Nehru and others. However, these people have also condemned violent elements of their own communities. Your PR ‘talking points’ are less-and-less convincing, are meaningless and don’t jive with your hateful statements against the entire communities, rather than the violent elements

CLEARTHINKING1: “Hindus actually live the philosophy of tolerance that people like you write about from an armchair.”

Do ALL Hindus live by that philosophy ? What about those who indiscriminately burned people, raped and murdered innocent nuns, and defaced, torched and tore down places of worship ? All documented in various published reports, many from your own newspapers and commissions. Besides, the independent groups.

CLEARTHINKING1: “….you write about from an armchair.”

These are some of the people who don’t BUY your self-serving hateful messages, and see through all this. Very poor mouth-piece you are. Doing a great disservice to the image of India.

CLEARTHINING1: “So save your lectures and holier than thou crap.”

That applies to you, a proponent of a ‘morally- superior, more -tolerant religion and culture’ than any other [read: “holier-than-thou”]. What unreconstructed NONSENSE !

Show, by actions, deeds and statements what you think you represent. Don’t smear the names of good people in your country (and include Mother Teresa, next time).

Once again, you DO NOT display any sign of objectivity, or willingness to try it. You just spew HATE. And your ad hominems against me and make you unsuitable for a civilized discussion.

BYEEEE !

Part 1

CLEARTHINKING1:

Instead of following the spirit of this “interfaith,” you are just beating your drum, raving and ranting against every other minority of your own country, a secular democracy, while you ignore or try to rationalize murderous atrocities some extremists groups did or have been doing against the minorities (Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Dalits, e.g.).

Did you read, e.g., the document I posted earlier on violence against religious minorities in India:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35516.htm

Do a google search and you’ll get an eyeful (as I also got) ! Lots of details available. NOT quite a secret, or something just recent ! Come back after !

CLEARTHINKING1: “You seem to only see one side of the story, and you don't even acknowledge any of the numerous acts of tolerance I have mentioned.”

NONSENSE! YOU are the person who refuses to see any other side, EXCEPT your own, Hinduism.
You gave NO FACTS: Just rants, and some Hinduism PR ‘talking points,” repeatedly, WITHOUT accepting the atrocities against almost all other minorities in the country.

You display NO sign of objectivity.

CLEARTHINKING1: “Perhaps you just don't know much about India and its history and are making it up on the fly from tidbits of knowledge you pickup here and there (that's what your posts sound like).”

MORE NONSENSE.

Keep your head in sand, if you like, but LOTS of published reports, including in your newspapers, for quite some time. My posts have poked major holes in your argument – to let a couple of Mack trucks go side by side.

CLEARTHINKING: “It's almost incomprehensible that a majority would allow itself to be victimized to such an extent and…”

HOW the extremist/fundamentalist groups among this majority have “victimized” almost every other minority in a secular democracy is NOT that “incomprehensible” -- it has been widely reported in Indian media and elsewhere.

CLEARTHINKING1: “….Hindus actually live the philosophy of tolerance that people like you write about from an armchair.”

NOT ALL HINDUS. BUT don’t forget you have a large number of religious extremists/fundamentalist militants tat preach and practice Intolerance and Hate (reports have identified the groups and their actions).

CLEARTHINKING1: “Perhaps you just don't know much about India and its history and are making it up on the fly from tidbits of knowledge you pickup here and there (that's what your posts sound like).”

Enough to disembowel your arguments, as well as your anger, rants and explicit HATE against other minorities.

Cantabb,

Do me a favor. Write an objective list of violence against minorities by Hindus and a list of violence against the majority Hindus by the minorities in India. Count the number of dead bodies in the recent past and throughout history in the region. You will be shocked by the facts and the disparity. You seem to only see one side of the story, and you don't even acknowledge any of the numerous acts of tolerance I have mentioned. Perhaps you just don't know much about India and its history and are making it up on the fly from tidbits of knowledge you pickup here and there (that's what your posts sound like).

It's almost incomprehensible that a majority would allow itself to be victimized to such an extent and then allow members of the same groups to become leaders like Prime Minister and President. But of course it is not incomprehensible because Hindus actually live the philosophy of tolerance that people like you write about from an armchair. Obviously, Hindus did not judge the entire Sikh or Muslim community because of the heinous terrorism, and made Manmohan Singh (Sikh) the Prime Minister and Abdul Kalam (muslim) the previous President.

A 7,000 year old culture that has manifested successfully tolerance, plurality, vegetarianism, Vedanta, Yoga, Ahimsa, and continues to improve itself is not waiting for armchair analysts. So save your lectures and holier than thou crap. Your inability to acknowledge or appreciate simple facts about Hinduism speaks volumes.

BTW, who do you think established a secular constitutional democracy India? It was Hindus like Gandhi and Nehru. The Muslims bolted and created Pakistan, an Islamic republic with an Islamic constitution with sharia law.

NABOB1:

IF there already was a law that covered everyone well enough (“Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955”), why do you think another one was needed 33 years later (1989) ?

Apparently, either violence against minorities increased at some point or the 1955 wasn’t effective. Or what else ?

CLEARTHINING1:

Preposterous of you to include me with some other poster I don’t know to make your comments as if THAT poster and I share the same position. Sorry that you don’t even seem to know the basic minimum of a rational discussion.

Clearthinking1: “Its always amusing watching the mental gymnastics that people like you have to do to maintain your pre-established judgements about Hinduism.”

NOT as amusing as one trying to sweep things under the rug, and blame every other group (LOCAL Christians, Muslims and Sikhs – all minorities totaling about 15%). “

Clearthinking1: “…pre-established judgements about Hinduism” ?

That would apply to you. My knowledge about Hinduism was lot more favorable BEFORE you tried to wholesale indict/damn other religions and tried to rationalize/justify violence by Hindu extremists (raping, murdering nuns, churches, mosques and Sikh temples).

Clearthinking1: “Is it that difficult to admit that Hinduism is tolerant?”

NOT because YOU say we should believe it. This has to be demonstrated, and borne out by deeds.
Then you also HAVE TO admit when there is a history violent intolerance against minorities (not just one).

Then you accuse others of “supremacism,” while this philosophy seems to be the VERY basis of Hindu Caste System !

Clearthinking1: “Muslim countries are much more discriminative against nonmuslims.”

SO, you must do it minorities in your country ? What NONSENSE ! I thought India was a “SECULAR” democracy. Do you know what kind of responsibilities does the country have toward its minorities?

Clearthinking1: “Hindu-hater, but what inspires this hatred?” [referring to the other poster]

Just like YOU seem to “hate” every other minority in India – the “talking point” language you use against other religious groups.

Clearthinking1: “Amazing how a supremacist ideology like Islam and Christianity blinds one to their own hypocrisy. Everyone else can see it clearly, can you?”

Same inflammatory language, and you expect this allows a rational “inter-faith” dialogue ?

Besides, “hypocrisy” here is YOURS and yours only ! Claiming “extreme tolerance” of your religion -- and IGNORING atrocities committed by people in your own religion, in the name of religion.

Your posts are mere rants against every religious minority in your multicultural country, which I thought was a SECULAR DEMOCRACY !

What a shame !

Cantabb and HSNKHWJ,

Its always amusing watching the mental gymnastics that people like you have to do to maintain your pre-established judgements about Hinduism.

Is it that difficult to admit that Hinduism is tolerant?
I know HSKHNWJ is a Muslim and Hindu-hater, but what inspires this hatred? Is it Muslim supremacism? Muslim countries are much more discriminative against nonmuslims. It's not even a close call. But you don't seem to let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
I especially enjoy your false outrage that Sonia Gandhi, an ethnic Italian born in Italy, did not become Prime Minister. Every constitutional democracy prohibits a non-native born from become the most powerful leader. This is explicitly written in the U.S. constitution. You must be outraged that Arnold Schwartznegger is prohibited from running for President of the U.S. because he was born in Austria. This is unacceptable intolerange according to HSKHNWJ, but he doesn't seem to say much about Muslim countries like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan where the constitution has a clause specifically promoting Islam. And let's not even talk about Saudi Arabia.
Amazing how a supremacist ideology like Islam and Christianity blinds one to their own hypocrisy. Everyone else can see it clearly, can you?

HSNKHWJ:
Keep increasing the people who were killed in the post Godhra riots. Some journalist thought of a number and 2000 sounded about right and voila thats the number that is used ever since. Its closer to 1000 (800 muslims and 254 hindus). As to why the riots happened i think its very clear: the muslims killed 59 hindus by burning the train coach first which resulted in a reaction.

HSNKHWJ:

Yeah Mrs. Gandhi ordered the Indian Army to attack the Golden temple (Operation BlueStar) because it had to be cleaned of the scum Bhindranwale and his terrorist pals. And she was murdered by her own guards who she had faith in and trusted much to the chagrin of her security advisors who wanted them changed as was Gen.A S Vaidya(retd) (the Army chief at that time) in Pune by Sikh terrorists.

As for Godhra yes, the muslims did start it by burning the coach and killing innocent Hindu women and children. The Banerjee commission was set up by Laloo Prasad Yadav to influence the Bihar assembly elections in 2005.

Indians1:
I wouldnt take Khushwant Singhs word about religious conversion. His touching faith in that the missionaries run the best schools, colleges is anecdotal and without any proof. But since its written by Khushwant Singh its accepted as a fact.

CANTABB1:
Yes that law was enacted in 1989, prior to the 1989 law they were covered by Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955.

It is generally known that more than 2000 Muslims, including women and children were killed in Gujarat riots of 2002. There was a wanton destruction of the property of Muslims--homes, businesses and places of worship.

In Naroda, according to Human Rights Watch, at least 65 Muslims were killed, many of them women who were sexually assaulted by violent mobs[33]. One of the witnesses alleged before the Nanavati commission that BJP leader Maya Kodnani, Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi and others led mobs on February 28 in the Naroda-Patia area[34].

A high profile case involved an Ex-Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was surrounded by Hindu mobs (including Congress workers[citation needed]) while many other Muslim residents in the area took shelter in his compound. Jafri was believed to have contacted the local police stations, MPs of the area as well as the Chief Minister Modi to save the people from the ever increasing mob. However, no police reinforcement had reached his place and the few policemen present were ineffective and unwilling to control the violent mob." Eventually he was burnt to death, along with fifty others.

According to HRW in its widely-quoted report, mobs of thousands, dressed in saffron scarves and khaki shorts - and armed with swords, sophisticated explosives, and gas cylinders, were guided by voter lists and printouts of addresses of Muslim-owned properties, information obtained from the local municipal administration.[36] Muslims in Ahmedabad alleged that there were elements of planning in the violence.

Fourteen people, including women and children, were killed by a mob at the Best Bakery in the town of Vadodara on the night of 1 March.

On March 3, fourteen members of Bilkis Bano's family including her two-month old daughter were killed in a mob attack near Chapparwad village in Dahod district. Seven women including Bilkis Bano, then five months pregnant, were raped.

HOW CAN CLEARTHINKING CLAIM THAT HINDUS ARE A PEACEFUL PEOPLE?

On Violence against religious minorities in India:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35516.htm

I also understand a law was enacted in 1989: "The Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act," to protect "tribal" and "lower" castes against verbal and physical attacks on them, estimated to be over 20% of India's population (~1.2 Billion).

This some 42 years after Independence of this secular democracy.

[part 2]

Clearthinking: "The ground reality gets very ugly during times of terrorism, and you seem quite emotionally detatched from the extent and depth of suffering that was caused by these terrorist movements."

You got to be "emotionally detached" to take a balanced view and have 'clear thinking'. You can NOT let your emotions, sweeping generalizations, selective recall and personal preferences over-ride or ignore the realities on both sides NOT just your own side).

How about the "ground reality" when some terrorists raped and killed nuns, burnt churches ? Or, when some people tore down mosques and other places sacred to other groups ? ANY religious group (in entirety) responsible for this violence and extremism ?

Clearthinking: "It's easy to talk the talk in child-like idealism but hard to walk the walk."

NONSENSE ! Trying to view things from both sides is NOT "child-like idealism" ! How preposterous !

Clearthinking: "Go and visit someday and you will see what tolerance looks like in a land of a billion people with a 7,000 year old culture, struggling to rise out of poverty and colonialism and live a peaceful life. Armchair commentary, criticism, and idealism is easy and fun for some people."

MORE NONSENSE ! More distraction.

What's THAT got to with the specific issues under discussion.

Sorry, Clearthinking, you seem too biased and bigoted to be able to carry a rational and balanced discussion !

I AM DISAPPOINTED !

Clearthinking: "One religion is not "morally" superior over another. However, Hinduism is more tolerant than others. You seem to be stuck on anecdotes in trying to create equivalency instead of acknowledging the numerous objective facts I have written."

You must be confused, or haven't read my posts carefully.

Once again, I have NOT used any anecdotal points ! YOU have !

You were the one who brought in "equivalency" here, and then tried to portray how Hinduism is somehow BETTER (using terms for others like: "Sikh terrorism"; "supremacist" Abrahamic faiths etc). And not even recognize the 'supremcist' caste system? Regrettably, that's religious bias and bigotry !

What "objective facts" ? And "Numerous," at that? Your characterizations, including sweeping generalizations, are NOT "objective facts"! Making those pronouncements repeatedly doesn't make them so, either !

Clearthinking: "Your distinction between Sikh or Islamic terrorist versus a "elements within the community" terrorists demonstrates a lack of understanding about how much support existed within these communities at least for a brief period."

You can NOT indict the entire communities for the acts of some militant extremist. Otherwise, the entire Hindu community can be equally accused for violent acts by 'SOME illiterate peasants' who raped and killed nuns and burnt Churches and other places of worship.

Didn't you concede earlier that "SOME Sikhs committed innumerable acts of terrorism"; "MANY Muslims have committed acts of terrorism" ? And still indicted/maligned the entire religious groups (and claimed wide "support" for the terrorists in Sikh and Muslim communities for violence)? That's highly 'divisive' and inflammatory. [cont'd...]

Clearthinking loves to muddy the waters. Here is the sequence of the situation with the Sikh minority:
(1) There is a Sikh Prime Minister in India, not because he is a Sikh but because Sonia Gandhi was not allowed to become P.M., and Sonia Gandhi chose him for his technocratic skills.

(2) Indira Gandhi was killed by her Sikh guards. Why? Because erroneously it was an act of revenge.
She had ordered the Indian army to attack the holiest of the Sikh place of worship--The Golden temple.

(3) The communal riots against Sikhs in Delhi started after Indira Gandhi was killed by those Sikh guards. Lot of destruction and loss of life for the Sikh community. Again, guilt by association.

Clearthinking picks and chooses. He leaves out the facts that do not suit him.

Clearthinking is also confused for his desire to campaign a public relations campaign on behalf of India while professing Hinduism to be a peaceful religion. Vedants might teach peace but Hindus don't practice it the same way many Muslims and Christians also practice distorted forms of their religions.

On the subject of Gujarat riots: A commission of inquiry declared the train fire could not have started by pouring kerosene from outside. It was Hindu zealots returning from Ayodhya engaged in rowdyism. No, Muslims did not start that. Rajive Chandrasekharan of Washington Post detailed the events soon after the riots of 2002.

Bostonbrahmin,
The conflicts in Sri Lanka and Tibet are ethnic not religion based. Sri Lanka is Tamil vs Sinhalese. Tibet is Chinese (Han) vs. Tibetan.

Cantabb,
One religion is not "morally" superior over another. However, Hinduism is more tolerant than others. You seem to be stuck on anecdotes in trying to create equivalency instead of acknowledging the numerous objective facts I have written.

Your distinction between Sikh or Islamic terrorist versus a "elements within the community" terrorists demonstrates a lack of understanding about how much support existed within these communities at least for a brief period. The ground reality gets very ugly during times of terrorism, and you seem quite emotionally detatched from the extent and depth of suffering that was caused by these terrorist movements. It's easy to talk the talk in child-like idealism but hard to walk the walk. Go and visit someday and you will see what tolerance looks like in a land of a billion people with a 7,000 year old culture, struggling to rise out of poverty and colonialism and live a peaceful life. Armchair commentary, criticism, and idealism is easy and fun for some people.

More on violence against minorities in Inda.

http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/Columnists/ S_Tharoor_ Hindu_tenets_ under_attack/ articleshow/ 3535323.cms

Conversion business
By Khushwant Singh

Recent incidents of violence and vandalism against Christians and their churches deserve to be condemned unreservedly. They have blackened the fair face of Mother India and ruined the reputation of Hindus being the most religiously tolerant people in the world. At the same time, we must take a closer look at people who convert from one faith to another. To start with, let it be understood that these days there are no forced conversions anywhere in the world. India is no exception. Those who assert that the poor, innocent and ignorant of India are being forced to accept Christianity are blatant liars. A few, very few educated and well-to-do men and women convert to another faith when they do not find solace in the faith of their ancestors. Examples are to be found in America and Europe of men and women of substance turning from Judaism and Christianity to Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism.
There are also men and women who convert to the faith of those they wish to marry. We have plenty of cases of Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Sikh inter-marriages. However, the largest number of converts come from communities discriminated against. The outstanding example was that of Dalit leader Bhimrao Ambedkar who led his Mahar community to embrace Buddhism because they were discriminated against by upper caste Hindus.
This is also true of over 90 per cent of Indian Muslims whose ancestors being lower caste embraced Islam which gave them equal status. That gives lie to the often-repeated slander that Islam made converts by the sword.
An equally large number of people converted out of gratitude. They were neglected, ignorant and poor. When strangers came to look after them, opened schools and hospitals for them, taught them, healed them and helped them to stand on their own feet to hold their heads high, they felt grateful towards their benefactors. Most of them were Christian missionaries who worked in remote villages and brought hope to the lives of people who were deprived of hope.
To this day, Christian missionaries run the best schools, colleges and hospitals in our country. They are inexpensive and free of corruption. They get converts because of the sense of gratitude they generate. Can this be called forcible conversion? Why don¢t the great champions of Hinduism look within their hearts and find out why so many are disenchanted by their pretensions of piety? Let them first set their own houses in order, purge the caste system out of Hindu society and welcome with open arms all those who wish to join them. No one will then convert from Hinduism to another religion.

Clearthinking: Cont'd

I think, you, dear “Clearthinking,” believe there is “moral” superiority of one religion over all others in a democracy. Denying a dose of reality: Militant extremists, fundamentalists and yes, terrorists also exist in your majority religion !

You have so very “arbitrarily assigned” blame to EVERY OTHER group.

“Moral equivalency is a very slippery slope, and it can be destructive”: True! And, there are two sides in any equivalency! A dose of reality is a great leveler, deflates any professed claims of superiority.

Clearthinking: “Why is it "divisive" to state the obvious that some Sikhs committed innumerable acts of terrorism, but a Sikh is now the Prime Minister. Why is it divisive to say that many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism, but the previous President (and 2 other Presidents) were Muslim? Is it too much to ask for the acknowledgement of such facts in the face of all the criticism of Hindus?”

Simple: You call, “Sikh terrorism”: NOT ALL Sikhs are “terrorists” or are engaged in “terrorism.” Same with the same indiscriminate term applied to other groups –Christian, Muslims.

This is also contradicted by your OWN repeated statements: a Sikh Prime Minister, few Muslim Presidents, a Dalit constitution author and a President, Sonia Gandhi, a Roman Catholic.

“Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but anywhere there is religious violence in the world, one of the parties is almost always Muslim or Christian.”

Reflects your bias and bigotry. No Hindu violence, ever? NO Hindu caste-driven “supremacist philosophy” there ? Your facts are not THE facts !

Again, you say: “Religious extremists, murderers, thieves, criminals exist in all societies.” Except Hinduism ???

“No system is perfect but some systems tend to allow more tolerance.” And Hinduism is “more tolerant” of ALL others ?

“This is my point about the history of Hinduism and tolerance.”: Isn’t caste-system, also a part of your history ? Or, something that you’d also try to explain away and try to rationalize !

Sorry, ‘Clearthinking’, your statements are like -- One mother saying to another: “My child is more beautiful than yours” -- And complaining why other ‘mothers’ don’t accept that as THE TRUTH.

You continue to say things I find biased and bigoted – not admirable in such a discussion!

Clearthinking:
I think, you, dear “Clearthinking,” believe there is “moral” superiority of one religion over all others in a democracy. Denying a dose of reality: Militant extremists, fundamentalists and yes, terrorists also exist in your majority religion ! You have so very “arbitrarily assigned” blame to EVERY OTHER group.
“Moral equivalency is a very slippery slope, and it can be destructive”: True! And, there are two sides in any equivalency! A dose of reality is a great leveler, deflates any professed claims of superiority.
“Why is it "divisive" to state the obvious that some Sikhs committed innumerable acts of terrorism, but a Sikh is now the Prime Minister. Why is it divisive to say that many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism, but the previous President (and 2 other Presidents) were Muslim? Is it too much to ask for the acknowledgement of such facts in the face of all the criticism of Hindus?”: Clearthinking.
Simple: You call, “Sikh terrorism”: NOT ALL Sikhs are “terrorists” or are engaged in “terrorism.” Same with the same indiscriminate term applied to other groups –Christian, Muslims.
This is also contradicted by your OWN repeated statements: a Sikh Prime Minister, few Muslim Presidents, a Dalit constitution author and a President, Sonia Gandhi, a Roman Catholic.
“Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but anywhere there is religious violence in the world, one of the parties is almost always Muslim or Christian.”
Reflects your bias and bigotry. No Hindu violence, ever? NO Hindu caste-driven “supremacist philosophy” there ? Your facts are not THE facts !
Again, you say: “Religious extremists, murderers, thieves, criminals exist in all societies.” Except Hinduism ???
“No system is perfect but some systems tend to allow more tolerance.” And Hinduism is “more tolerant” of ALL others ?
“This is my point about the history of Hinduism and tolerance.”: Isn’t caste-system, also a part of your history ? Or, something that you’d also try to explain away and try to rationalize !

Sorry, ‘Clearthinking’, your statements are like -- One mother saying to another: “My child is more beautiful than yours” -- And complaining why other ‘mothers’ don’t accept that as THE TRUTH.
You continue to say things I find biased and bigoted – not admirable in such a discussion!

clearthinking1 :

Re: “Sikh terrorism”: “You may be sincere in trying to see both sides, but there is a danger in arbritrarily assigning moral equivalency.”

From the beginning, you dear “Clearthinking,” have made sweeping generalizations like this, seemingly designed to paint one religion/one religious group in a far, far better light than others in that country: “The correct answer is: Hindus (85% majority) are, have been, and always will be extremely tolerant. It is in their profound philosophy Unity and oneness(Vedanta).” [High-light added] And, “Hindus have always been tolerant going back many millenia. Jains, Buddhists, Zorastrians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, & nonbelievers have all found refuge among Hindus.”

On the other side, you try to describe others as : “….philosophically, the Abrahamic religions are supremacist in their internal structure. So other people have to be converted or saved from their own inferior religion and culture…..”

You blame “LOCAL” Muslims, Christians and Sikhs (“Sikh Terrorism” – not alleged terrorist elements among Sikhs, most of them “good people”) for all the current problems in India.

You ignore that ‘militant extremists’ (including terrorists) may also be present and active in Hinduism, the majority religion in India, and could have created conflicts – WHO raped, murdered Nuns, who burnt places of worship (churches, etc) ? “Local” Christians ? Blame-the-victim or denying reality ?

Your statements are biased and bigoted -- NOT balanced, I’m afraid.

Body Count: The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops (3,388 combat 805 non-combat) and 88,851 – 96,976 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

bostonbrahmin :

I'm going to leave other unrelated issues alone. Thanks for clarification

cantabb1 :
bostonbrahmin :

Even if “a very often Dollar-driven” “Catholic church of today” were engaged in the process of conversion TODAY, how do you justify THIS as a reaction by the majority in an “always …tolerant” democracy
*******************************************

I dont. You probably confused me with somebody else. Neither do I justify the 4000 odd US citizens and millions of Iraqis killed, all in the pursuit of an eternal GOP majority, and cheap oil. I can also not justify the thousands of Gazans killed in order to push for a win of a particular political party. In neither case will the criminals ever be brought to justice. It was all in the pursuit of political power in a Democracy.

In all these case, there was a public opinion in place that wanted retribution for real or imaginary wrongs. In all cases the Politicians were all to happy to provide it, and reap the benefits.

Same with India. Cracks exist. Wedge-politics exist. People die.

Incidentally, Clearthinking, in order to find a non-Abrahamic religious war, look at Srilanka (Hindu vs Buddhist) and Tibet (Buddist vs Communism).

bostonbrahmin :

Even if “a very often Dollar-driven” “Catholic church of today” were engaged in the process of conversion TODAY, how do you justify THIS as a reaction by the majority in an “always …tolerant” democracy:

(i) burning places of worship, rapes and murders of innocent Christians (ii) Police (and the protective arms of law and order and justice) and political leaders watching “from the sidelines,” or worse, inciting this lawlessness.

Aren’t MOST Indian Christians, Indian citizens (as opposed to ‘Dollar-carrying’ foreigners/white missionaries)? If poor people are “offered free housing and often money,” is it NOT something that other people in the community (or the government) long ignored/failed to do (including opportunities to better their own lives) ?

Since, as you say, “Hinduism does not have any process of conversion,” and ‘obviously angry’ and “illiterate hindu peasants” do not like it (and would burn Churches, rape and murder Christians), has the democratic India BANNED religious conversions (coerced or voluntary)? Trying to rationalize murderous lawlessness against a minority, with the police and politicians ‘watching from the sidelines’ as “perhaps not unexpected” is not pretty!!

Either you have freedom to practice your own faith (a result of conversion or not) or you do NOT -- in a “tolerant” democracy! Viewing this, along with reported actions on other minorities, does paint, I am afraid, a rather disturbing picture, compared to the claims made by another poster, “Clearthinking.”

Perhaps “often illiterate hindu peasants” as well as others in India itself (not those outside) could USE, not just “a religion in India 101” but also a course in “Democracy 101” too – if what you describe IS the case.

“Talking about tolerance or othewise of religion” IS “the point here,” my friend. And, “Politcal systems exploiting the situation is the major culprit” in –quite unfortunately -- an “extremely tolerant” democracy, India, NOT the United States, the UK, Canada or other Western democracies.

IF the basic fundamental necessities like “protecting the life and properties of all citizens,” are, as you say, “yet to emerge” in India --- perhaps focusing FIRST on these problems would help a great deal to foster tolerance in a “tolerant” democracy.

And IF, as “in the anti-Sikh riots” and “anti-Bihari murders” in Mumbai, “major politcal leaders were actively inciting violence,” then, sad to say, problems are not just religious, but political too – so very basic minimum for a democracy.

“Political parties, and the government machinery, take an active part in promoting violence, and often pay no consequence”: This is a big indictment of the political system in India, if what you say is true!

After this discussion here, this is a blow to the image I have had of India. A personal disappointment.

Unfortunately, SUCH is my view of “reality” you presented for India.

Farnaz,
You wrote:"The Dalit are living under horrendous circumstances as they always have"

Dalits do bear the brunt of poverty in India, and this needs to be corrected. But progress is being made. Did you know:

The Indian Constitution was not written by Nehru, Gandhi, or an upper cast person. It was written by a Dalit.
A Dalit was a recent Presidet of India.
Extraordinary reservations (quotas) have been set aside for Dalits, especially in universities (up to 70%).

India is a nation pulling itself out of extreme poverty, and many socioeconomic injustices still exist. Can you imagine a Jew writing the Iranian constitution or becoming the president of Iran any time soon. Dalits in India were never treated as badly as Blacks in America or as Hindus by the British. In the US, a black man was 3/5 of a human being and could be owned as property until 1865. Now Barack Obama is the President of the US. Peaceful and tolerant societies make progress. The world is not static.

Farnaz,
You wrote:"The Dalit are living under horrendous circumstances as they always have"

Dalits do bear the brunt of poverty in India, and this needs to be corrected. But progress is being made. Did you know:

The Indian Constitution was not written by Nehru, Gandhi, or an upper cast person. It was written by a Dalit.
A Dalit was a recent Presidet of India.
Extraordinary reservations (quotas) have been set aside for Dalits, especially in universities (up to 70%).

India is a nation pulling itself out of extreme poverty, and many socioeconomic injustices still exist. Can you imagine a Jew writing the Iranian constitution or becoming the president of Iran any time soon. Dalits in India were never treated as badly as Blacks in America or as Hindus by the British. In the US, a black man was 3/5 of a human being and could be owned as property until 1865. Now Barack Obama is the President of the US. Peaceful and tolerant societies make progress. The world is not static.

Cantabb,

You wrote about Sikh terrorism :"what YOU characterize as "terrorism," wouldn't this represent an intolerant militant extremism section ?"

You may be sincere in trying to see both sides, but there is a danger in arbritrarily assigning moral equivalency. There is such a thing as terrorism, and it is horrible. It is the closest thing to evil, if you believe in good and evil. Sikh terrorism lasted for a decade and was directed at innocent civilians only. People were killed usually with guns, close up in a premedited fashion. Please read about the innumerable incidences that eventually led to the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was uniquely horrible, and that may be why it ended so abruptly and completely. Moral equivalency is a very slippery slope, and it can be destructive.

You also wrote: "Your views seem divisive for a country that you say is an "extremely tolerant India".
Why is it "divisive" to state the obvious that some Sikhs committed innumerable acts of terrorism, but a Sikh is now the Prime Minister. Why is it divisive to say that many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism, but the previous President (and 2 other Presidents) were Muslim? Is it too much to ask for the acknowledgement of such facts in the face of all the criticism of Hindus?

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but anywhere there is religious violence in the world, one of the parties is almost always Muslim or Christian. This is simply an observation and not a biased statement. I believe the reason for this is the supremacist philosophy that claims the superiority of one god or prophet, etc. Why not let religion be a personal quest for spiritual improvement based on your own culture?

Religious extremists, murderers, thieves, criminals exist in all societies. No system is perfect but some systems tend to allow more tolerance. This is my point about the history of Hinduism and tolerance.
There is a reason why India is a pluralistic democracy today with varied leaders including Sikhs(PM), Muslims (3 Presidents), women (current president, past PM), Christians (Leader of Congress, defence ministers). A Dalit wrote the Indian constitution in 1947, and a Dalit was a recent President. Even the most celebrated movie stars (such as Khans), tennis players (Mirza), richest person in India (Premji 1999 to 2006) are all Muslims. The list goes on.
Is it divisive to ask for acknowledgement of these facts along with justified criticism? No, it is not.

vjg3 Author Profile Page:

Yes, CCNL is right about brutal Hindu caste system. But the point to note here that even the lower caste Hindus who have been suppressed and treated like junk for ever; have taken to terrorism.

I mean how come these Dalits never strap on a suicide belt and blow up upper caste Hindus? or put some bombs in a train or near a temple? How come only Muslims do that and on top of that they keep complaining?
__________________

Neither have Jews blown themselves up, used car bombs, etc., not in my native country of Iran, from which one million were deported, not in Egypt, ditto, not in Syria, not in Yemen, not in France, not in England, etc.

No, we have not done that. Yet. Who knows what may yet come. The Dalit, Jews, many are restless, sick and tired of the BS. The Dalit are living under horrendous circumstances as they always have. The Jews are being psychologically molested and physically molested, as well, the latter, now, particularly in Europe.

Either we all stand together or we all blow each other up together. Which, I wonder, will it be.

cantabb1...

Perhaps, a religion in India 101 is necessary.

1. Hinduism does not have any process of conversion. Some people like Swami Dayanand Saraswati tried to start a process, but it did not lead anywhere. This is undisputable.

2. The conversions conducted by the Catholic Church of today, is very often Dollar driven. Poor people are offered free housing and often money to convert. This also has beem mostly verified by independent sources.

Given the two, there is an obvious anger among the often illiterate hindu peasants. That is again, perhaps not unexpected.

In comes Democracy.....and makes use of the situation. Political parties (basically ONE of the parties) use this crack in the social fabric, and tries their best to use it as a wedge issue. Not too much different than the anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage political forces of today..or the pro segregation leaders of yesterday. They take it to the extreme length.

People get killed. Nuns get raped and murdered. Police watch from the sidelines. Sort of the Jim Crow age, on steroids.

Talking about tolerance or othewise of religion is besides the point here. Politcal systems exploiting the situation is the major culprit.

Cracks exist in every society. Modern societies have political parties that, in spite of their beliefs, still perform basic duties like protecting the life and properties of all citizens. In India, this has yet to emerge. Political parties, and the government machinery, take an active part in promoting violence, and often pay no consequence.

In the anti-Sikh riots, major politcal leaders were actively inciting violence. In the Godhara incident, what was the worst part was not that people were rioting, but that the government were actively supporting the riots, and encouraging criminal activity as a way "to teach them who's boss" Same with the recent anti-Bihari murders in Bombay, which was actively supported by an important political party.

Such is reality.

CLEARTHINKING:

I have NOT mentioned anecdotes, or used any to extrapolate my point. NOR have I made sweeping generalizations like you, or paintted an incredibly idealized image of one religion/country over others.

You are trying to explain away present religious tensions in India (Christian/Muslims vs the majority religion of India) "because philosophically, the Abrahamic religions are supremacist in their internal structure. So other people have to be converted or saved from their own inferior religion and culture. This is stated implicitly or explicitly during proselytization....
People of course find this insulting."

I doubt if this is how the religious minorities in India have been behaving. There ARE militant religious extremists in almost every religion, even in an "extremely tolerant" India. Unfortunately.

Your views seem divisive for a country that you say is an "extremely tolerant India"; and, surprisingly more divisive, for an apparent member of its religious majority toward members of 15% of the population in an "extremely ... tolerant" country.

"For example, in India Christians have been welcomed for almost 2,000 years, but why go into another peoples homeland and call them inferior and in need of conversion? As you know this urge to "spread the faith" exists only in Islam and Christianity."

Apart from the obvious bias, you ARE trying to resurrect history -- and, a view from ONE side, rather than what one would regard as a balanced one.

"Also, Sikh terrorism in Punjab was uniquely horrendous, and it has completely stopped. This is an extraordinary u-turn."

AGAIN, does this religious minority share your opinion of it (apparently from India's religious majority)? Does this, apparently maligned minority, accept YOUR view of it, and the way you characterize this minority ?

"Like in immunization, a critical mass has to be developed to innoculate a population and stop an epidemic. Even during an epidemic, most people are healthy."

Less-than-effective analogy, unfortunately.

"Most Sikhs were always good people, but during the 1980's their was enough support in the population for terrorism."

Most people in most religions are "good" people.

Again, re what YOU characterize as "terrorism," wouldn't this represent an intolerant militant extremism section ? Something also present and active in many other religions (thankfully a minority), including in the Indian majority religion, as we have also read about ?

Regrettably, what I see is more bias toward every other religious minority in India than a balanced opinion that one would have expected, quie reasonably, from what you call (paraphrasing here) 'an always extremely tolerant' India !

How contradictory logic : (inductive or deductive) example given " ...just because you know somebody who recently lost their job, it does not mean the unemployment rate is going up. Conversely, if the unemployment rate is going down, it does not mean that some people are not losing their jobs." Compare with : " The Sikhs learned this basic civics lesson, and now a Sikh is the Prime Minister of a country which is 2% Sikh and 85% Hindu. This is just 20 years after Sikh terrorism against Hindus." How about if we all promise to do our part in here and now : a) listen and follow to find his/her peace . b) control ego, to be happy and c ) help others as much as possible , to earn blessings . Let us resolve to spread better understanding of each others point of view and problems to create a better World for all every where.

In science, medicine, and most of life it is not considered logical (inductive or deductive) to use anecdotes as evidence or proof. For example, just because you know somebody who recently lost their job, it does not mean the unemployment rate is going up. Conversely, if the unemployment rate is going down, it does not mean that some people are not losing their jobs.

It seems that on these blogs the discussions/arguments are based on anecdotes and not statistics or data.

Cantabb,
You have read about religious tensions and violence in India and it exists. The essential observation is that religious tensions exist everywhere Muslims and Christians interface with other religions. Why? because philosophically, the Abrahamic religions are supremacist in their internal structure. So other people have to be converted or saved from their own inferior religion and culture. This is stated implicitly or explicitly during proselytization. People of course find this insulting. For example, in India Christians have been welcomed for almost 2,000 years, but why go into another peoples homeland and call them inferior and in need of conversion? As you know this urge to "spread the faith" exists only in Islam and Christianity.
Also, Sikh terrorism in Punjab was uniquely horrendous, and it has completely stopped. This is an extraordinary u-turn. Like in immunization, a critical mass has to be developed to innoculate a population and stop an epidemic. Even during an epidemic, most people are healthy. Most Sikhs were always good people, but during the 1980's their was enough support in the population for terrorism.

Bostonbramin,
You confuse me with Debchatterji who favors nuking Pakistan. Pakistan is failing rapidly and is dangerous, but I have never advocated nuking them. It makes sense to dismantle Pakistan into 4 ethnic autonomous provinces, so Islam is not the only glue holding it together. This is a topic for another discussion.

CCNL,
As I have mentioned previously, Hindu philosophy (Vedanta) is monistic and unequivocably recognizes that ultimately "deities" are an illusion. They are metaphorical creations to communicate certain ideas. Ultimately, all the divisions dissolve into Unity (Brahman).

shovandas :
Why cannot moderate Muslims the world over stand up to this radical and convoluted interpretations of the Koran ?

******************************************
Since you mentioned Turkey, Lebanon, Jordon and Egypt, there is an very simple answer:

Israel, Zionism, and USA. The treatment of the Palestinians and the muted response from the so called "west", roils even the most moderate of human beings.

Sorry for the typos, noticed later in my posts.

CLEARTHINKING1:

Many overly b-r-o-a-d generalizations, without qualifications, and group characterization. Militant extremists are present in most faiths, unfortunately:

"Hindus (85% majority) are, have been, and always will be extremely tolerant. It is in their profound philosophy Unity and oneness(Vedanta)."

Wow !

What about church burnings, destruction of other places of worship, violence against Christians in India that we've read about ?

"Indian citizens - whether Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christians - all must behave in a civilized and nonviolent manner. Otherwise, the targeted group will, of course, react in self-defence. Sometimes, they overreact, and tragedy is multiplied."

NOT all people of any faith or group "behave in a civilized and nonviolent manner"; Otherwise, we wouldn't have any problem. They all say they "react in self defence." And YES, "Sometimes, they overreact, and tragedy is multiplied," even in "always ....extremely tolerant" India !

"The Sikhs learned this basic civics lesson, and now a Sikh is the Prime Minister of a country which is 2% Sikh and 85% Hindu. This is just 20 years after Sikh terrorism against Hindus."

Apart from such a BROAD generalization, do the Sikhs share this view ? And believe they have "learned this basic civics lesson" ?

"Talk about tolerant Hindus! If Mexican-Americans committed acts of terrorism like Sikhs, even Americans would not elect a Mexican-American to be President so soon."

I did NOT know we have a Mexican-American President !

"Hindus have always been tolerant going back many millenia. Jains, Buddhists, Zorastrians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, & nonbelievers have all found refuge among Hindus."

I think your own BIAS is quite apparent.

A WEAK article, overall.

"... Indian Muslims have long spoken out against terrorism, but their voices had rarely been carried by the media. This time, the media were not looking for messages of division, but instead messages of unity -- and the Muslims of Mumbai were there with that message front and center."

That's have now become a familiar excuse: Blame the media ! If the Media fail them and are so 'biased', why can't these leaders find a better way of communicating their points of view ? Words are mere words -- support them with actions/deeds.

These 'leaders' haven't been able to convince parts of their own religious/ethnic community to stay away from intolerance and violence. Unless they do it first, and effectively, their message is drowned out by their own militant extremists --
NOT by the media.

It can happen in a multi-cultural India. Worse in a mostly Islamic/Muslim country as Pakistan (Iraq, Afghanistan) where one group of militant extremists are after another such group-- both Muslims.

It's the intolerance in its rawest form. Unless there is a cultural environment that rejects it, stamps it out, militant extremism will continue, prevail. Mere words, access to media, or media taking up your cause/misson -- just useless !

Mr. Patel,

Only when Muslims are NOT in the majority do you see these sights and sounds. Tolerant countries like Lebannon and Turkey are slowly turning fundementalist because moderate Muslims cannot stand upto the forces of Islamic intolerance. Look at the Christians being killed in Iraq, Egypt perhaps Jordan. Why cannot moderate Muslims the world over stand up to this radical and convoluted interpretations of the Koran ?

The Maoists are dalits and low-caste Hindus? Hmm, I did not know that. Are they targeting and massacring innocent civilians on a daily basis?

Just read an article on Turkey, where that 'secular Muslim" nation is trying to drive the miniscule number of Xtians remaining by reducing their land-ownership. I guess the Armenian genocide of 1 M Xtians was not enough for tolerant Muslims- they want total annihilation of non-Muslims.

Does anyone know that if you are a non-Muslim migrant to Turkey and want to become a citizen, you have to change your name to a Muslim sounding name!

"Confident cosmopolitan cities know that their future lies in strengthening their pluralism,"

This is true, Mr. Patel. Kindly write about the example of a Muslim majority nation that takes the same tack. When they are a majority, the faithful take an overbearing overlord position.

Islam still has a problem.

Mr Clearthinking has finally met his match. He was the one talking about Nuking Pakistan, and now he faces a person who talks about the "absurdities" of reincarnation.

There you go, throwing crap around, shouting past each other...gets only crap everwhere
**************************************************

The point I was trying to make is simply this: The riots in India are incited by Politicians, not Religious leaders. Interfaith dialog between academics or religious leaders would lead to nothing but more dialog. Waste of time.

As long as the divisive and backward looking politicians exist to exploit the cracks in society (every society has cracks) to push their own agenda of gaining and retaining power, interfaith dialog is useless.

And, incidentally VJG3, if you want to find dalits bombing trains, just go to the vast tracks of "Mao-land" in Bihar, Orissa, AP, and WB.

The tamil tigers will be so unhappy that their "human bomb",that killed a would-be prime minister does not get proper recognition.

The ghost of Vindranwale would be so unhappy that his brand of "transistor bomb" terrorism has not been given the proper place of pride.

Anybody remember "ganga-jal" the Bhagalpur Blinding case?

Anybody remember the tolerant Bengalis buring followers of Ananda-marg in broad daylight in Calcutta?

Sorry, the "all terrorits are muslim" does not fly. Its just a case of selective memory, or downright ignorance.

Yes, CCNL is right about brutal Hindu caste system. But the point to note here that even the lower caste Hindus who have been suppressed and treated like junk for ever; have taken to terrorism.

I mean how come these Dalits never strap on a suicide belt and blow up upper caste Hindus? or put some bombs in a train or near a temple? How come only Muslims do that and on top of that they keep complaining?

What happens to minorities when Muslims come into majority? They disappear or are killed. How do you explain 57 exclusive Islamic nations? Are not they an insult to non-Muslims?

Perhaps you can go to Pakistan and write about what happened to Hindus/Sikhs/Xtians there and also recently in Kashmir? Amaing how Muslims talk of "inter-faith" stuff, when they are in a minority.

Clearthinking,

As with St. Paul's prediction of imminent second coming, we are getting tired of the wait in a fast moving 21st century.

While we wait, hopefully Hinduism is also addressing the absurdity of reincarnation and the "deities" of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva et al.

CCNL,

All societies, especially poor ones, have stratification. The historical socioeconomic stratification in India (either way somebody has to do dirty jobs, like the illegal immigrants in America) is being addressed and reduced systematically and it takes time. It can be used as a bludgeon against Hinduism - as defined broadly as a cultural, religious, spiritual, and philosophical system.

However, here are a few facts:
1. Once the British left in 1947, the Constitution of India immediately granted equal rights and protections to all. Just like Jim Crow laws in America, it takes time to change old attitudes and behaviors.
2. The Constitution of India was written not by Nehru or Gandhi or upper cast Hindus, but by a Dalit (lowest cast). You haven't heard of any screaming about that.
3. India has already had a Dalit President. Other politicians and leaders are making progress.
4. There is a very substantial affirmative action policy for underpriveledged minorities including reservations (quotas) up to 70% in universities.

I understand and even share your frustrations with organized religion (Abrahamic faiths?), magical thinking, etc. But if you paint with too broad a brush you will miss an opportunity to learn how different cultures and systems have developed around the world to promote tolerant societies. None is perfect; some are better than others.

Some noted: "Hindus (85% majority) are, have been, and always will be extremely tolerant. It is in their profound philosophy Unity and oneness(Vedanta)."

Tell that to the members of the lower castes in India especially those of the lowest caste who must clean up the dung of all those revered Hindu cows and the waste products of the higher castes.

It is amusing to see the Pakistani's on this Board always get riled when people write about inter-faith harmony in India. They will always point to one transgression or the other and then imply that India is no better than anyone else. The denial that some Pakistani's live in is a reason for the chaos that Pakistan is descending into.

The reality is that unlike Pakistan whose constitution states that it is an Islamic state where Sharia law will be the highest law in the country, India's constitution is a secular one. While Pakistan has driven most of their minorities out (less than 3% of the remaining poulation is non-muslim), India has very sizable minorities. India is the most diverse country in the world religously.

In India, a Sikh is Prime Minister, Muslims have been President and the most popular movie star is a muslim. Sonia Gandhi, the most powerful politician in the country is a Roman Catholic. The Army Chief (Manekshaw) during the 1971 war that liberated Bangladesh was a Zorastrian.No country in the world , including the US has people from such diverse religious backgrounds in such positions of power. One day a non-Christian might become the President of the US but that day is a few years away.

So inspite of its failings, India aspires to be a secular democracy and like the US continues to perfect its union. Maybe the Pakistani's on this Board should focus on the problems tearing their society apart rather than wasting their time on critisizing India.

Eboo persists in taking up cyberspace.Maybe, get a real job.

The correct answer is:

Hindus (85% majority) are, have been, and always will be extremely tolerant. It is in their profound philosophy Unity and oneness(Vedanta).

The reason why riots happened in Gujrat was that LOCAL Muslims burned innocent Hindu women and children alive in a train car. In Dehli, LOCAL Sikhs killed the Prime Minister and LOCAL Sikhs celebrated. In Bombay, LOCAL Muslims participated in the bombings. In Orissa, LOCAL Christians killed a Hindu leader. The key word is LOCAL. In Mumbai, NONlocal Pakistanis committed the mass murder of innocents. Indian citizens - whether Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christians - all must behave in a civilized and nonviolent manner. Otherwise, the targeted group will, of course, react in self-defence. Sometimes, they overreact, and tragedy is multiplied.

The Sikhs learned this basic civics lesson, and now a Sikh is the Prime Minister of a country which is 2% Sikh and 85% Hindu. This is just 20 years after Sikh terrorism against Hindus. Talk about tolerant Hindus! If Mexican-Americans committed acts of terrorism like Sikhs, even Americans would not elect a Mexican-American to be President so soon.

As tragic as Gujrat was, the basic lesson of civilized behaviour in a tolerant, pluralistic society was relearned. The reaction of LOCAL Muslims in Mumbai was reasonable, rational, and civilized - just like the Hindus.

Hindus have always been tolerant going back many millenia. Jains, Buddhists, Zorastrians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, & nonbelievers have all found refuge among Hindus.

Nice of you to choose your Xenophobia so selectively.

Yes, indeed Bombay did not have its traditional Hindu-Muslim riots this time around. However, before, during and after that period of time, there was another "movement", this time between ethnic Maharashtrians and people for the rest of India. It wasnt bloodless either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-India_Railway_Recruitment_Board_examination_attack

Every time there has been a riot in India, mainstream political parties have been behind it. Whether it was the Congress party behind the Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, or the extreme right wing hindu nationalistic and backward looking anti-muslim Bharatiya Janata Party in Gujarat, it was always the mainstream politician who were inciting people to kill others.

This time, the political leaders were too busy fighting Biharis and other people from North India, that they didnt think it would be to their advantage to start a Hindu-Muslim riot.

That is all there is to it. Wishful thinking is not reality.