Sulekha.com

Hamir, Read my posts (ex: 173) carefully. I said "My understanding of Muslim perception of Hindus." No body is trying claim the listings in the posts below are ultimate truths that will survive thousands of years as holy book. It is just a mere mortal's attempt to put ideas on the table. It is a proven negotiating technique(my assumption was that you were interested in negotiation. Your reply prompted me to review and revise my assumption.) You had no hesitation in claimimg your view point is that of majority Hindus and stating VHP's does not carry much Hindu support. But when challenged to present your perception of Hindu muslim conflict, you suggest a lame idea that did not work for thousand years and ran away from discussion. Can you atleast enlighten us how your approach is likely to result in a solution? As Zafar suggested, you and Zafar should go for lunch and whatever. Have a good time.

Finally Manish, you have expressed rational thoughts on a good subject. John Davison's little gem was what lends the romanticism to this game of cricket. Davison got his fifteen minutes under the sun and you did well to reminicise an almost forgotten but a breathtaking inning of the world cup

My experience with kerala xtians In my school and college I had friends from the Jacobite kerala xtian community They were one of the variations of the syrian xtians The thing I noted about them as opposed to catholics and protestants was that they did not proselytise, were defacto hindu in culture, Did not use terms like idol worshippers and pagans to refer to hindus In my college hostel mess, many of them joined the vegetarian mess to be with their friends To be frank , the cultural distance was less with them than with many so called hindus

The latest insurgency in the north east is done by the Hmar tribes who have killed 20 hindus in the last 2 weeks Their website http://www.hmar.net shows deep hatred of their ancestral religion as well as hinduism This hatred has been imparted by a whole host of churches

Thank you very much for writing every thing that I wanted to express all these years.It is very comforting to know that somebody else think the same way I think.I only want to make a few comments to supplement what Mr.Alexander has pointed out. 1)Today American Christianity is held captive by the Jewish-Conservative Christian -Oil Company nexus with very ulterior motives which is not advantageous to Christian faith. 2)Christianity in Kerala is believed to be as old as Christianity itself.If any body bothers to care it should be noted that Apostle St.Thomas converted seven prominent Brahman families in Kerala.To convert prominant Brahman families is no easy task,since ST.Thomas had to convince these scholarly group of people with a new DHARMA.He didn't do this with the help of any kind of monetary or political enticements,but with sheer conviction and faith.I belive that this is the way Christ wanted it to happen.The result is very obvious.Christianity took root in Kerala so strongly than in any other part of India and still going strong.Can the modern "missionaries" both native and foriegn repeat this kind of strength and conviction in their faith.Does any of these so called Christian missionaries convert scholarly Brahmans to Christian faith.I challenge them to do so.India has withstood centuries of foriegn hegemony, both cultural and religious.The best way to spread a faith is from the top layer of the society to the bottom layer.This is espescially true in a caste based social structure as in India.This kind of social change will assure both political and social stability as we have clearly seen in Kerala through the centuries. 3)I belive that primarily I am a Hindu and then a christian.It is like there are Arabs who are both Christians and Moslems.For me Hindutva is a matter of cultural identity and Christianity is a matter of religious identity. 4) The numerous demi-gods in Hiduism to me is no differant than the numerous saints we worship in Christianity.It is clearly mentioned in the VEDAS that there is only one GOD.Every culture has expressed them differently. My sincere thanks Mr.Alex for writing this article and Sulekha .com for publishing it.

"what do i think is the way forward? let us go out and personally "know" the other, let us visit the nearest muslim/hindu association meeting, mosque/temple..." Sound idea, Hamir, but can't we just go out to eat? A rollicking good time at neighbourhood muslim/hindu association or mosque/temple...anyway, you get my point?

Proud Hindu Hi! I’ll happily answer your questions, but I have some for you too. “1. Do you think that present day indian muslims are descendants of hindus or mughals? Basically, who are the ancestors of indian muslims?” By mughals do you specifically mean Babur, etc., or are you using the word to mean all the Muslim Persians, Arabs, Turks vaghaira who entered in India over the years in different capacities (soldiers, traders, etc.)? If the first, it’s rather unlikely. (How many Hindus are personally descended from Harshavardhana, after all?) If the second, then probably both. Question for you: do you think that present day Indian Hindus are descended ONLY from Hindus, or are there probably some Muslims among their ancestors as well? “2. Do you think that foriegn muslim invaders (i.e. mughals) committed horrific atrocities on hindus?” Very likely they did. I wonder, however, if these atrocities were different from those committed by Hindus on Hindus and Muslims on Muslims during other wars and invasions. Question for you: do you think these atrocities were different, and if so, do you have any studies/references to back up your point of view? “3. Do you think that islamic fundamentalism was responsible for partition of India?” I think that the conflation of religion with political identity, coupled with the personal ambitions of certain politicians, was responsible for the partition of India. Calling this Islamic Fundamentalism, even when just talking about the Muslim politicians involved, is inaccurate and somewhat intellectually lazy. “3. You sympathise with palestanians. Do you also sympathise with hindus in pakistan and Bangladesh?” Yes, in fact as a minority I have a lot more empathy for their situation than you do. Question for you: do you sympathise with Muslims in India? [ By the way, most of the hindus are on the side of Israelis and consider palestinians to be terrorists - This issue infact highlights the difference between basic hindu psyche and muslim psyche] PH, speak for yourself. Many Hindus in India recognise that what has happened to the Palestinians is similar to what happened to us under the British. “4. Will India still remain tolerant and secular if the percentage of hindu and muslim population is reversed?” India has become less tolerant and secular than it used to be in the last ten years. The percentage of Hindu and Muslim Indians has not changed all that much in that time. Could there be other drivers for the change? “5. Is RJB equally important (or sacred) to hindus and muslims? “ No. In fact RJB is not sacred to Muslims at all. (A mosque on that site, however, might well be.) Question for you: should Hindus and Muslims in India be equal in the eyes of the law? “6. Do you think that the infiltration from Bangladesh is a serious problem for India? Should India deal with it strictly and promptly?” IMO the significance of this is being hugely overestimated – it is a pressing political problem in a few, very specific, parts of India where the demographic balance has changed (Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura). Most Bangladeshis in India, however, are in other parts of the country where there seems to be little social tension or unrest because of their presence. Meaning, if Mrs Mishra in Delhi thought Bangladeshis were a big problem she wouldn’t be hiring one to mop her floors. Since she IS hiring one to do this, however…so you see my point? “7. Do you think that in Kashmir, indian security forces are committing any excesses? “ I cannot think of any army which is fighting an insurgency which has not committed any excesses. Our army is not completely blameless, but it is doing as well as any would in these circumstances, and better than many. There is still room for improvement. “8 Last but not least, what is the reason that in muslims majority areas, non-muslims are just exterminated?” IMO it’s because nationality in Bangladesh and Pakistan has been defined using religion, while in India nationality has been defined separately from religion (aka secularism). If Indian nationality was conflated with religion, I doubt if the fate of the minorities would be that different from in Bangladesh. “… you are also free to ask any questions.” I’m looking forward to your answers. Zafar

Layman Mian, I answered your questions, but you didn’t answer mine. Hardly sporting of you. "5. Do you believe Mecca to be THE holiest place on earth?" To WHOM mian? => To you, man, to you. Fair enough – personally, no (which is the holiest, place, who knows) but for many Indian Muslims it would be. What, in your opinion, is this indicative of? Is it a problem, and if so why? Meaning, if so for some Indians, so what? [-------------------------- *** But this Hindutvawadi/Westerner comparison says something about your mindset that I would personally find embarrassing. => Yes, I would too, under other circumstances. The comparison was done to show that 'Hindutvawadis' have more in common with the 'Westerner'. Thus conflicts between 'Mosies' with Hinduvata, is not between 'Secularism and Facism' as some would have us believe. The conflict is between Islam and the modern world. Surprise, Surprise. ] Very convenient, as far as it goes, but Hindutva’s conflict is not just with Muslims, but also with Hindus who do not agree with them. (And other random groups, for example, the English Language Media, etc.) Are ALL these (overwhelmingly) Hindus also in conflict with the modern world? You are sure? Also – looking more broadly than at these rather selective questions – do you remember the Western press’ response to the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat (compare it to the Hindutvawadi response)? William (Safire?)’s column in the NYT was rather indicative – and it was titled ‘They’re Killing Jews Again’. So you’ll excuse me if I say that the Western view of Hindutva and its expression is a lot more like that of the Secular press in India’s, and it is critical and antagonistic rather than sympathetic. IMO accurately so. “Your response is the answer. Most all the 'white' race I have seen do not express a desire to visit to Rome or any special place of religious significance in Europe or Middle East. Just like, most of Hinduvta people I have met, have expressed no specific desire to visit 'Tirupathy' or 'Benares' or 'Haridwar' or 'Ayodhya'! “ And Muslims have this Haj thing as a part of their religious duties. So what? Why do you feel that this is a significant thing? “Most if not all your apprehensions, stem from the mistaken notion that a 'Hindu' rashtra as a mirror image of a 'Muslim' theological state. As I said before, a Christian state (like the US) is not a mirror image of a 'Muslim' state (eg. Pakistan) - why do you then make such a assumption about a Hindu rashtra? No Hinduvta person has ever mentioned of getting rid of the constitution.” Boss – the US is a largely Christian society with a secular State. (Like Turkey is a largely Muslim society with a secular state.) India right now is a largely Hindu society with a (inspite of our Govt’s best attempts) secular State, and I don’t think anybody actually objects to the make up of Indian society – and insofar as Indian society’s nature influences how people vote, what laws they find just, etc. that is a very valid democratic pattern. Codifying this into a Hindu Rashtra (defined not by all Hindus, but by a fairly small group among them, a group, moreover, which is not always elected) seems to dysfunctional, in that it not only freezes out the official minorities, but also all those Hindus who may have different ideas from the RSS. I’ve also enjoyed this exchange. I do think, however, you should make a small effort and answer my questions. Regards Zafar PS Unrelated, but since I’m here: “Yes, the government is supposed to protect all its citizens - good in theory. Not possible in practice as our governments do not have enough resources! There are estimates about India having 5 lakh villages (yes, 5,00,000). On an average, we cannot afford to have even ONE policeman per village. Even the police stations in the cities are woefully under-resourced. Don't blame Mr.Modi for that. This is the situation all over the country. Nothing special in Gujarat.” Okay, leave these 5 lakh villages, just focus on Ahmedabad and Vadodara. What happened there? Why did the police largely fail to intervene to save lives? What about the reports of the police actually turning people away with comments like ‘we have no orders to save you’? Sorry boss, Modi’s Gujarat, Modi’s failure of Raj Dharm (or Modi’s Raj Adharm, perhaps) – Modi has to take some responsibility. So do his supporters and apologists. “About the babies bit - Not a single shred of evidence has been provided so far. The English media which gave credence to this rumour, has yet to present ONE credible evidence. Believe me, with each passing day, their case becomes less credible.” Layman, can you cite a SINGLE Hindutva publication which has actually investigated anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat, spoken to the survivors, published their stories? If you could, you might be able to use that publication as an alternative to the HUGE amount of evidence gathered by citizens groups and women’s groups which do, I am afraid, document horrific violence against women and children.

Balu, You and Jakob must deal with the issue I raised earlier, as that could provide an alternative vocabulary to break your deadlock with Alex. Here is a restatement of what I had suggested on this thread that went un-addressed: I had proposed that my notion of history-centrism corresponds to your notion of belief-based religion, and in fact, history-centrism goes deeper, because it provides a set of necessary conditions for such a religion, namely, that: (i) it is based on a non-negotiable literal Grand Narrative of history, and (ii) this GN is exclusive in nature. The corollary to this is that adhyatma-vidya based faiths are not constrained in this manner. Hence, tolerance comes more naturally to them. Alex is quoted in my Sulekha column that deals with these two notions. In that framework, Alex is asked to choose between history-centrism and adhyatmika. He wants to opt for the latter. I gave a response to him similar to yours, namely, that this would be atypical for mainstream Christianity except to the extent that it appropriated adhyatma-vidya, because its "mysticism" is not quite the same thing although it has a resemblance. But there is a difference between your "religio," as the tradition of one's ancestors, and my notion of adhyatma-vidya. The latter is empirically derived based on embodied experience and not just a following of past practice. In fact, great teachers always ask their students to verify adhyatma-vidya for themselves. Hence, pre-Christian "religio" in Greco-Roman times might not be exactly the same as adhyatma-vidya. My questions are: 1. Does history-centrism correspond to belief-based religion, in that the former causes the latter in the three Abrahamic religions? 2. Is the alternative to history-centrism/belief DIFFERENT between Indic and Greco-Roman traditions - adhyatma-vidya empiricism in the former and ancestor practices in the latter? Maybe, this could help deal with your deadlock with Alex - just a thought. Regards, Rajiv

layman, TruthbeTold etc. Indeed, Zafar is right. I aint no "mosie". i am your regular dyed-in-the-wool Hindu, who incidentally hopes to do the chaar-dhaams before dying. the bit about being a "shakha product" is also true, though hopefully i have since moved on. looking back on the khaki ganavesh days and figuring what was actually going on, is fun though. so much for the andar-kee-baat on my life. About the questionnaire that is apparently being passed around, while it may turn out to be the "way to go", it was very deja-vu-all-over-again to read the kind of inside scoop that folks seem to have about the "other". (Thanks for the quick "baudhdhik"s about what Muslims think, for instance!) I have a fundamental problem with such characterizations like "Hindus think..." "Muslims think..." Clearly there is no one "Hindu" thought and "Muslim" thought.(as an aside, THAT is the lesson of the shakha that is the hardest to unlearn, trust me.) There is a multiplicity of voices on both "sides" if you will, and the very act of constructing such 1-d representations of communities defeats the whole purpose of dialogue. even at the end of this conversation, "Muslims" are going to think like so-an-so and "Hindus" so-and-so. which is a very poor caricature even after so much verbal acrobatics and bandwidth hogging. hence I do not think this is productive and so will not participate in such questionnaire exchanges about what "Hindus", "Muslims" (or "women") want! what do i think is the way forward? let us go out and personally "know" the other, let us visit the nearest muslim/hindu association meeting, mosque/temple, make friends etc etc you know the usual let-me-know-you-as-a-human-being stuff. i.e. let us put a face on the "other". finally, i do not agree with the idea that RJB is an "*emotional*" issue. that is clearly the genius of the parivar/bmac, i.e. projecting it as if it is an emotional issue. where is the proof? about hindus, while some folks' are insecure enough about being Hindu to lend their emotions to such exploitation, it is by no means true for all (infact I suspect most) Hindus. That said, some of the misgivings the communities may have about each other may indeed be not amenable to immediate rational argument, but i suppose there will be rational ways around them. Hamir.