Hindutva: Analyzing the Ideology

[Flintlock]

He doesn't quite leave it at just "why", if the reconstruction of the Temple is the goal, then vengeance (or "righting a wrong" I suppose is another way to put it) is very much present. Are the perpetrators of those past crimes present today? Were Muslims as a community responsible, in so much as the German people were responsible for the crimes of the Nazi's?

Look, the goal of the Ayodhya demolition was not to insult or kill muslims, but to restore a sense of pride.
Each and every hindu obviously burns when he realizes that a mosque stands at the very spot that he considers most sacred.
There might be no Ram and all might be myth and legend, but the reality remains the same.

The Ayodhya debate had been going on for years. Hindutva people said that the mosque should be shifted to another place and a hindu temple built. After all, the mosque was not an important one, and there were hardly any muslims in the area anyways.
But obviously you couldn't do that in Nehru's India. Finally, out of a sense of frustration, a mob went ahead and demolished the mosque by force.

So he wants this new found "Hindu enlightenment" to allow its adherents to demand what you outlined above? It seems quite shallow to me. I prefer Stealths explanation, that the idea is to create this sense of pride and self confidence and respect for ones heritage in Hindu's. Petty vengeful reclamation under the guise of "not accepting" the wrongs of hundreds of years ago, smacks of intellectual bankruptcy.

There are two ways to restore pride. One way is to pay back in kind. Eye for an Eye. That way is dangerous.
The better way is the intellectual way, to prove that your beliefs are not wrong, and they are better than the beliefs of the other person. At the same time, come to an agreement with the other party. If the muslims and the central government had agreed to the mosque being shifted away, this day would have never come.

A similar thing happened at Somnath. Somnath temple in Gujarat has been demolished a total of seven times by Muslim invaders. This is no legend/myth but the cold facts. But at the time of independence, Sardar Patel had the mosque standing at the site quietly shifted some kilometers away, and a hindu temple rebuilt in its place. There was no opposition, no rioting. I can't see why a similar compromise cannot be worked out for the other holy sites as well.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

well no , I dont think that hindus lack pride and self confidence or respect for their heritage . this struggle has many layers .. This Hindutva is struggle of understanding this world and how to cope with it .
for hindus the faith was wisdom and knowledge and now when they see these two abrahamic religions without much wisdom and just faith wrapped around political power , they need to counter this onslaught . Hindutva is the practical or carnal side of hindus .. (wrapped with political power )

I see, that was quite illuminating. But doesn't this then run the risk of falling into the same trap that the Abrahamic faith's did? Those faith's after all are now trying to "unwrap" the spiritual from the practical. The danger may not be obvious now, but some things do take on a life of their own, and a sense of "superiority", of any sort, is never healthy in the long run.

 

[Logic note]

see, that was quite illuminating. But doesn't this then run the risk of falling into the same trap that the Abrahamic faith's did? Those faith's after all are now trying to "unwrap" the spiritual from the practical. The danger may not be obvious now, but some things do take on a life of their own, and a sense of "superiority", of any sort, is never healthy in the long run

No , whats hindusim lacked was , its carnal or political side , spiritually it will never have problem because the most important aspect of hinduism is the right of an individual to find his own truth . Hinduism is not based on one man's proclamation of divinity . it belives that any man can find his divinty through wisdom .

 

[Flintlock]

well no , I dont think that hindus lack pride and self confidence or respect for their heritage . this struggle has many layers .. This Hindutva is struggle of understanding this world and how to cope with it .
for hindus the faith was wisdom and knowledge and now when they see these two abrahamic religions without much wisdom and just faith wrapped around political power , they need to counter this onslaught . Hindutva is the practical or carnal side of hindus .. (wrapped with political power )

Basically, Logic, it all boils down to self confidence. To see the other what what he really is, has the effect of restoring pride and assurance in oneself.

One cannot cope with the world if one doesn't understand it, and one cannot understand the world if one doesn't analyze what it is that makes his overlords superior to himself.

If you simply accept that your rulers are inherently superior, then you are a defeated man.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Look, the goal of the Ayodhya demolition was not to insult or kill muslims, but to restore a sense of pride.
Each and every hindu obviously burns when he realizes that a mosque stands at the very spot that he considers most sacred.
There might be no Ram and all might be myth and legend, but the reality remains the same.

The Ayodhya debate had been going on for years. Hindutva people said that the mosque should be shifted to another place and a hindu temple built. After all, the mosque was not an important one, and there were hardly any muslims in the area anyways.
But obviously you couldn't do that in Nehru's India. Finally, out of a sense of frustration, a mob went ahead and demolished the mosque by force.

There are two ways to restore pride. One way is to pay back in kind. Eye for an Eye. That way is dangerous.
The better way is the intellectual way, to prove that your beliefs are not wrong, and they are better than the beliefs of the other person. At the same time, come to an agreement with the other party. If the muslims and the central government had agreed to the mosque being shifted away, this day would have never come.

A similar thing happened at Somnath. Somnath temple in Gujarat has been demolished a total of seven times by Muslim invaders. This is no legend/myth but the cold facts. But at the time of independence, Sardar Patel had the mosque standing at the site quietly shifted some kilometers away, and a hindu temple rebuilt in its place. There was no opposition, no rioting. I can't see why a similar compromise cannot be worked out for the other holy sites as well.

That is where I disagree vehemently with this movement - this whole idea about "non-acceptance" and reclamation. Its all fine and dandy when you say that ideally this should occur by manner of consultation and willing relocation, but reality is different. Yes you may have one or two leaders in a life time like Patel, who see the wisdom in building community relations by undertaking such actions, but the you will find many more leaders who will paint this as a majority bullying a minority. You also understand that many of these sites will have historical value for Muslims as well, and that will only make the process harder. How much time is going to be alloted to such "consultations"? A generation, Two - Before the Babri masjid repeats itself?

And like I said, I sense of superiority is never healthy in the long run.

 

[Logic note]

Basically, Logic, it all boils down to self confidence. To see the other what what he really is, has the effect of restoring pride and assurance in oneself.

One cannot cope with the world if one doesn't understand it, and one cannot understand the world if one doesn't analyze what it is that makes his overlords superior to himself.

If you simply accept that your rulers are inherently superior, then you are a defeated man.

the only civilization which survived more then 500 years of Muslim rule is Hinduism and i don't think we ever had this sense of inferiority ..
Hindutva is all about changing with time .. Pride was always there .

 

[Logic note]

That is where I disagree vehemently with this movement - this whole idea about "non-acceptance" and reclamation. Its all fine and dandy when you say that ideally this should occur by manner of consultation and willing relocation, but reality is different. Yes you may have one or two leaders in a life time like Patel, who see the wisdom in building community relations by undertaking such actions, but the you will find many more leaders who will paint this as a majority bullying a minority. You also understand that many of these sites will have historical value for Muslims as well, and that will only make the process harder. How much time is going to be alloted to such "consultations"? A generation, Two - Before the Babri masjid repeats itself?

I think , you are not seeing the truth . India is Secular not because of Nehru or Gandhi. India is secular because of Hinduism .Gandhi was a product of hinduism

 

[Flintlock]

That is where I disagree vehemently with this movement - this whole idea about "non-acceptance" and reclamation. Its all fine and dandy when you say that ideally this should occur by manner of consultation and willing relocation, but reality is different. Yes you may have one or two leaders in a life time like Patel, who see the wisdom in building community relations by undertaking such actions, but the you will find many more leaders who will paint this as a majority bullying a minority. You also understand that many of these sites will have historical value for Muslims as well, and that will only make the process harder. How much time is going to be alloted to such "consultations"? A generation, Two - Before the Babri masjid repeats itself?

Look, as Naipaul said, disagreeing with the movement isn't going to make it disappear. Many people disagree with it. All the TV channels in India spend half their time mocking the "saffron mobs" and calling them "fascists" and "extremists".

The best we can do is try to prevent it from being hijacked by opportunists and give it to intellectuals.

As I said, there has to be compromise. There is no other solution. There is obviously historical value for the muslims as well, but again repeating Naipaul, there has to be an attempt by Hindus and Muslims to understand each other's faiths. There should be a sense of solidarity between Hindus and Muslims before such steps are taken.
Unless this is done, things can turn violent.

And like I said, I sense of superiority is never healthy in the long run.

It depends on what kind of superiority. If its a simple self assurance with an open mind, then thats perfect. If its a hatred towards anyone who disagrees with your beliefs, then its dangerous.

Fortunately, Hinduism has a tradition of "minding ones' own business", which will not change easily. After all, its not possible to change the composite and varied nature of Hinduism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No , whats hindusim lacked was , its carnal or political side , spiritually it will never have problem because the most important aspect of hinduism is the right of an individual to find his own truth . Hinduism is not based on one man's proclamation of divinity . it belives that any man can find his divinty through wisdom .

That may have been the idea originally, but if Stealths post is to be believed, then that sense of "ones own truth" is already under assault in a bid to counter Abrahamic proselytizing. That is where my concern lies, when you combine this sense of "superiority" with "non acceptance of historical crimes", "righting those crimes" and a projection into the political sphere to strengthen that movement of "self assertion", which also strengthens the sense of "superiority".

These factors in conjunction make a very troubling mix.

On the other hand, if projection of faith is limited, if "non-acceptance of historical crimes" is not extended to physical reclamation, by consultation or violence, the "carnal repackaging" of
Hinduism may actually work.

 

[Flintlock]

the only civilization which survived more then 500 years of Muslim rule is Hinduism and i don't think we ever had this sense of inferiority ..
Hindutva is all about changing with time .. Pride was always there .

Dude, this realization has only come in the last century or so, with the Independence movement.

Believe me, the pride had disappeared. Try reading up on the state of Hindu shrines when the British came (esp. North India, where the Mughals were endemic). A lot of them lay neglected, in ruins, and were restored only recently in the last couple of centuries.

This isn't about the few reformers like Swami Vivekananda etc. but about the farmer, the civil cervant, the people who watch the Muslims and British erect massive buildings while their own ones lay crumbled....its subconcious....but its there.
This whole idea of holy poverty stemmed by the inability to cope up with the real world.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think , you are not seeing the truth . India is Secular not because of Nehru or Gandhi. India is secular because of Hinduism .Gandhi was a product of hinduism

That this movement may represent threats to that "inherent secularism" is why I disagree with it, and what I expressed in my last post.

 

[Logic note]

This movement may represent threats to that "inherent secularism" is why I disagree with it, and what I expressed in my last post.

No , thats why I said secularism is the inherent nature of Hinduism .. and Indian have many other religions , which existed and flourished there .. Parasis , Sikh, Bahais , Christians . India is the only country where Jews were not prosecuted for their faith .

 

[Logic note]

Dude, this realization has only come in the last century or so, with the Independence movement.

Believe me, the pride had disappeared. Try reading up on the state of Hindu shrines when the British came (esp. North India, where the Mughals were endemic). A lot of them lay neglected, in ruins, and were restored only recently.

This isn't about the few reformers like Swami Vivekananda etc. but about the farmer, the civil cervant, the people who watch the Muslims and British erect massive buildings while their own ones lay crumbled....its subconcious....but its there.
This whole idea of holy poverty stemmed by the inability to cope up with the real world.

No stealth , we hindus never see pride in materialism .. and buildings .. we always existed in Philosophy and Ideas . thats why I said Naipaul is weternized Brahmin .. and Hindutva is the modern materialistic side of Hinduism .. where pride is out side world .. read Advaita and Shamkya to understand Hindu Mind

 

[Flintlock]

No , thats why I said secularism is the inherent nature of Hinduism .. and Indian have many other religions , which existed and flourished there .. Parasis , Sikh, Bahais , Christians . India is the only country where Jews were not prosecuted for their faith .

There is a difference between the Christians/Muslims of then and the Christians/Muslims of now. If you notice, the early Christians of india were very integrated with the local population. They were, and were treated, exactly like any other hindu sect and there was never any conflict. Similar for Sikh, parsis etc etc.

 

[Logic note]

There is a difference between the Christians/Muslims of then and the Christians/Muslims of now. If you notice, the early Christians of india were very integrated with the local population. They were, and were treated, exactly like any other hindu sect and there was never any conflict. Similar for Sikh, parsis etc etc.

yes right , Hindutva is all about changing with time and adopting with challenges