Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

From Abbottabad to Worse

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    I think the purpose of you mentioning our 5000 yr history is that all minorities (most anyway) were orginally Hindus. So the purpose of hindutva is to heal(?) the disconnect that occurred when minorities got converted into other faiths. To get minorties to converge onto one central theme rather than have them continue currently as you perceive them to be on a divergent path. That they acknowledge their previous life as Hindus. Can't use the word Indian here because you're referring to a period when we were known simply, as the people that lived east of the river Indus ie the Hindus.
    You are beginning to get the central benign and rallying/unifying theme of Hindutva now. That we are and were and have been for 5000 years ONE people. That we have evolved and lived and loved and fought together on this land as a single civilization - secluded and protected in large part by the geographical cut-off from the rest of the Asian continent. That we are a unique continent unto ourselves.

    In this ebb and flow of time as the population grew and new ideas were born, different faiths and methods of worship took root. Some like Buddhism and Jainism and Sikhism organically from within the continent and its people. Others like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity inorganically from other shores. But I doubt whether in terms of the population, our land has ever seen an en masse significant exodus of people (into or out of) beyond the advent of the Indic Aryan migration thousands of years ago.

    All other "foreign" ingresses by comparison have been insignificant in their numbers, if not their ideology and faith they brought along. But when you get down to it, while ideologies and faiths and methods and rituals and books and places of worship changed, the people more or less remained the same. Same DNA. Same collective unconscious. Same civilization. Same culture. Same primal likes and dislikes. Same food. Same clothing (barring minor changes here and there). Same languages.

    And all this happened and grew and co-existed alongside and under and within the larger umbrella of the ancient faith and way of life of the land - Hinduism. Sure there was war and strife. But over time Hinduism absorbed and assimilated. Not rejected and persecuted. To the extent that each foreign faith as well took on a unique hue and flavor of the ancient land and people it took root and grew in.

    The flavor of Hindutva.

    A subcontinental Muslim is a very different animal to Muslims anywhere else. As is a subcontinental Christian or Jew. As is a subcontinental Zoroastrian (Parsi) to the followers of the faith elsewhere in the lands of its origin. What is the single thread that binds them all?

    Hindutva.

    I need to think this through some more but from what i can tell it should not affect the way minorites are currently, they continue practising their faiths as usual but with the added realization that they are a part of something much more as well. It's looking at themselves & their role in India with a different lens, an inclusivist one, dare i say it. One of your problems with Congress is that it comes in the way of this, tries to keep ppl divided as nations within one nation. Which is why you consider them a sectarian party.

    Now that puts a very different spin on things doesn't it :)
    You say that its an added realization of being part of something bigger. A microsm within the macrosm. I say that such a realization is part of our DNA. Its not something new. We have grown up in a culture which is tolerant and secular and fiercely independent in terms of thought and liberties. We make place and adjust. But equally we go our own way. Without trying to impress upon others the merits of our own path or pontificate to them on the demerits of theirs.

    Its not something new or foreign. Its not a different spin. Its what Hindutva has always been about. Its why India is the ONLY nation in the world where 250 million Muslims live peacefully alongside a billion others of different faiths, and where less than a century ago that number was far greater still, till a people were divided by artificial boundaries and nonsensical theories.

    Are your ancestors Hindu ? if you're Parsi then does that not necessarily imply they were Persian. How does hindutva help you reconcile that.

    On another note i recall seeing the Iranians mentioning their Persian heritage in the 2009 demonstrations. Trying to go back in time before they had their revolution in 1979, before they were muslim. Trying to recollect lost memories. Trying to become whole again perhaps.
    I have answered this part above, but I will add further. We may be of Persian descent, but we are of Indian birth. It has been our motherland for over a thousand years now. It has given us everything at a time when our existence was threatened. The freedom to worship. So while my ancestors may not be Hindu, my soul and that of my people is part of the collective soul of the land - Hindutva. I hope you can realize the difference between the two, of a culture versus a faith.

    I know many Iranians who similarly yearn to re-capture the ancient Zoroastrian culture of their land and their people - as different from what they increasingly see and resent as a foreign Arab culture foisted on their people by conquest and displacement. That does not mean that all or most reject Islam as a faith. But for them Zoroastrianism as a common cultural civilizational nationalistic legacy is the same as what Hindutva is (or should be) to Indians. The difference is that they increasingly embrace it as the anchor that moors them to who they are as an ancient people. While we, an equally ancient people, for the most part fail to understand and fight it.
    Last edited by vsdoc; 21 Jun 11,, 07:15.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Vsdoc,

      Is an Indian Christian less Hindu-heritage than an Indian who follows the Hindu faith? If yes-why, if no does that mean they should be free to convert people to the faith system they believe in? Nvishal obviously thought not, how do you feel?
      Zraver, conversion in the Indian context, both currently as well as down the ages, is a tricky issue and one that is extremely sensitive and volatile given our history. I will strive to explain it to you as an Indian, who is neither Hindu nor Christian, and hope that you will be able to see it from our perspective rather than one that is Western/Christian in origin. As well I hope you see it as a means to contribute to the discussion and not being an apologist condoning the actions of goons who attack minorities and their places of worship.

      I also feel I have somewhat of a closer perspective on the issue, as I grew up in a tribal belt (Singhbhum) where many of these conversions take place at the hands of zealous missionaries (most from the US, Australia, and Canada), and have seen this up close and personal as I was schooled in a Jesuit school (St. Ignatious of Loyola) run by foreign missionary priests.

      While our culture has historically always been open and accommodating and tolerant in terms of different faiths, it is equally true that over centuries we have also seen much violence of foreign conquests and forced conversions of the local populace. This while the culture of the ancient civilization has never believed in conversion or had expansionist designs on foreign populations and lands. It was and to a large extent IS something totally foreign to us, to our culture, to our ethos, as I have explained in many of my posts earlier. It also promotes a feeling of insecurity and threat perception in the community whose people are being converted, as they invariably see the tide of the demographics of the number game going against them nad swamping them over time.

      This perception and the insecurity and resentment it fuels gets heightened when the conversions are more active than passive. Through means that may be in the missionary spirit and zeal of Western lands and civilizations, but which is seen in our own as direct and indirect coercion and the "buying" of faith of a people who are poor and neglected and therefore easy pickings for such initiatives. I know the counter-argument of Hindu evils of caste and untouchability pushing such people in that direction - but where the violence and resentment usually erupt is where the means are seen as more pro-active and aggressive, than merely preaching to those than come to you of their own volition. And sentiments are then inflamed and twisted and manipulated by political vested interests like in any other communal riot/violence.

      So there is no clear cut yes or no answer to what you ask. It is a matter of great sensitivity and volatility and needs to be tackled as such for the continuing peace amongst our people. OUR people. Indians all. Including the foreign missionaries, who in their own way have enriched our society and contributed so much, to the extent that many have dedicated their lives to the purpose in a foreign land away from their homes and families for years, decades even - so that they are oftentimes as Indian as any Indian. Fr. Peacock (Chemistry and Basketball), Fr. Love (English and my Principal), Fr. Power (English) - I will never forget these great men who did their bit in making me who I am today.
      Last edited by vsdoc; 21 Jun 11,, 10:07.

      Comment


      • Thank you.

        Comment


        • Pakistan lets China see US helicopter

          Pakistan gave China access to ‘stealth’ chopper from Bin Laden raid: Report – The Express Tribune
          Last edited by ambidex; 15 Aug 11,, 05:46.

          Comment

          Working...
          X