01-17-2008, 08:35 AM
JwalaMukhi wrote:
In these "secular societies" there are two dimensions to religion, one purely about the question of belief and secondly the political power. < snip > This was acceptable since most of the people belong to within the group loosely, hence no offence is seen.
However some enlightened ones, identified the problem with the belief system and created an option that competing equally offensive competing religion can also be given space. So secularism meant tolerance of mutually offensive belief system to co-exist, along with the thought that rejects belief.
However, even the most die-hard atheists or agnotists or whatever else they may want to label themselves, are clear about the benefits one reaps from identifying and being within the political dimension of the religion. There is no or very little tolerance for mutually competing relgions to co-exist in politcal dimensions within such secular societies.
In Islamic societies, the two dimensions of the belief and politcal are rolled into one. Hence no tolerance for competing religions to co-exist period. With such a track record of the so called "secular" societies, the implications of grafting such a solution to a society with additional dharmic religion in the mix, can be guessed.
I would just like to add that the US/UK/France allow secularism in a basically Christian societal framework as SN Balagangadhara has eloquently described.
When everyone was Christian, some people (the political leaders) agreed to set aside religion if their workplace, because the religion was alive and healthy at home when they went home after work in the evening.
But whenever islamic and Christian societies mixed - one invariably ended up dominating or eliminating the other. This is especially true of Islam, but that may only be because "secularism" was invented some centuries ago in Chrsitian societies.
I wonder if it is possible at all that Islam would eventually have converted/eliminated all Hindus and covered all of India had the British not come in?
Forum opinion on this issue is ambiguous. On the one hand people insist that Islamic rulers were a spent force by the time the British came in because of the Sikhs and Marathas. On the other hand Islam is seen as continuously spreading by demography even today. We have both forum opinions posted on this board, but both cannot be correct.
If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now - it means that the old Sikh and Maratha victories were a temporary aberration.
Was the entry of the British an interlude in which both Hindus and Muslims were suppressed and made to shut up by a unique "Secularism in a Christian framework" imposed by the British Raj.
But the end of that British Raj marked the end of that "Secularism in a Christian framework" and the division of India into Muslim Pakistan and a (largely) Hindu India.
I use use the words (largely) Hindu India deliberately. It is only a groups of Hindus who call themselves secular who insist that India should NOT be seen as "largely) Hindu India". All media references in the world and all world opinions tend to see India as "largely Hindu India".
Why do Indians insist on not seeing India like the rest of the world as a "largely Hindu India". I propose that this is confusion NOT ONLY among secular Hindus, but all Hindus at large about their own identity and status in this world.
When the entire outside world has been describing India as "Hindu", Indian Hindus have been insisting "We are not Hindu. We are Sanatana Dharmis". We are not a religion. We are a dharma"
And almost as an extension of that when the entire goddam world looks at India as "Largely Hindu" - we insist that we are not Hindu in character.
Hindus fight Hindus here. just look at the folly of Hindus
1) "Right wing" Hindus insist that India is not Hindu but "Sanatana Dharma" By doing this they may be telling the truth, but they are eroding the identity by which India is recognised in the world
2) "secular" Hindus resist the description of India as "Largely Hindu" and say "we are a mix of all religions" By doing that secular Hindus erode the identity by which India is recognised in the world.
But secular Hindus and Right wing Hindus hate each other. Seculars are called "Sickular" or "pseudosecular" right on this very forum. "Right wing Hindus" were called "murderers and bigots" right on this very forum.
But both groups do whatever they can to erode Hindu identity by refusing to accept the others view as a variant of Hindu opinion.
Is it any wonder that Hinduism can be eaten away at the edges when all Hindus are jokers of one variety or other?
In these "secular societies" there are two dimensions to religion, one purely about the question of belief and secondly the political power. < snip > This was acceptable since most of the people belong to within the group loosely, hence no offence is seen.
However some enlightened ones, identified the problem with the belief system and created an option that competing equally offensive competing religion can also be given space. So secularism meant tolerance of mutually offensive belief system to co-exist, along with the thought that rejects belief.
However, even the most die-hard atheists or agnotists or whatever else they may want to label themselves, are clear about the benefits one reaps from identifying and being within the political dimension of the religion. There is no or very little tolerance for mutually competing relgions to co-exist in politcal dimensions within such secular societies.
In Islamic societies, the two dimensions of the belief and politcal are rolled into one. Hence no tolerance for competing religions to co-exist period. With such a track record of the so called "secular" societies, the implications of grafting such a solution to a society with additional dharmic religion in the mix, can be guessed.
I would just like to add that the US/UK/France allow secularism in a basically Christian societal framework as SN Balagangadhara has eloquently described.
When everyone was Christian, some people (the political leaders) agreed to set aside religion if their workplace, because the religion was alive and healthy at home when they went home after work in the evening.
But whenever islamic and Christian societies mixed - one invariably ended up dominating or eliminating the other. This is especially true of Islam, but that may only be because "secularism" was invented some centuries ago in Chrsitian societies.
I wonder if it is possible at all that Islam would eventually have converted/eliminated all Hindus and covered all of India had the British not come in?
Forum opinion on this issue is ambiguous. On the one hand people insist that Islamic rulers were a spent force by the time the British came in because of the Sikhs and Marathas. On the other hand Islam is seen as continuously spreading by demography even today. We have both forum opinions posted on this board, but both cannot be correct.
If Islam is spreading "its tentacles" now - it means that the old Sikh and Maratha victories were a temporary aberration.
Was the entry of the British an interlude in which both Hindus and Muslims were suppressed and made to shut up by a unique "Secularism in a Christian framework" imposed by the British Raj.
But the end of that British Raj marked the end of that "Secularism in a Christian framework" and the division of India into Muslim Pakistan and a (largely) Hindu India.
I use use the words (largely) Hindu India deliberately. It is only a groups of Hindus who call themselves secular who insist that India should NOT be seen as "largely) Hindu India". All media references in the world and all world opinions tend to see India as "largely Hindu India".
Why do Indians insist on not seeing India like the rest of the world as a "largely Hindu India". I propose that this is confusion NOT ONLY among secular Hindus, but all Hindus at large about their own identity and status in this world.
When the entire outside world has been describing India as "Hindu", Indian Hindus have been insisting "We are not Hindu. We are Sanatana Dharmis". We are not a religion. We are a dharma"
And almost as an extension of that when the entire goddam world looks at India as "Largely Hindu" - we insist that we are not Hindu in character.
Hindus fight Hindus here. just look at the folly of Hindus
1) "Right wing" Hindus insist that India is not Hindu but "Sanatana Dharma" By doing this they may be telling the truth, but they are eroding the identity by which India is recognised in the world
2) "secular" Hindus resist the description of India as "Largely Hindu" and say "we are a mix of all religions" By doing that secular Hindus erode the identity by which India is recognised in the world.
But secular Hindus and Right wing Hindus hate each other. Seculars are called "Sickular" or "pseudosecular" right on this very forum. "Right wing Hindus" were called "murderers and bigots" right on this very forum.
But both groups do whatever they can to erode Hindu identity by refusing to accept the others view as a variant of Hindu opinion.
Is it any wonder that Hinduism can be eaten away at the edges when all Hindus are jokers of one variety or other?