Right wing extremism.

^^You are somewhat right!

The problem starts when politically correct people end on with historically wrong facts, and if you try to get them the right facts you are labelled as RWE while at maximum it may be labelled center-right, what I said in my post # 419 is true, yet some people wont agree on that, and I will repeat only Atheists and non-native religious minorities derive their nationality out of the constitution, specially in India.

Indian nationalism is a very complex and a very complicated issue and there is no straight answer to what it is.

Through history, the Indian subcontinental landmass has gone through a variety of influences, some benign, some philosophical, some unpleasant, some aggressive, some intolerant, and quite a lot of religious one.

Therefore, it is a cauldron, a churn and even chaotic, unstable and in continuous flux.

The political entity called India (to include Pakistan and Bangaldesh) was never a homogenous one.

Each segment of this political entity called India has weathered influences quite singular to itself and such influences may not have impinged on other parts of what is political India.

Therefore, there are a variety of viewpoints and cultural diversity and mindsets that are observed in the political identity called India.

For instance, while Babri Mazjid - Ram Mandir was an emotive issue in some parts of the country, it was not so fervent in others. While Modi is a religious oriented icon for some parts of the Nation, he maybe an icon to others in the country as a progressive leader and to some segments a totally irreconcilable icon of evil, no matter what he does or says.

Therefore, there is no single mindset at work.

This aspect is a truism and cannot be wished away.

One should see India through this prism and it turns out to be a kaleidoscope with changing colours and shapes!




Given the injunction of Islam and its mind being controlled by a 'centralised' religious body, it is well nigh impossible for Muslims to accept that they are not a separate and singular identity, because the 'centralised' body will deem any activity that does not suit their interpretation of Islam or even Nationhood as blasphemous or unacceptable in Islam! No Mussalman can defy their writ!

Muslims, through their injunctions, are primed into the mental makeup that they are 'uber alles' and others are 'untermenschen'. I will not quote verses to indicates so since doing so has become hackneyed. At the same time, I would just give the example that would indicate the mindset wherein the usual justification for acts that are anti social is - 'it is unIslamic and so'; .......................or 'No, he or she could not have done it because she is a pious Muslims who says his or her prayers five times a day'.

I am sure anyone will agree that these justifications are pathetic and lame, and in fact, downright silly and childish. Saying one's prayers does not make one pious or beyond mischief. If it were so, then every Priest, Panditji, Mullah would have been as clean as a whistle next to God! And we are all well aware how crooked they are who are not above sinning.

Therefore, it would be very surprising if anyone can change the Islamic mindset and make it progressive and leaning towards taking other religions at par!

Engineer and Bandookwala have tried, as also that Deoband cleric who tried to modernise and was impeached.

Muslim mindset cannot change when religion, Islam, comes into play.

If it could, then in a country that became separate on the basic of Islam, i.e, Pakistan, they would not have undertaken ethnic cleansing in their country of minorities, and what is worse, attempt to wipe out the other major sect of Islam, the Shias, to establish that Sunnism is the sole and only way to real Islam!

The Muslims are intolerant to their own co-religionists in the land of the Pure and other Islamic nations.

So, how can they change in India?

Turkey changed under Attaturk, but it is slowly moving back to real Islam!

I am sure there are Muslims who wish that such anomalies in attitude should change, but given the nature of Islamic ethos that is totally controlled by obscurantists, self aggrandising and power hungry Mullahs, it is an impossibility that Islamic mindset can change. It is too regimented and none can dare disobey the diktats of the Head Mullahs.

Christianity is also a regimented religion, but Christians are not afraid to exercise their own individual mind and be beyond the diktats of their Clergy, including what the Pope has to say!

I hope, for the sake of India, I am wrong.

Then who are the so called "pseudo-nationalists" and so called "secular nationalists"?

I mean, for example?

Short term memory loss in the same post? Undeniably, for me anyway, this land holds a special significance for Hindus. Probably you are referring to a more violent defence of the land in the nature of the Crusades. Then probably you would want to explain why Genghis Khan's marauding hordes avoided us - just a matter of convenience or lack of roads or something else to capture what was even then widely known as amongst the most properous civilizations. And Alexander ended his maniacal quest for world domination in our land because his army was too tired? I will refer you to Oswald Spengler's works to understand the lifecycles of civilizations.

Amazing statement. So how many times have other religions failed their people?

Is that contempt or bias? If we follow western models, we will all outgrow religions eventually.

Because you would want to associate "Hindu nationalism" with chaddis and are not willing to accept that there is a multitude of people outside the fold as well.

You cannot define nationalism in religious terms. Period. But what one can do is to learn our history and respect the culture and the people who came before us instead of borrowing liberally from what others choose to mould us into and mock our past.

Nationalism is not a competition, your statement makes no sense at all to the true nationalist.

True that is why there is only one genuine Netaji and one pseudo Johnny come lately Netaji in UP!

Ideally he should be the Nautanki!

India was spared the sword of Genghis Khan because the Mongols were defeated by Zafar Khan, one of Alauddin Khalji's generals. He was motivated by an intense spiritual desire to defend Bharat Mata, no doubt.

It seems that you did not understand my post. I exhort you to read it again. Pay special attention to the second paragraph.

I am not denying that Hindus feel a certain spiritual attachment to this land; I am saying that, historically speaking, this spiritual attachment has been immaterial, fleeting, and practically useless as a means of protecting and promoting Indian civilization.


Numerous times. Where have I stated otherwise?

However, one cannot deny that other religions like Christianity and Islam have provided their followers with a far more potent and unifying ideology than "Hinduism", barbaric as it may be. As a result, much of the world has been conquered by these two religions, and the followers of these religions have zealously defended their homelands from outsiders. Even Confucianism, which is not even a religion, has provided the Chinese with a far greater sense of national unity than "Hinduism" can ever hope to match.


Contempt. Do not think that I only criticize Hinduism in such a way; I consider Christianity and Islam to be backwards and primitive as well. And yes, I believe that we will outgrow all religions eventually. Some people, however, believe that Hinduism is a "special case" and is not really a religion at all, but actually a "way of life" (whatever that means). The reality is that Hinduism is subject to the same laws of history that all religions and ideologies are. It is absurd that Hindus still follow the rituals ordained by primitive 3,500-year old Iron Age texts, just as it is absurd that Christians still organize their lives after a primitive 2,000 year old book that has been censored and revised more than any other in history, and how Muslims treat a primitive book written a couple centuries after Muhammad's death with divine reverence.


Like who?


Do you see my avatar? That is the true representation of Indian civilization in physical form, if such a thing ever existed. The ideals of the European "Enlightenment" of the 18th century seem like petty philosophical meandering compared to the passionate, eloquent, and truly human ideals inscribed on these majestic pillars. It fills my heart with pride whenever I see them!

Maybe you will not believe this, but there was a time when I too considered myself a "Hindu nationalist". Then, I started reading history. Then, I realized how stupid, absurd, and meaningless that label was. Then, I suddenly wasn't a "Hindu nationalist" anymore.


Indeed, is it not. That statement was meant to illustrate that one does not need to be a "Hindu" to be an Indian nationalist. Conversely, being a "Hindu" does not by itself make you a nationalist by virtue of some 'spiritual connection' with the land.

As far as I am concerned, the martyrs of the HSRA were true nationalists, while most right wing "Hindu" nationalists are not really nationalists at all.

You are putting very different things in the same basket.

1. Born and brought up in a western dominated materialistic world, many things might look absurd. All you need to do is go back and find out reasons behind any one ritual you think is absurd. A lot is being lost over the way and it takes a lot of effort to dig out the reasons.

2. The points you are mentioning all arise from the western conditioning of the mind. Try reading Rajiv Malhotra!!

People had forgotten the basic yoga(pranayams) devised by these same old iron age people and it took a great force like Ramdev to bring it back from the dead and return it to the people. To some people even that might seem an absurd thing to do!!

I do not know what makes you say that. There are different ways for different times. During some periods, the land was considered spiritual and knowledgeable and people came and themselves embraced our civilization. And at other times there were violent struggles to preserve the same. Why else would a civilization so close to collapse and constantly haunted by hordes of marauders bounce back again and again during history when historians would have liked to write it off? Spread of Buddhism in pan-Asia was not the work of a dormant civilization!!

Visit some monasteries or old towns in the Himalayas to see how we have protected so much of our past. The problem with the kids today is that they do not realize that we have been a declining civilization for some time and it needs a big push to turn it around(some way of reversing the momentum).

I know the reasons behind the rituals, and I also know that those reasons are irrelevant in today's world. That's the problem with humans and with religion in particular; we can become so emotionally attached and blinded towards certain customs that we seek to preserve them for their own sake, even when it becomes irrational to do so. This is one of the main reasons why I see the bhakti movement as doing more harm than good for Indian civilization in the long run; all it did was rehash an old opium and make it more potent, rather than reforming the religion or weeding out some of the antiquated, corrupting roots.

Have you read the Vedas?


Is this the same guy who claimed that pranayams can cure leukemia and other kinds of cancer? It seems my efforts as a medical student are a waste; who needs modern medicine and technology when we have these absolutely brilliant Iron Age techniques!


Was this the work of "Hindus"? Or was it the work of noble Aryas who had cast off Vedic primitivism and adopted something far more civilized and progressive, something attractive enough to make millions of Asians from Iran to Japan regard India as the spiritual center of the world?

When you get the chance, read some of the Buddhist and Jain literature like the Acaranga sutra and Mulamadhyamakakarika, and compare them with those brilliant Iron Age texts, the Vedas, and that brilliant work of liberal and progressive "Hindus", the Manusmrti.

This explains the different conditioning of mind better than anything else. All the above distinctions you mentioned above are nonetheless Bhartiya and are a continuation of Dharmic traditions. It is the interpretation which matters, and Hindu civilization has never been a closed one which did not allow change of themes according to the need of the day. And somehow many people forget that theme of change and continue blaming Manusmriti.

Sometimes people go over the head in claiming things, and many people have done that. People publish false experiments and results even in Nature sometimes. But that does not in anyway bring down the work he has done or the surge that he has provided to Ayurveda. Being a student of modern medicine your contempt for alternative methods of medicine is expected. They hold a similar bias even for Homeopathy.

Who uses a salt based toothpaste anyway or henna in the shampoos!!

Yes, Vedic primitivism and heterodox doctrines like Buddhism and Jainism are the products of the same civilization, and are a continuation of the same tradition. What is important to understand, however, is that these heterodox doctrines REJECT virtually everything in the modern "Hindu" religion. To draw a simple comparison, capitalism and Marxism are both products of Western civilization and both have their roots in the 18th century European Enlightenment. But no one would argue that capitalism and Marxism are the same thing, since one was created solely as a rejection of the other. No one would argue that the distinctions between them are meaningless since they are both European ideologies, or that it is only the "interpretation" of them which matters. Similarly, the heterodox doctrines like Buddhism and Jainism emerged as a response to Brahmanical orthodoxy and Vedic primitivism, and are hugely different ideologies despite being products of the same civilization.

Indian civilization is very broad and diverse with many different elements, and over the course of history, some elements have proven to be more harmful or more beneficial than others. The time when India was most powerful as a civilization was when the heterodox elements were at the forefront. It was not Vedic primitivism that won over the populations of Asia, but Buddh Dharma. It was not Vedic primitvism that spurred the commercial development of Ancient India or offered freedom for India's downtrodden classes, but Buddh Dharma. And it was not to learn the Vedas that students and monks from as far as China and Japan like Xuanzang came to Nalanda University, but to study the Buddhist texts. In effect, all those endearing qualities of Indian civilization that we so admire today are the result of the progressive heterodox doctrines that flourished during India's Classical Age. And it was when these heterodox doctrines declined and Brahmanical orthodoxy re-asserted itself, that Indian civilization too began to decline.

Saying that "all these ideologies are Bhartiya and are really just the same" is just meaningless rhetoric and only serves to obscure the issue the hand. I have already offered a clear critique of the inability of "Hinduism" to protect and promote Indian civilization in preceding posts. It is quite clear to anyone who examines the historical facts that the religion known today as "Hinduism" has failed Indian civilization and is fundamentally outdated and archaic.

Ha Ha Ha ..
Communist views presented wrapped in vedic chutney

Lots of smelly Marxist BS propagated as truth on this thread.....

Lots of useless whines and rants on this thread too, which add nothing to the discussion.

Soon Hindus will touch the 7 billion number worldwide in population, and in India with 80% population being Hindu, I don't know how come Hinduism has failed !

Just like people misunderstand the Non-Violence of Gandhi to be Cowardice, Hinduism is also misunderstood that it failed to protect or project itself, "We" failed to promote Hinduism and Indian civilization because we were under foreign rule for 850 years. What I see is Its reformation after the independence and various amendments in Hindu law has abolished the outdated and archaic part of it. So far as the faith and worship method is concerned, every religion can be termed as outdated in this regard.

People always get confused with Varna System and Caste system, the time when Buddha deserted Hinduism, Hindu society was different, while now it has changed a lot specially after independence, evil practices are slowly getting abolished, but some bad practices like caste system are alive due to govt.'s flawed policies.

The most important thing is that still Hindus are dominant people in India and so the claim that Hinduism has failed utterly fails.

It happens in any Imaginary Thread so here too.

I never knew that Cholas,one of the most successful dynasty's was Buddhist, if we go by the logic given above.

From Maldives till Malaysia, Indonesia their empire was spread, and they were Hindus not Buddhists.

According to Wikipedia :