On 07-Sep-06, at 4:08 PM, sastry wrote:
If that is so then would you say that the description "Hindu
dominated India"
is wrong?
Let's define "dominated", shall we? Does it refer to being a
numerical majority, or politically dominant, or economically
dominant, culturally dominant, or in the media? Each of these is
different.
Second, what exactly is "Hindu"? If you lay aside the definition of
being a religion distinct from other religions, is it not plausible
that Christianity is a sub-caste of Hinduism, thus allowing for the
concept of "Dalit Christian"? (For those unaware, yes, it exists.)
Such a definition of Hinduism would accommodate just about anyone in
India -- whether Sikh, Jain or Buddhist -- while excluding Islam.
Such a definition is also too broad to be a stable identity,
resulting in regional identity factions.
If you define "Hindu" as the (mostly urban I bet) definition of a
religion that is distinct from all other religions, then no, there is
no "Hindu dominated India" because most of the country does not
recognise that definition of "Hindu". For proof, try asking a Jain if
he has any trouble explaining that he or she is not a Hindu.
--
Kiran Jonnalagadda
http://jace.seacrow.com/
