On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 9:36:20 am Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> (Shiv, you listening?)
LOL! Don't get me started off..
I really mustn't comment without reading the book.
The more I look at some of these things the more I am convinced that religon
requires fundamentalists to survive. Religions are competitive and therefore
survival requires a fight - else you are sunk (or your religion is). The
religions you never see today, like smallpox, are religions that died out.
One could argue that humans are superior to smallpox because humans won
didn't they? But what is left today is not necessarily what will be left
forever, and the "superior" and "inferior" business becomes moot.
"Hinduism or "Sanatana Dharma" - has an interesting non religious core, and
it's survival today seems to have two sets of claimants as fathers
1) One set are the Hindus ho believe that sanatana dharma as an eternal
philosophy survives anyway - whether religion or people exist or not. It is
an eternal philosophy for the universe.
2) Another set of Hindus believe that it needs to be actively fostered and
protected by humans or all that is held valuable will be frittered away.
It is difficult for any single group or entity to usurp an entire religion (or
belief system). But it does seem to occur from time to time - and no I do not
mean the BJP/Bajrang Dal. I mean Gandhi's successful usurpation
of "Hinduism". I was amused by some reviwers comments speaking of the "Second
death of Gandhi' and the much vaunted secularism of Hindus.
Mahatma Gandhi was an extermely intelligent Bania. Wily to the core. Banias
(Any Banias on silk? ) are a successful forward caste business community and
occupy one horn of the hated "Brahmin-Bania" nexus that Pakistani leaders
claim are ruling India. Gandhi singlehandedly gave the world the impression
that Hindus are tolerant and non violent.
Gandhi convinced Hindus that their faith represented tolerance and non
volence. The truth is that nothing in Hindu literature or folklore calls for
blind tolerance or unconditional non violence. But Gandhi did more than that.
Tongue firmly in cheek he popularized the anthem with the line "Ishwar-Allah
tere naam" which means the name of God can be anything - be it Ishwar (Shiva)
or Allah. Technically this is an assault on the Islamic concept "La illah il
Allah" - "There is no God other than Allah". . But here Gandhi really was
playing out a Hindu belief that God's moniker/call-sign is less important
than his rank.
The so called "rise of Hindutva" is nothing new - although that stupid
word "Hindutva" is new. What is happening in India today is a handing over
of "Hinduism" to the Indian people ("masses") from a situation in which the
faith was under tight control of upper caste men and their royal sponsors.
And as Hinduism gets handed over old myths about Hindus and Hinduism -
especially those nurtured by Gandhi are being broken down. Usurpation of
Hinduism as attempted by the BJP is not easy now, but at the same time those
Hindus who genuinely believe that "Hinduism" means tolerance and non violence
have another think coming.
The world may well find that Hinduism's excesses against others was better
managed under the hated forward castes - who took it out against lower
castes. Removing that paradigm is unleashing Hindusim's interesting and
unique views on unsuspecting non Hindus who think non violence, tolerance and
caste="Hinduism"
Just my take...
shiv
