Shiv, I'm Salil, new to the list, and wrote the book.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:42 AM, ss<[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > The book goes into that, without being pedantic, even if I say so, by citing references where necessary. The book is less about Hinduism and more about free speech, and the attacks it faces. > 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. > That wasn't a reviewer's remark; that was what my late mother told me on the phone as Babri Masjid was being destroyed, and I was at that time working in Singapore. (I now live in London). She said this, with anger and sadness in her voice, unable to accept that something like the mosque's destruction was happening in front of her eyes (i.e. TV). That was a genuine sentiment, and not a reviewer's comment; I wrote it in my poem, essentially to point out what made me the way I am. My mother was a Hindu; I am agnostic; and without getting definitional about it, I consider myself to be secular (meaning dislike all faiths equally). The poem explains to the Hindutva crowd why I am the way I am, and why I have responded to them the way I have. > 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. Hinduism apparently does accept any "way" to "God," or "none". Some aspects of the faith accept atheism too, and AFAIK, not many faiths have that liberal an attitude towards belief. > 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. > And some Muslim clerics responded saying that Hindus worship thousands of God, who are all manifestations of the same one god, but the Hindus haven't figured that out yet. This debate can be endless. > The so called "rise of Hindutva" is nothing new - although that stupid > word "Hindutva" is new. The RSS goes back to 1920s, but a range of events, apparently unconnected, coalesced in mid-80s, leading to the environment in which Hindutva could flourish. It did not emerge out of vacuum; there were sound reasons it was considered irrelevant until mid-80s. (Again, it is in my book). >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. > Hindus can do what they want; my concern is with the Indian identity. As Bal Thackeray would like all fundamentalist Muslims to move to Pakistan, I'd like all fundamentalist Hindus to move to Nepal. Thanks. As way of introduction: I live in London, have lived in Singapore, (briefly in Hong Kong and Geneva) and some time in New Hampshire and New York, besides Bombay. Write for a range of publications; at present working on two books; Offence: The Hindu Case should be in bookshops in India in another couple weeks; already available on Amazon's UK/UK, and possibly other sites. Salil --------
