Shiv, You are positing the argument in a binary way: it is either this, or that. So caste-system is fundamentalism, not being casteist brings about homogeneity. Victorian morality was imposed at one point, now it is being disregarded. Gandhi single-handedly convinced a vast majority of Hindus to change their behavior, now the churning is producing assertions of another kind.
My response is, well, yes, but... because Hinduism - whether one believes in it or not - has not been a case of either-this-or-that, but neither-this-nor-that. Each individual is supposed to have his or her own path to nirvana - or not. Or not even believe, if one chooses to be an atheist. The nature of the debate is indeed being changed, the past few decades, by the BJP/RSS and others, who want to impose their peculiar notions of what Hinduism is, on the rest. And that includes belief in one God - Rama - one place of worship - Ayodhya - and one book - the Ramayana. This sounds suspiciously similar to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. From a multiplistic approach of polytheism - recall Kolatkar's poetry, where even "Yeshvantrao" can be a god to some - to monotheism. This ain't original; Morarji Desai paraphrased this argument for me when I interviewed him in 1989 for India Today, in the lead up to what then seemed like a quixotic campaign for Ram Janambhoomi. I mean, why Rama, was the view within my family, where my mum liked Shiva, and dad, Ganesha. But this very diffusion bothered the RSS-sorts, who wanted a unified view, which they imposed - and to do that, they attacked all those who produced parallel narratives - that included making one god primary, opposing behavior they didn't like (crude manifestation being attacks on pub-going women and Valentine's day revelers). And the me-too nature of it - if Islam can get offended, and the state bends over backwards, why not Hindus, too? I think the point was raised about Hindus being second class citizens in their own land, and Muslims getting the privileges. But is being able to have four wives, or study in madrasas, and disempower women, a privilege? Are Muslims, by any yardstick, better off than Hindus? If so, the Hindus would have a case - they don't, it is spurious. Surjit Bhalla has done excellent work showing how Muslims are worse off than even dalits by certain yardsticks, and hence more deserving of reservations (I'm not in favor of reservations in general, by the way). And did Gandhi really succeeding in changing the views of upper castes? In Gujarat alone, I've reported caste-related violence of an exceptionally crude variety, in the 80s - barely three decades after Gandhi's death. Temple entry continues to be denied to dalits in many parts of India. Discrimination still remains. The narrative of what being a fundamentalist is, is changing, granted. And the RSS/BJP are playing a major role in writing that narrative. And that's the problem. Just as secular-liberals want the good Muslims to speak out against the seizure of their faith by the Taliban, good Hindus need to speak out to, and from within the Hindu tradition - as Amartya Sen has argued. That's not happening. Some of us with Hindu-sounding names who continue to criticize this fundamentalism, are doing so through a lens that's universalist, and not Hindu. So what we say, at one level, doesn't matter. It needs a Sankaracharya, or a mahant, to take on the lunatics. And the problem is, most mahants who are popular are busy adding more "sri"s to their names, or hawking yoga on TV, while not making illiterate remarks against gays. Hey Ram! Salil
