Tags
Christianity, dharma, Greece, Hinduism, India, Islam, Jawaharlal Nehru, proselytism, religion, secularism
To most observers, India appears a paradox – teeming with diversity of cuisine, dress, language, pigmentation, and faith under one flag yet simultaneously simmering with communal tensions. The paradox is even more glaring in light of the democratic structure of government, the constitutional protections to minorities, and the high degree of integration of various communities into the public sphere. Social theories shaped by the European experience and projected as universals flounder on India’s shores, confusing the neophyte and outsider alike.
The crux of this discombobulation lies in the weakness of normative vocabulary to describe India. While scholars have considered if modernity can exist outside its present European framework, few have been brave enough to chase down the answer. As a result, false universals of European history such as secularism, liberalism, nationalism, and even time are used to decipher the non-West; any society that fails to conform to these European ideals are less evolved or have failed.
The root of India’s communal tensions lies in its constitution. Outwardly appearing to take a neutral – secular and liberal – hand in religious affairs, the document remains a travesty imposed upon Indic culture. The reason for this lies in the Nehruvian venture – an Anglicised Kashmiri Pandit that he was, Jawaharlal Nehru made no secret of his disdain for Hindu traditions. In his own words, he approached them “almost as an alien critic, full of dislike for the present as well as for many of the relics of the past.” As a result, the Indian republic’s first prime minister transplanted the Western notion of a liberal and secular state onto Indian soil. The dissonance between East and West in this regard is made clear when comparing the dharmic systems of the former with the Abrahamic faiths of the latter.
Unlike Indic belief systems, the Abrahamic faiths believe themselves to be of divine origin. In the time of Adam and Eve, there was the perfect religion from which Man fell into idolatry, superstition, witchcraft, and false worship; humanity was led back to the True faith by G-d as He revealed Himself to Abraham. Since the Word cannot be false, Abrahamic religions came to revolve around a truth axis – either you believed in the True religion or you were wrong and therefore blind, misguided, or evil.
Dharmic faiths, however, remain closer to the true sense of the Roman religio. Wisdom, not Truth, came from the meditations and experiences of previous generations as well as one’s own. A philosophical kernel was wrapped with customs, traditions, and rituals that were meant to bind families and communities together. Hinduism, for example, has no founder, no particular doctrine or practice, no specific scripture, no central ecclesiastical organisation, and even the concept of god is not essential to it. The notion of absolute truth in such a system is not just irrelevant but impossible to imagine. Thus, these faiths can comfortably coexist without competition or animosity.
This difference is highlighted in the famous conversation between French traveler François Bernier and some brahmins in 1671 when he tried to introduce them to Christianity: “they pretended not their Law was universal; that God had only made it for them, and it was therefore they could not receive a Stranger into their Religion: that they thought not our Religion was therefore false, but that it might be it was good for us, and that God might have appointed several different ways to go to Heaven; but they will not hear that our Religion should be the general Religion for the whole earth; and theirs a fable and pure device.” The Hindu view of other beliefs, be they Indic or Abrahamic, can thus best be described as indifference rather than tolerance.
These two systems of thought are mutually exclusive: religion is about the absolute truth or it is not; there is one True faith and others are false religions or all beliefs exist in parallel; the True faith is in competition with falsehood or beliefs are indifferent to one another. This antagonism creates a flashpoint when it comes to the freedom of religious thought and its propagation. To Christians and Muslims, the freedom to proselytise is essential to their competitive and antagonistic world view whereas non-proselytising religions find such behaviour to be an importunate intrusion into their world.
Unfortunately for the modern secular-liberal state, there is no neutral ground between these two positions; to pretend there is would be akin to accepting an agreement between the lion and the lamb not to eat each other as one among equals. For a people whose conception of religion is not just a metaphysical and ethical philosophy but also set of ancestral traditions, proselytism is felt to be an aggressive and often uncouth interference from the outside. Religious conversion disintegrates communities as the convert is torn from old moorings and subject to new rules governing inheritance, lineage, and familial life. The moral condescension towards paganism often means an abrupt and sometimes hostile unmooring of a convert from family and friends, tearing the social fabric that had done so well until then with its stance of indifference or non-interference. The problem of social disruption is so severe that Mohandas Gandhi considered religious conversion harmful to the Indian social fabric. He wrote, “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing… In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink.”
The defence of proselytism and religious conversion bases itself on the notion of religious liberty. This is a befitting solution in a system wherein all religions compete against others for followers and the supremacy of their truth claims but not as appropriate in one in which some religions demand only to be left alone. As Jakob de Roover of Ghent University argues, the liberal principle of religious freedom implicitly endorses the Abrahamic view of the world that religion revolves around doctrines and truth claims and citizens should be able to not just choose in the free market of religious ideas but persuade others of one’s convictions.
Makau Mutua of the State University of New York, Buffalo, exposes the inherent bias of religious liberty by arguing that the doctrine does not level the playing field for all religions but creates an obligation on dharmic systems – for which they are not culturally geared – to compete as Abrahamic faiths do. This benefits the evangelising religions in their quest for intellectual hegemony. In essence, the preference shown towards the competition of ideas is nothing short of a cultural invasion in a skewed contest to eliminate local customs.
Perhaps the most subversive danger in this debate is secular theology. Usually understood to be a movement from the early 1960s, secular theology was Christianity’s reaction to modernity. Scientific advancement and political utilitarianism pushed some Christian theologians to treat the Bible Christian mythology, thus divesting the sacred yet retain the ideals. Taken out of context, Christian principles appear secular. For example, John Locke’s treatise on toleration can hardly be a secular creed when it excludes Catholics and atheists from its ambit. Furthermore, Locke’s tolerance appears to be based on the free will of souls to choose between good and evil without which salvation would be meaningless. Human existence is still divided into a spiritual sphere of the soul and a political one of the flesh, and the Protestant Truth was arrayed against the falseness of the world.
As SN Balagangadhara of Ghent University explains succinctly, the assumption of the cultural universality of Christianity informs the Western gaze. Christianity’s “theological truths have become the facts of western common sense and scholarly consensus.” One of the features of this universalism is that it wrongly puts Hinduism and other dharmic faiths on par with Christianity and Islam and to the detriment of the former.
To return to the Indian state, the framers of the Indian constitution implicitly endorsed the Abrahamic theological claim that religion is about Truth when establishing India as a secular republic. An important virtue in a competitive market of religious Truth like Europe or the Middle East, secularism has little meaning in a dharmic system and only serves to buttress Abrahamic binaries when applied to Semitic and dharmic religions evenly. There is nothing neutral about the Indian secular state; in fact, the constitution was informed by a negative attitude towards the local dharmic culture.
The problem of hindutva also stems from Nehru’s flawed sense of secularism. Temples were taken over and Hindu customs abolished while personal codes of the “minority” Abrahamic faiths were left untouched in the name of secularism. Faced with a political order that worked against them, Hindus were forced to respond to the doctrinaire threats to their way of life and defend their value of indifference. Attempts were made to define a core set of beliefs, customs, and scriptures as is evidenced by movements like the Arya Samaj; the earlier attitude of indifference was replaced by tolerance, and Hindus claimed that their non-proselytising nature was a demonstration of their comity towards all faiths unlike Christianity or Islam. The hindutva adoption of the notion of equality of all religions upset the Semitic faiths – divine revelation forces the Christian or Muslim to accept his faith as infallible and supreme; the Abrahamic faiths at least shared a common G-d even if there was some disagreement about subsequent prophets and messiahs but to be measured alongside idolatrous pagans was unacceptable.
By privileging the Semitic moral world order, the Indian state sowed the seeds of violent conflict. The perceived protection of the state via preferential treatment in terms of personal laws, religious institutions, educational establishments, and the outright legal bias (think Shah Bano or the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence bill) instigates communities against each other and against the Nehruvian state. As Roover eloquently states, “the seeds of religious violence are sown by the liberal state; however, it is the communities that harvest them.”
Proselytism and religious conversion is a sore subject in many parts of the world. It is banned in Greece, China, and most Islamic countries, while many others such as Russia and Israel are deeply uncomfortable with it. While Hindu spirituality is not threatened by reading and learning from, say, the Tanakh, Christians, for example, can give up neither the Great Commission of Jesus nor Exodus 20:3-6. In other words, a Hindu need not convert if he wishes to incorporate any idea from another religion into his life but that is not an option for the Christian or Muslim. That is why, as one author wrote, banning conversions is not part of the hindutva agenda but not banning them is the agenda of aggressive religions.
All democratic societies realise that freedoms are not infinite; as a result, international declarations such as the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981), the UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (1995), or the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) allow the limiting of religious freedom if it is necessary in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Though these are not normally considered to include a restriction on proselytism or religious conversion, they have only been tested in European conditions.
A complete ban on proselytism and religious conversion in India is hardly a curb on freedom of religious thought – from the dharmic perspective, it is only a ban on religious thought of an exclusivist and binary nature; yet Abrahamic religions cannot abandon their doctrines of exclusive Truth without violating their core principles. However, a ban on religious proliferation does not create any new obligations upon Christians or Muslims that would violate their sacred tenets. It would only protect local traditions and customs. For some, this might not be an acceptable solution. One can be reminded that secularism does not truly fit the Indian ethos but more importantly, it is vital to realise that the public sphere has not be desacralised completely anywhere in the world nor is it desirable. Countries still place their weekends around the holy days of their majority faiths (Fridays in Islam, Saturday in Judaism, and Sunday in Christianity), the common calendar is marked from the birth of Jesus Christ – anno domini – oaths are sworn upon religious texts, and Christmas is still a national holiday in many countries. Furthermore, restrictions and bans on controversial issues such as abortion and stem cell research are still informed by religious beliefs. In this climate, a hat-tip to the millennia-old traditions of the overwhelming majority of the Indian people without creating blasphemous obligations on other faiths ought not be a problem.
This post appeared on FirstPost on September 08, 2014.
Pingback: India, equality, freedom and religion | We are philosophy
1. Not at all. The idea that dharma is about markets and competition itself proves my point about how different Christianity and Islam are from Hinduism. I would not even say Abrahamic faiths for Jews do not feel the same compulsions their inheritors do.
2.In my opinion, absolutely…and I would rather a internal council of Hindus leave the Dalits alone to make up their minds without trying to dissuade them even. Converting from conscience is difficult to prohibit despite the social impact it may have. On this, I am more invested in mitigating the social problems that may arise rather than prohibit conversion itself.
3. You can bring in all sorts of differences but unless it pertains to the relationship in focus, it is not a false dichotomy. One might easily say that it is not about men but men and women or financially secure vs insecure or anything else that suits their fancy. How does it affect the relationship we are discussing? The relationship between the lion and the lamb is that of exercising a right which one is simply incapable of while another sees it as fundamental. Conversion is outside the Hindu imagination but fundamental to Islam and Christianity.
4. Why do I reject your premise? Let’s see… Nothing about Abrahamic faiths is about freedom. It is about obedience, which, to their credit, Jews are quite honest about. From the commandments on, the core of the religions are about accepting and obeying, without which service has no meaning even. Tell me, if I feel that Jesus is irrelevant but the notion of charity and compassion are worth pursuing, will the Church accept that I am capable of going to Heaven? I’ll bet my last schilling they insist upon conversion for that is the true path.
4 (ii). Sorry, I skipped the long rant about ISKCON and hope you did not raise any finer issue in between. I did this because I agree with you – ISKCON is an insult to Hindu traditions and ghar wapasi is just as deplorable. I do notice you keep falling back on markets and propagation of faith though…the latter is a value of Islam and Christianity and it is not universally shared. Thus, to say that such a “freedom” is the basis for anything is to already tilt the stage in favour of these two faiths. By the way, I do mention ISKCON in the comments to Pooja which I am sure you have read. I also say political Hindutva is the unfortunate Abrahamisation of Hinduism which disgusts me.
5. I did give a reason but you disagreed with it, Rick. Don’t conflate the two! But to your original question, let me rephrase my answer – I do not believe in equality. We can do certain things to promote it but achieving it is impossible. For all the “fair trial” saga some like to spin, do you really think it is a fair trial if one side can afford a top notch lawyer and another has to get one appointed to him by the court? People have a place in society and as far as I am concerned, that place is based on merit, hard work, and character. This would mean that despite rejecting equality on an individual level, I do not think Dalits inferior to me as a group.
6. But you are now making my point, dear sir! How is abortion an evil if not for the religious position on conception of life? A biologist might say that there is no sentience without brain activity and as long as the foetus has not developed a brain, abortions are perfectly legitimate. This would mean that abortions within the first ten weeks (as the legal restriction in most places stands) is perfectly valid.
Jaideep, Sorry again for the long delay. Thanks for writing in again, you help the cause of a rational discourse. Here is my reply to your comments
1. I didn’t mean ‘Dharma’ necessarily is about markets and competitions. All world views (religion included) thrive in an environment where they compete for Man’s assent (take for e.g communism that was adopted and rejected in Europe and continues to thrive in places where people give it assent e.g Kerala). Thus, I am trying to show that markets and competition is not ‘subjective’ doctrines but universal. If a person can choose his profession according to what’s available in the market, why not his religion?
This is where I believe in freedom of conscience where as your views go closer to a theocracy and being ‘born in a religion’. For if all world-views don’t compete for man’s assent, why then does the hindutva brigade and recently Rajnath Singh suggest that conversion will change the demography of the country? Here there’s an implicit reference to looking at a country’s demography like a market space that will reduce.
Let’s just say I agree with you that Hinduism doesn’t see religion as markets and competition but if an average Mohan wishes to become a muslim, market and competition has appealed to him more than his traditional idea of ‘all religions are as good as any other’, why then not just let him be? Either Hinduism allows for freedom of conscience or it doesn’t. Either Hinduism allows for the freedom of conscience of the entire billion of hindus or it doesn’t. If all religions are as good as another which is the antithesis of markets and competitions, isn’t Mohan as good in Islam as he is in Hinduism. I believe Hindutva is saying of late that markets do matter and give us back our stolen goods because they are not people with freedom but goods.
2. If I may ask, what are the social problems you perceive that requires mitigation? Ambedkar converted with thousands next to him, without any social problem being created. Why is mass or individual conversion to Buddhism ok but not to Christianity or Islam? Do you believe in a selective freedom of conscience?
3.”The relationship between the lion and the lamb is that of exercising a right which one is simply incapable of while another sees it as fundamental.”
Conversion is my fundamental right does not necessarily mean that nine hindus will fall next to me like nine pins. In fact this right has been very well exercised by Hindus and christian alike. you can see all the ashrams that hindus have built on the rivers banks where they have taught all the white foreigners to pray and meditate and give up meat. Are you sure Hindus feel incapable of exercising it?
‘Conversion is outside the Hindu imagination but fundamental to Islam and Christianity’ – The lion and lamb analogy fails here because a lion would essentially eat a lamb without respecting its freedom. In a free society, there is always going to be free exchange of ideas (you can call this free exchange a seminar, a conversation between two friends, a sermon, music, way of life or a book). The lion and the lamb analogy fails because every muslim and christian doesn’t step out of his home essentially to eat the lamb. I felt your analogy was crude and showed minorities in wolf-like attire waiting to pounce on that poor hindu lamb unarmed and intellectually bereft and unloved.
I think people have converted because it is a discovery of love. Perhaps you prefer to look it just like your friend Rajnath Singh, as a lion and lamb wrestling match. To ordinary hindus who may have converted in the past 2000 years, there was something his friend (the friend could be a pastor or a next-door farmer) may have shared something with him that touched his inner self and made him adopt a different life (I am not saying better or worse). We all share things we like, don’t we? This includes sharing the meaning of life, destiny and eternal happiness, that, what makes us human – our longing for a deeper sense of joy.
To ban proselytism would mean to make illegal two friends talking about religion, ban sermons, ban non dharmic music, ban acts of service Mohan Bhagwat deems as ‘christian’ e.g cleansing wounds of lepers and the dying because there would be fear that some would convert out of this! Ban the Bible because its free reading could tempt people to convert etc. That is all what you would have to ban to be consistent with banning proselytism.
I have a better suggestion though: the friend saying he doesn’t wish to speak about it, Hindus who don’t wish to attend sermons or attend sermons of Hindu preachers, Hindus who don’t wish to listen to non-dharmic music, hindus who also cleanse wounds of the dying so that Mohan Bhagwat doesn’t say only Mother Teresa does it for converting people, hindus who read the Bhagwat Gita and are content with it. I think you get the idea: freedom. Let people do what they want.
4.1 “Why do I reject your premise? Let’s see… Nothing about Abrahamic faiths is about freedom. It is about obedience, which, to their credit, Jews are quite honest about. From the commandments on, the core of the religions are about accepting and obeying, without which service has no meaning even.”
You will have to elaborate what context do you place this ‘accepting and obeying’. I am wondering in which faith does it not exist to accept and obey.
4.2. ‘to say that such a “freedom” is the basis for anything is to already tilt the stage in favor of these two faiths.’
If you believe that the Hindu religion is simply hardwired into Hindus and doesn’t require their assent, it is no surprise you find conversion tricky and use expressions such as ‘conversion by conscience is difficult to prohibit’ instead of using expressions such as ‘each one is free to adopt a world-view according to what his conscience suggests to him’.
What I have just written is not abrahamic barb but simply natural law, that many constitutions of a sundry of nations have adopted when they are democratic. If you feel this ‘freedom’ tilts the stage in favor of your adversary, then I am sorry that you find yourself on the wrong side of the tilting but that is a choice you have made for your own life if you haven’t gone the way all democratic countries are: Man is a universe in himself and can choose his own beliefs and pursuit of happiness especially when he considers them fundamental to his conscience and happiness.
Does the Hindu religion not accommodate freedom of conscience without accusing the very idea of freedom of conscience as a product of abrahamic faith? A concept such as ‘industrial revolution’ or ‘yoga’ or ‘scientific temper’ may well have taken birth in a specific cultural and religious historical context of one society but those contexts don’t own the concepts if those concepts have objective value. India and Pakistan believe in scientific temper as much as the West. Every concept name it justice (Roman Courts) or freedom or chess(India) or Olympics(Greece) has had to be born in a specific historical and cultural context. Do you really believe you speak for the entire hindudom when you say freedom of conscience, though could be argued if it was born in an abrahamic setting, is not dear to the people of the dharmic faith?
This is the reason our constitution adopted freedom of conscience: it best suited their (founding fathers) understanding of Man’s fundamental rights without having to subscribe or allude or pander or make favorable to religions of those cultural-religious-historical contexts from which the concept of freedom of conscience had been arrived unlike what you mildly accuse them(founders) of. It is not their fault you can’t see what they see. Without that conception (right to freely preach, practice and propagate one’s faith), how different is your conception of India from the conception of king of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for his kingdom?
4.3 “if I feel that Jesus is irrelevant but the notion of charity and compassion are worth pursuing, will the Church accept that I am capable of going to Heaven? I’ll bet my last schilling they insist upon conversion for that is the true path.”
I will quote you the teaching of the Church – if you wish, you can find it in this document – Dogmatic Constitution on the Church – Lumen Gentium
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.
So much for your last shilling. A Hindu can be saved if he tries to be a good Hindu seeking the will of God and follows the dictates of his conscience. If you were worried that abrahamic faiths convert because we believe others will go to hell, we don’t. I think you get the idea of conversion upside down. Christians look at themselves as missionary people. If there was no charity in their principle and actions, there is no attraction towards Christ. Hence missionary people are only as effective as their actions and even that cannot ensure that people would be attracted to Christ unless Christ himself willed them to come to Him. Hence there is a lot happening here that is buried under propaganda that wishes to explain it all away by ‘cash for conversion’.
4.ii ‘ISKCON is an insult to Hindu traditions’
I will quoute you – Hinduism, for example, has no founder, no particular doctrine or practice, no specific scripture, no central ecclesiastical organisation, and even the concept of god is not essential to it .
If this is the case, how then have you come to the conclusion that ISKCON is an insult to Hindu traditions? If it has no particular doctrine, what then has the ISKCON done so horribly wrong as to suffer your wrath? For clearly, it seems they have violated ‘your’ particular doctrine, haven’t they? But if there is neither an ecclesiastical organisation nor specific structure, why can’t ISKCON claim your respect to propogate the hindu faith as they respect your belief to do otherwise?
5 – I wasn’t asking you how well we have applied the concept of equality but whether you essentially believed in it. We must all work hard, one would say. But while you may find many idlers, are you ready to say ‘I don’t believe in hard work because it is impossible to acheive it?’
If we fail to practice what we preach, how has that logically proved that what we preach isn’t true? My point was simple – Do you believe we are all essentially born equal (not whether we fail to make systems as just as possible later on). If your answer to this is negative, please share why.
6. Is sentience your basis for taking a life. Paralysed people and comatose patients have no sentience. Would you approve of taking their lives?
7. I find Pooja’s argument very interesting which you say you have answered but I can’t find it. If you say in your essay that there are hindus who can be hindus when they don’t believe in any specific God, then does a hindu who only wishes to believe in Christ and not in any other God cease to be a hindu according to your own definition?
8. Another thing that piqued my interest is: you mentioned to Pooja that a hindu would enter a mosque but a muslim would balk at this prospect of entering a temple. If you really wish to go a bit deeper into the faith of your muslim brother, you would see that his tenets teach him to have no other God than the God of Israel. If it is not his idea of a God to have idols of cows and milk pouring over lingams but respects the views of his hindu brothers to do the same, what offense has he meant? He never dragged anyone to a mosque in the first place. If our hindu brothers respect and believe all relgions are equally agreeable, they must come to terms that this is a very concrete hindu tenet. Expecting a quid pro quo and taking offense at others who don’t is imposing their beliefs on others. In my entire life in India, I never heard a single hindu complain that muslims don’t enter their temples.
9. Jaideep, I would like to know what you think about my certain views you overlooked.
The idea I explained that about the different religiosities that have influenced the birth of India (not the imaginary vedic strips that the BJP thinks it is still living in)
The idea of India didn’t exist when the religiosity of the vedic faiths did. When the idea of India was born, it already found itself with Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Islam and Christianity influencing its birth. Because here, we’re talking about what’s the best thing for India (hence, every looks at the constitution and what makes the indian identity), not the lands occupied by vedic religions. All these religions differ from each other in moral and civil issues (wives, marriage, beef ban), hence the constitution becomes the only binding force and all religions mentioned above become Indian religions or religions that thrived in the lands and influenced its culture.
It is true the majority of the country comprise of Hindus but as Amartya Sen say in his book Argumentative Indian, that to be Indian is not necessarily to be Hindu an identity does not have to be a religious identity and a person can be Indian without thinking of himself or the other as hindu. He also mentions further that the exact opposite is a harmful idea pushed by certain fringe hindutva groups and that this is not what Hinduism has ever stood for.
No problem, Rickson. Glad to debate than yell at each other. And thankfully not limited to 140 characters at a time!
1. No Rick, they don’t. Non-proselytising religions would like it if you agreed with them, perhaps, but they don’t particularly care. Your point allows me to reiterate my point – the very framework in which we think of “all” religions is flawed and hence our disagreements.
Secondly, it seems from your question that you are talking about conversion whereas I am talking about proselytism. I think I said in a reply long ago that I am less oppositional to conversions that arise from a personal quest than through smooth talking. I would not hold a person against his/her will within a system but the fact is that problems do arise sometimes upon conversion. For example, non-Muslim offspring do not have the inheritance rights that their Muslim brothers and sisters do. How would you address such issues?
2. I don’t think any conversion is fine unless it is driven by personal belief. Even then, I am always going to be wary of converting to faiths who play with belief as a marketplace. I do not know enough about Buddhism to comment authoritatively but if they proselytise in the same manner that Islam and Christianity do, then I would be opposed to that. However, I am told only some sects do that and not all – not sure if this is true, but if so, I would not have as strong an objection. I would also consider if the system one is going into is exclusive – that creates all sorts of nastiness.
3. Again with the marketplace analogy which fails completely! In terms of Hindus converting, in the narrow context of your point, please explain how it is conversion. If meditation is asked of you, the object of meditation can just as easily be Jesus or Muhammad instead of Shiva or Vishnu. If dietary rules exist, do they change anyone’s faith? Are you saying Hindus are all only vegetarian?! There are so many Christian vegetarians in the West – are they closet Hindus?!
There has always been an exchange of ideas in India, the record is clear. But proselytism is not done in the seminar setting you speak of, with two or three teams arguing back and forth about the theological merits of their case. In fact, missionary work is quite crude and abusive in India and I am not surprised that many people get angry with the missionaries. These are supported from foreign churches in terms of finance as well as obnoxious pamphlets that commonly refer to Hindu deities as prostitutes and bastards. You can deny it if you want but the printers of these pamphlets in the US and elsewhere have admitted as much but you know, only to save lost souls! You don’t call that patronising?
I agree not every Christian or Muslim steps out of his house to convert others but then there are many Muslims who eat pork and drink alcohol. So? The premise of the Great Commission and of Dawah is predatory for the simple reason that it wants to possess. In Europe, where these two are pitted against each other, it is a fair competition as both think alike on this matter. But in other places like among Hindus and Jews, this is a hostile act. You focus so much on Hindus but did you read recently about the mayor of a town in Israel who arrested the missionaries operating in his district? The hostility Christianity and Islam has against pagans, kaafir, or whatever is not a purely Hindu experience.
To ban proselytism does not mean stopping two people from talking about religion any more than accepting that Palestinians have legitimate complaints against Israel makes you an anti-Semite. Your definition is too broad as to lose all meaning.
4.1. We can start with the Commandments. And which faith is not about obeying? Hinduism! I would have long been excommunicated if Hindus followed such a strict code!
4.2. I don’t think Hinduism is hardwired into people but a basic sense of the spiritual might be. Tribes in Papua New Guinea don’t know Hinduism so clearly it is not hardwired. Yet they do have a sense of the spiritual, however their community has evolved that concept.
This is a silly argument, equating democracies with Christianity or Islam. The political organisation did not exist in the way we know it today when these religions were born and they certainly did not spread democratically. People are not democratic because they are Christians or Muslims! The two are not related in any way.
Also, my criticism is not of Abrahamic faiths but specifically of Christianity and Islam which are exclusive while proselytising. If you know any others who follow similar practices, then I direct my criticism to them too. As for freedom of conscience, it is limited in these two faiths. I assume you know the punishment for apostasy? So hardly fitting that fingers be pointed now.
I don’t think I speak for the entire Hindu system but I expressed my views. And you came to my blog to discuss them. On this, two points: a. I suspect that my point may find more backing for it among the ancient texts; and b. even if it doesn’t for some reason, I think the point can be debated on its own merits. Of course, I also mean without prescribing to it rules from a system it does not recognise.
That last part you are on about – Saudi Arabia, freedom, and all…sounds like rhetoric to me because I will give you the credit of not deliberately redefining several words despite my repeated attempts to explain that those definitions are not universal.
4.3. So what do you have to say about the Commandments and Deuteronomy? I would love to hear the Church accept that you can be a good person and go to heaven without accepting Jesus. Open challenge. Of course, Catholics believe that it is not by faith alone that Man redeems himself, unlike several strands of Protestantism, but Man is never redeemed only by deeds.
On ISKCON – here is where y’allz go wrong. Liberty is not license! Hindus don’t have a set of commandments etched in stone but there is a general feeling of the ideas, which can be bent how much. And these have always been different based on communities, cultures, and the situation. If not one school of thought ever agreed with ISCKON, then how can I not call it a deviant? Over 5,000 years, not one person ever laid out a plan like ISKCON’s? Surprising! Furthermore, since they are into Krishna, they should refer to the book allegedly dictated by their Lord. Chapter 18, Verse 63 if they are incapable of understanding what I am talking about.
5. I don’t believe in equality – people are not equal. And I would oppose anything that tried to make them so against their nature. We are not even born equal, I would say. Children have different talents, dimensions, etc. Your brother might be brilliant but ugly; you might be stupid but an amazing model; your sister might just have it in her to be the next Nadia Comaneci which neither you nor your nrother can dream of. Some are taller, others fatter. On what basis are we equal except in some dystopia?
6. Paralysed people do have sentience.
7. Depends to what extent. Believing in Jesus solely may be alright but if part of this belief is exclusion then I would begin to think that said person has forgotten Hinduism. In any case, the reciprocal situation is not true, is it? Then how do you play the equality card?
8. So we are back to the stacked deck – let a Muslim or Christian not enter temples, refuse pagan gods, refuse to follow whatever rituals a particular community may have, and convert as many people as they possibly can because that is the freedom of their belief. Since you Hindus don’t believe in all this, follow your beliefs and be prey! This is exactly the point of my article…cannot impose laws meant for equal systems on unequal systems.
9. Utter nonsense to say the idea of India did not exist in the Vedic era. The Vishnupurana is clear what constitutes Bharata, and it is not based on religion but geography of anyone living there. Now Nehru had an idea of India, but it certainly is not the only one nor is it the first one. I would agree with Amartya Sen that you don’t have to be Hindu to be Indian but I would also say that you have to be Indic in thought to be Indian.
Pingback: Is BJP Right and Congress Left? The Left-Right binary is fairly useless in India | Trend Inside