Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Hindu nationalism versus Hindu universalism

oct 24th, 2006

interesting comment about universalism and suchlike.

the problem is that this is the slippery slope towards 'all religions are equal'. now, strictly speaking, that statement is true: all religions do attempt to teach people to be good.

the problem is the word 'religion': it has been used to refer to the murderous, imperialistic semitic death cults as well. they are not religions, but ideologies.

the problem, then, is in comparing apples to oranges. if we are talking about humanistic religions such as hinduism, buddhism, and perhaps confucianism and shintoism (i admit i know very little about the last two), we can talk all we want about universalism and pluralism.

but when confronted by these semitic death cults (marxism has killed at least 40 million people, for instance) there is no point in waxing philosophical. it is life and death. they are intent on wiping us out, so it's not unfair to turn their tactics back on them.

it is quite instructive to use their tactics in reverse. using their own methods, i have deconstructed christism and found it to be a giant hoax (about a guy who did not exist) intended to hoodwink people into accepting white guy hegemony. the funny thing is that this alleged jesus character was an arab, not even a propah 'aryan' white guy! (jew and arab are genetically indistinguishable). according to discovery, see a picture of what jesus (if one believed the myths about his existence) would have really looked like -- a wild-eyed, sinister, coarse arab street thug. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041220/boyjesus.html

and of course, in their fantasies, they want him to look like the blond, blue eyed, 'aryan' type in the first picture.

isn't that instructive? they have expropriated a coarse arab and turned him into some 'aryan' type. what more evidence  do you need that christism is merely a convenient device for white guy imperialism?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arjuna

Hindu nationalism versus Hindu universalism
The term 'nation' is defined differently by different sources. One definition is: "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language."
Hindu nationalism can be defined as the tendency of Hindus to define themselves as a nation. It is often said that the late 1980's and 90's saw an upsurge of Hindu nationalism in India. Translated into the realm of politics, this resulted in an increased tendency for Hindus to define their political activity in terms of common Hindu interests.

Historically, strong nationalistic tendencies emerge amongst peoples during times of struggle or in the face of real or perceived threats. For example, Scottish nationalism emerged through struggle with the English, and draws its sustenance from the memories of this struggle. The same is the case with Hindu nationalism. The formation of a strong Hindu identity has its roots in the trials and tribulations of the struggles against the Muslim and European colonialisms.

In the late 80's and 90's the rapid increase in Hindu nationalism was a product of many perceived challenges. There was a general sense of anxiety amongst Hindus about their collective future, as well as a feeling that the secular Indian state was not capable of safeguarding their collective interests, being netral if not hostile to their cultural norms. Gradually, this sense spread to Hindus living in other countries too, particularly Hindus in the UK and USA.

It can be appreciated that the emergence of nationalism is a natural phenomenon, brought about by certain circumstances. It can sometimes be a constructive force, and sometimes destructive, depending on how it is harnessed.

There is a danger that nationalism can cloud clear thinking, leading the nation to forego its identification and responsibility towards humanity as a whole. This can lead to excesses, and even genocides, as has been witnessed on numerous occasions throughout history.

Today, we see a great many Hindus who place a strong emphasis on identifying Hindus together as a nation. Amongst the international Hindu community, information flow through the medium of the Internet has spawned a whole generation of vocal Hindu hyper-nationalists, who are full of grievances at the harm suffered by Hindus today and in the past.
While these individuals may be well intentioned (at the beginning at least), an overly negative perspective has served to distance these Hindus from the principles of Hinduism itself, as well as rendering them incapable of doing much service to the cause that they claim to profess. They spend their time in narrow circles indulging in conspiracy theories, failing to understand that the great Hindu men and women of the past employed very different means to uplift their people.
True Hinduism can never accept injustice lying down, but at the same time it cannot support an over emphasis on nationalism unless the nationalism is informed by a greater spirit, by a spirit of dharma and universalism.

Hindu pluralistic ideas are of universal value, and can help humanity emerge victorious from many contemporary struggles, such as the prevalence of mental illness, religious conflict, consumerism and the breakdown in family structure, to name but a few.

The very vocal nature of these Hindu hyper-nationalists has done a disservice to Hinduism, because through their actions, universal Hindu ideas become associated with a narrow-nationalism, and therefore become limited in their appeal. Due to the minority of hyper-nationalist Hindus, sensible-minded Hindu groups in the West often end up getting labelled as Hindu nationalists or even fanatics simply for speaking up for common sense Hindu issues such trying to increase their temple's car parking space or teaching Hinduism in schools.
The need of today are Hindus who have grasped the universal nature of Hinduism and who can implement constructive solutions for applying Hindu ideas into modern life, as well as to redress Hindu grievances in a way that is in agreement with Hindu dharma.
http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/10/Universalism.htm


"A warrior relaxes and abandons himself; he fears nothing.Only then will the powers that guide human destiny open the road for a
warrior and aid him. Only then...."

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

3 comments:

virat0 said...

the problem is that this is the slippery slope towards 'all religions are equal'. now, strictly speaking, that statement is true: all religions do attempt to teach people to be good.


Supposing I speak in a weird situation when I am not, then any emphasis added by me would become meaningless.

In a weird situation, if I am not, could there be a strange issue of of all are not like 'I' saw them, so two are not as I know them. In this case there would be insufficient arguments to any binary op. SO could 2 or more religions/X then be equal ? If it is, then we need better understanding.

The above is not to say that the religions are unequal. But in such cases when emphasis is elsewhere, there could be an doubt on whether we understand the universals in the context. Therefore, the article is not entirely convincing.

Here are is one issue from the article :
The term 'nation' is defined differently by different sources. One definition is: "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language."

Hindu nationalism can be defined as the tendency of Hindus to define themselves as a nation.

Suppose a marxist say all nationalists are fascists ( except say stalinists, maoists, Islamists ... ). Suppose X say nationalists are idiots. We could choose that definition, and say hindu nationatilists are idiots. Hasn't it been a secular argument ?

Many 'sensible' hindus in the west should have opposed such selective use by western academics, and worst their controll of Indian academics. We should have understood more ideas rather than blind fixation to show how good we are. Some indeed were sensible, some were sepoys.

virat0 said...

What the author of that article didn't say is: That particular idea of nation is from colonial principles, from which they have derived the land of pure. That is a favourite starting point of macaulayians. The author has trucated the idea of common religion from the definition of nation. What would one get by starting with that argument, other than lots of contradiction? If that is where the universalism leads to, then shun it.

Ghost Writer said...

Nationalism and the nation state are themselves exclusionary principles; products of the western mind and organising principles. Read Eric Hobsbaum on the origins of nationalism - it started as a way of organising people to save them from the tyranny of - wait for it - The Church! yes thats right the Church ....
That being said I feel that the Hindus should never dilute their sense of nationalism unless the rest of the world also does so, else we will be enslaved again.

Another important point. People who claim to be 'truly informed' on the 'universalism' of the Hindu philosophy are usually very easy to define - intellectual cowards who are afraid of calling murderous philosophies what they are. It is easier to cry 'universalism' than to actually take up the intellectual battle. They are in one of either category - Dhimmi or Useful Idiot