From: bkannan@ho12.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Hinduism and Islam in the 21st Century
Date: 16 Dec 1992 14:31:46 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


kannan@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Kannan Subramanian) writes:

>I have realised quite suddenly that I do not know what "fundamentalism"
>(whether ancient or modern) means to different people. So, I will stop
>talking about it.

>What I'm interested in really is understanding the source of fanatic zeal
>of a socially harmful and violent variety and conflict resolution.

>It seems to me that the history of Hindu peoples as an actively tolerant
>culture is not sufficiently marvellous. They may certainly be regarded as
>peace-loving and while they may have "co-existed" with various sub-cultures
>within the Hindu faith as well as "foreign" cultures, the notion of equality
>of all cultures was never a part of it. Given that the Hindu society itself
>coagulated into a morass of multi-layered feudal and caste hierarchies, it
>was always possible for a Hindu, upon meeting a new culture at high noon,
>to relegate it somewhere below the lowest rungs of the already existing
>social order and thereby "co-exist" with it.

  Discrimination[Culture-prejudice] is innate to all societies. Hinduism 
  [Vedic] gave more 'rigor' to it and kind of formalized it :-) 'F.ism'
  as is used by the media today has a different character. Your use
  of fundamentalism has been to denote the prejudicial nature of
  all societies. [As you said, you were off on that by a mile :-) 'cos
  the discussion was religious 'fundamentalism' as we know today and that
  borders on outright persecution/vandalism/hoodlummery.... vis-a-vis people
  of other faiths]

>Having said all this, let me hasten to add that my intention is not to single
>out Hindus (or Muslims) for rabid criticism. My point is that in a struggle
>for power, Hindus are as gullible and likely to be whipped up into a communal
>frenzy as Muslims or Christians. There is nothing inherently tolerant about
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hindu _citizens_. (Hindu _philosophy_ may be a different matter altogether).
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   True.[from a genetic viewpoint maybe:-). A gene for f.ism is yet to be
   isolated :-)] But, religious affiliations temper the attitude of people and
   I guess *Hindu philosophy* has had a role in this that cannot/shd not
   be overlooked. You cannot talk of the two as separate entities. You
   can only overlook religious/societal conditioning if you disbelieve
   either.....
   [Assuming that a person born into a religion/society, on the average, goes
   with the tide, rather than question teachings, codes of conduct etc.]

   The militancy that one finds *today* in 'Hindu' attitudes is a result
   of the shared hostility to what is going on around, rather than
   an intrinsic cohesiveness or a unity based on the realization that
   we are afterall one & have to agressively defend our frontiers . What
   is happening in India today, is not religious revivalism [with a militant
   tinge] in the strict sense but a political reorganization under the garb
   of religion.

>Just as Babur's atrocities toward his Hindu subjects are irrelevant today in
>our treatment of Muslim citizens today, "Hindu tolerance" of _yore_ is an
>equally irrelevant consideration. That much talked about Hindu tolerance needs
>a shot in the arm _today_.

    Yes. But, I guess, the discussion was more academic than not when it
    started.

>As for conflict resolution, I am convinced that education emphasizing
>secularism at all levels grass-roots up, is the answer. If the RSS can instil
>discipline, brotherhood, belief in the Hindu cause etc, it's time the
>cause of secularism were ignited on a similar scale.

    Easier said than done. When all the concerned parties try outpoliticizng
    the other on issues, inculcating 'secular' attitudes becomes an immensely
    difficult task. People have to be made to believe that their *Government*
    is truly secular in the first place [not with their appease-here-appease-
    there jugglery!] and that ain't no trivial task if one were to take into
    a/c the quilt of minorities [religious or otherwise] in India. Till such
    time 'secularism's' mass appeal/[like the RSS's] in India will remain a 
    pipedream. 

    [The reason RSS was able to mobilize broad support was 'cos its agenda
    was different when it was born. More 'National' in character as their
    aim  was to drive out the British. It is different today, though
    the 'discipline', brotherhood etc. exist still.]


>ps - i may have tread on some toes somewhere above. well, polemic
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
           Ouchhhhh! :-) :-)

>     weilds a biased brush.


     bk


------------------------------------------------------------
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow, is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each tomorrow find us farther than today. 
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian