From: bkannan@ho12.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Hinduism and Islam in the 21st Century
Date: 14 Dec 1992 11:02:55 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



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

In article <balaji.724196423@yorku.ca> balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (Balaji) writes:

>>This form of enlightened tolerance is uniquely Indian, even uniquely
>>Hindu. It has little to do with the brand of hinduism that the VHP wants
>>to force on us, with dreams of exterminating people of other faiths,
>>with strictly and violently enforced caste and social rigidity.

>On the contrary, why must the tolerant aspects of Hinduism (unique or
>otherwise) be viewed as more truly representative of what is Hindu, than 
>say the baggage of caste and social rigidity that does after all come to 
>(I found myself agreeing with most of what was said above till I came upon the 
>following conclusion.)

    [.....]

>It seems to me, you have committed the same error that you have sought to 
>point out - of choosing to peer through only selected windows in history, 
>and then interpreting those selected images to support your thesis (just as 
>"conveniently" perhaps as those you disagree with). Let me clarify what I 
>mean. 

>Fundamentalism is not, IMO, a _modern_ phenomenon as you claim above. History

  Hindu fundamentalism *is* a modern phenomenon unless I have missed out
  on history. As an organized religion [which is itself debatable],
  Hinduism has never had problems embracing people of other faiths or
  in coexisting with them. Pl. don't point out stray incidents to refute
  that. BTW, that was largely 'cos, it never prescribed "ONE PATH". 
  [Hinduism is more an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy where a person
  identifies himself by his practices rather than thru codified
  rules/beliefs or dogmas. Of course, the VHP was enroute to changing 
  all that :-)] 

>in the West as well). Neither is apartheid a "western wonder." Caste based 
>feudal hierachies were created in the selfsame Hindu world and the 
>frightfully-upper-class have "co-existed" with the untouchables for many
>centuries; this form of apartheid is indeed as old as India itself. 

  I agree. Hinduism,[with caste system] thus created a fragmented society and it  
  cd be argued that this is one of the reasons, a syndicated Hinduism that the 
  VHP zealots are attempting to shape today [modelled on Islam and Christ-
  ianity] will fall flat.  

>west" you imply), sorry, peer into our own history a little deeper. Shivaji
>was as much inspired by his goddess Bhavani as Aurangzeb drew strength from 
>his Islamic beliefs in their attempts at repelling each other in their quest
>for empires. History records the former as a hero and the latter as a villain. 
>Aurangzeb destroyed temples we are told and Shivaji killed the marauding 

   I wdn't make that mistake of comparing the two :-)

>Muslims. 

>To cut a long lecture short, I'm convinced more or less that your claims above
>are not really so much a "secularism-is-inherently-Indian-while-fundamentalism
>and-fascism-has-its-roots-in-the-west-and-is-a-borrowed-idea" thing, and while 
>at it I'm not quite sure that you have not said all of just that. 

   Hindu fundamentalism, I repeat, *is* a more recent phenomenon - practiced 
   by [and preached too] by the likes of the RSS and the VHP and I guess
   Balaji [my namesake]was trying to highlight this point. However, his 
   trying to downplay/distance Hinduism from other ills/evils [unwittingly 
   or otherwise :-)] has given you enuff fodder to raise credibility 
   questions. [hey,this ain't no flame directed at *you* either :-)] 
  
>Balaji

>-kannan

 Balaji Kannan :-)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian