Why Bash Hinduism?

Lets get first thing clear - the Ramayana was written by men therefore its men's perspective of right and wrong

Second- Rama had left his kingdom for 14 years with Bharat at the helm could he not relinquish the kingdom back to his brothers and go back to the forest with his wife?

Third- one accusation from a stranger and he left his wife who had been with for 14 long years?

Fourth- anyway of validating that she was happy with the decision? If she was she would have told him that she carrying his unborn. He didn't even know that she was pregnant

Fifth - in this day and age its seems you want us Hindus to leave our common sense behind and pay blind adherence to ancient interpretations of our gods without putting them to the test of progressive thinking. Thankfully such is not the case or else we would be no different from the Islamic extremists.

Dharma and Artha both demanded that Ram proved Sita to be true. She had been a true wife and thus performed her dharma and by walking through fire the truth (Artha) of her purity was stated and yet he packed her off.

Sixth-This isnt about Westernisation - its a sad commentary about the way Hindu women were treated in the past.

Thankfully present day Hindu women can fight for their rights and for their families. They may get 'dumped' by men but they will go with their lives. Sita BTW did not go back to Rama instead she immersed herself in the Earth.


In other words she sent the message that she would rather die than be with a man who could not stand up for his wife.

I am a proud Hindu and Hinduism isn't so weak that a little debate would degrade it. Its an all encompassing religion that thrives on debate, different viewpoints and retrospection.

You sound like a Mullah waving a fatwa.

Lastly she is not the first to do Ramayana from Sita's point of view there is a well known Orissa version of Ramayana.

Then Menaka Thakkar has choreographed the Ramayana from Sita's point of view called Sitayana.

Molla Ramayana is from Sita's point of view.

I could go on.

I applaud the cartoonist. Its her interpretation of the Ramayana as there have been so many since ancient times.

So get a grip and stop giving us Hindus a bad name.

Abhishek: "I am proud to be a Hindu and I believe that much of the symbolism is lost on the mere mortals. They neither have the depth of understanding nor the aptitude to gauge the timeless classics"

You refer to mere mortals as "they". I had no idea we had immortal Hindu police as authors on Desicritics.

"Hinduism in all it's glory is all encompassing."

Hmm, and yet your article seems to suggest that Hinduism leaves out quite a few of us including mere mortals (which I believe is most of us), demented morons and of course the lowly pseudo intellectuals who seem to have not made it upto your standards. According to your views Hinduism has also chosen not to let people use their own intelligence to interpret the symbolism and instead would have us rely on immortals such as you for our analysis. Interesting.

You say: "One has to realize that the Hindu way of life has been the ultimate."

Abhishek, sadly, the one distinguishing aspect that defines the religion you so vehemently and fervently protect by denouncing a 'cartoon review', is tolerance. Where is yours?

Your entire post is teeming with intolerance of other people's views and with bigotry. You express surprise that the editorial policy allowed the cartoon review while personally I am appalled that in the present day and age we have an author who makes repeated references to the "white man" like he were talking about Satan or Bigfoot!!

You also say "If Lord Ram left Sita Mata, he had larger interests (and duties) of statehood before his personal choices. He was not happy about the decision that he took."

Sorry Abhishek, the rest of us haven't had the pleasure of personal interactions with Lord Ram to decipher his state of mind and the emotional implications of his decision. We trust our own very limited intellect. You are at an advantage because aparently you are the only one who really gets it.

Alas, we the mere mortals will never make it to the supreme religious awakening you seem to have achieved!!! We can only envy the halo around your head and then dedicate our own unripe and sinful senses to a cartoon film that has roused your wrath, O Protector of Hinduism!!

I think Abhishek is not incorrect that the symbolism of the Ramayana is lost on most people. In particular, those that have little or no knowledge of hindu metaphysics, cosmoslogy, philosophy, theology, literature simply cannot hope to understand the Ramayana in its completeness.

Actually, why even go to the level of abstract symbolism when people don't even get the basics right? Item#2 pasted below from Bihari's comment should suffice to make my point.

"Second- Rama had left his kingdom for 14 years with Bharat at the helm could he not relinquish the kingdom back to his brothers and go back to the forest with his wife?"

Bihari appears incapable of getting the basic point that Rama's avatar is "maryada purushottam", the etymology of which breaks down as follows

Maryada: continuance in the right way , social propriety of conduct; staying within boundaries
PuraSa: man, soul
Uttama: best, ideal, top

(A quick aside: Amrita Rajan has imperfectly translated maryada purushottam as the "perfect man". In Hinduism, there is no concept of perfection in duality, something achievable only in the unassailable singularity of moksha. No Hindu in her right mind can possibly translate maryada purushottam as the "perfect man". At least not with a straight face.)

Rama's actions set the gold standard for propriety of conduct and right action within existing socio-cultural boundaries. Rama's thing was to maintain societal rules, not to break them. It is therefore facile to suggest that Rama could have given up his kingdom and returned to the jungle i.e. break boundaries for selfish, egotistical "love".

Rama is meant to teach us how the ultimate marayada purushottam man thinks, acts behaves. He is not some cardboard harlequin-esque romeo devised to tittilate the secret longings of teenage girls.

Abhishek,

Please learn to tolerate.

One aritcle, or even thousand articles can never denounce Hinduism. It is not a religon, it is way of life. Imo a life falls short to explore the whole of Hindu Philosophy (along with it's reform movements; jainism, buddhism, bhakti, ramkrishna mission, arya samaj, sikhism, satyagraha, etc)

The key elements of the whole hindu philosophy is: Tolerance, Non-Violence and Equality.

So i hope next time you take those key notes from the relegion you follow, and such aritcle(s) won't bother you.

Aditi wrote: According to your views Hinduism has also chosen not to let people use their own intelligence to interpret the symbolism and instead would have us rely on immortals such as you for our analysis. Interesting.

Hinduism does allow individuals to interpret texts and symbols in their own unique way and this is why we have numerous versions of the Ramayana. However, Hinduism also teaches us not to cling stubbornly and chauvinistically to our own personal interpretations just because we own them. Rather, we must be always be open and receptive to those who may have more knowledge/ understanding/ experience than we do.

All the versions of ramayana, sitayana and all other permutations (lakshmana.., ravana.., hanumana..sugreeva-yana) are valid for the people who wrote them. Does not mean that all versions are valid for all people for the simple reason that there could be mistakes, flaws, errors in logic etc which the author may have overlooked.

To claim a wider validity, an author would need to engage with others just as knowledgeable or more experienced than herself. This is the "argumentative" Indian way, noted even by people such as Amartya Sen.

@Aditi, Thanks for the halo on my head! I am still wondering where this came from!

One of the characteristics of the "demented morons" is semantics. They would engage in mindless debates and twist and contort words to put their points all the while confusing the issue.

My outburst was against the write up which in my opinion was eulogising the symbolism inherent. There can be an endless debate about "right" and "wrong" without being conclusive.

Anyone could come over and have the gall to insult your heritage and you listen to it in the name of tolerance? Where do you get this idea from?

The word "fundamentalism" is flawed and we tend to use it without really understanding what it means. Could anyone tell me the etyomology? Or the meaning of the word "secular"?

I would whole heartedly agree with Sanjay. Instead of wrapping up the blog entry with contorted twisted ideas, I made the whole issue very direct.

The "real Bhagwad Gita" was perhaps known to Krishna alone. Or the meaning that he chose to attach to his teachings to Arjuna. It has been interpreted by "mortals" where in they have attached their own interpretations as to how they understood the issue.

Similarly, it was 16th century interpretation of Ramayana by Tulsidas that is currently in vogue now. 16th century, if your memory serves right, was ruled over by the Muslim kings and they sought to interpret the code of Manu rather seriously. It was the dark period of Hinduism when the Brahamanical hold got strong. It was in those times when women were subjugated.

Women have always been given a higher status than men in the scheme of things as symbols of fertility. Women power has been worshipped in form of "devis".

Tulsidas gave a concrete form to an epic which was basically a "hearsay"- much of the probable actual events were made to reflect the socio-political cultural influences of those times. It is not possible to know the truth, I have only defended my implicit faith in what I believe is true.

@Ishan. I object to people who try to stomp on my beliefs in the name of tolerance. This is an emasculating idea indeed.

What people practise is not Hinduism by it's mindless rituals. Hinduism is way of life by integrating with the nature. It is Dharma.

Much of the interpretation is handed over from the Brits. They made sure that they ingrain the deep sense of inferiorty complex by repeatedly stressing on the fact that our culture and heritage was nuts as compared to them. The after effects are there to see on the blogosphere where it becomes "progressive thinking" to hail bashing of Ramayana or it's various interpretations. It is the bullshitting of the so called "artistic culture" who neither have the depth of understanding nor ability to grasp the nuances. All goes on in the name of "debates"!

Symbolism ideally should be left alone. It makes no sense to devote time and patience criticize Hinduism. Try doing that for Islam and Christianity. You would not do it because it would mean a certain death or legthy legal battles. Why pick up on Hinduism alone?

Kudos Abhishek! I can understand why you wanted to avoid unnecessary detail but I think it is still useful to point out errors as I see them, based on my limited understanding. Here is yet another from Bihari:

Third- one accusation from a stranger and he left his wife who had been with for 14 long years?

The significance of the fact that the accusation came from an unknown person can best be appreciated by recognizing that the so-called "stranger" was both a citizen and subject. Just because a ruler does not know every citizen by her first name does not make the latter less of a citizen. Not quite a simplistic case of my wife vs a stranger, this is where Rama's maryada as a leader clashed with that of a husband.

Rama's decision is certainly open to other interpretations but it is also an unambiguous example of a political leader who is so attuned to the maryada of a leader - the well being of citizens - that the gripe of a single citizen leads to a supreme personal sacrifice. This is Rama at the leading edge of maryada purushottam behaviour.

I agree with you Abhishek about respecting Hinduism for what it really is, much more deeper in meaning than any of us can really understand or have tried to understand.

I also personally do not appreciate anyone who criticizes the religion or its texts without making an attempt to fathom the wisdom behind it.

But my views are solely personal, as I am sure yours is too and what I understand from your article is that you are not picking on anyone for their personal beliefs, but trying to keep the religion away from the smearing it usually goes through because of someone's inability to comprehend its true meaning.

And if this is what you have tried to do with your article, I appreciate your views and support every word you have written.

I dont think religion is open for discussion because each one of us believes in some part of religion which may seem bizarre to someone else.

Why dont we just try to respect all our beliefs, without resorting to criticism or at the other end deifying any of it.

Why is 'religion not open for discussion'? If one can't defend it, why preach it?

There are no shibboleths in the world, or there shouldn't be.

Lol when the Muslim cartoons came out the Hindus were the first to tell them to shut up and be tolerate and I see Hindus saying that Hinduism should be respected blah blah blah....

Of course Rama was a Marya purushottam but his acts went against Dharma and Aartha which were higher than maintaining his personal Maaryada.

He should have stepped down but a wife made of gold is easier to make than to give up an entire kingdom.

Women were second class citizens at the time, no different from slaves in their status. Of course it was easy for him to discard Sita.Lets not make any bones about it and dress it up with man made terms of what Marya was supposed to be.

Incidentally it is this concept of Maaryada and izzat that continues to plague Indian society where rape victims are treated as sub humans and female virginity is an expected must where as men can sow their oats hither and sunder.

Why is it so difficult to some conservative Hindus to deal with the fact that their gods can have clay feet?

You expect the Muslims to be able to take criticism about their religion the Prophet but if some one debates about Hinduism you jump as much as they did.

Get some perspective will you people?

religion not open for discussion? this implies that each of us are born with a perfect innate understanding of god and each of us have already reached enlightenment. How absurd! All religions and philosophies teach that the true way to enlightenment is to question what you are told. Only then after proper examination can you really be sure. You must test your faith. Judaism devotes whole schools to the argument of what is meant by the holy text, and this is considered to be the most holy of all endeavors.

Abishek, your indictment of Amrita flies in the face of Hinduism at it's core. Hinduism provides each of us with the ability to reach enlightenment in our own way, which is certainly not for the other to judge. Standing in judgement and implicating that everyone else has it wrong and you have it right is simply... unHindu!

Also you seemed to have confused things, where you have some theorem:
all good = Hindu
all bad = others

No bad could exist in Hinduism. How is this so? The Mahabharata is full of tales of deception and strife and problems, because it depicts society and it's real problems. The Gods themselves fight because one does not agree with the actions of the other.

It's just bizarre that you think you've reached enlightenment while all others are mired in stupidity. Why haven't I heard of you before? Surely we should touching your feet in humility.

ss, of course there are people who have a tough time dealing with feminists being at odds with Sita's fate. They can't deal with women questioning male authority over what is morally acceptable and what is not. They call it Western influence and I call it breath of fresh air.

If it wasn't for people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Dayananda Saraswati we women would still be sitting behind purdah.

Incidentally there was an episode of Ahalya and Gautuma in Ramayana where Rama reunited the couple .

It clearly shows ambiguity in the Ramayana. A rishi is expected to forgive his wife seduced unwittingly by a God but Rama forsook his own wife who had proven her innocence.

Abhishek - well, thanks for proving my point so quickly and in such spectacular fashion. Bihari, Aditi,Dee and smallsquirrel have pretty much summed up my position, but I have one simple question for you:

How does Nina Paley's work "denigrate" hinduism? Your entire rant stems from that one point and I would like you to explain that to me.

Abhishek: I took some time and read a few of your other articles and I must confess I found the tone, the logic and the flow of thoughts in all those other ones very different (a lot better) than in this one. In fact I liked some of your other articles.

So let me cut out the sarcasm I applied in my earlier comment and tell you honestly why I made the 'halo' comment. This entire post has a certain pedantic/ condescending tone to it....it sounds like you understand Hindutva/ Ramayan better than others and you have this deeper, better understanding of the religion that we (mere mortals) don't have. I read Amrita's post and if she would've suggested something that was insulting towards the religion I would've then understood your stance but she hasn't! I read it twice and I didn't find anything objectionable.

Ramayan, in addition to being a Hindu epic is also an important literary contribution to Sanskrit poetry. Poetry in all forms has always been open to interpretation. Do you know how many versions of the Ramayan exist? In fact there is a historic version in the Malay language where Laxman is the hero not Ram (its called Hikayat Seri Rama). So will we now go into history and try to alter that because it does not fit our perception of the religion?

Let me ask you this: the Ramayan itself has undergone numerous transitions through the years. Various poets, literary figures and other regional and civilizational influences have modified the text of the epic. So how can we hold one person who chose to interpret it based on their sensibility and claim that they are "insulting" the religion? The interpretation is in no way demeaning or villifying to our religion. If it was mocking beliefs or dismissing other people's convictions I would've been outraged too, but its not! It is just a different take on a tale that has been meant for us to learn from.

My first impression upon reading your post was that you were angry about something else related to religion and Amrita's post just happened to be in the way. You say that your outburst was against the write up which in your opinion was eulogising the symbolism inherent. But symbolism is supposed to be open to interpretation isn't it?

And then there is the title of your article "Why Bash Hinduism?". Who bashed Hinduism?

Now for this whole entire post, I have just one question to you: name me an interpretation or suggestion made in Amrita's post or Nina Paley's Sitayana and tell me how it insulted your religious belief. This I ask, only out of curiosity. You can choose not to do it. I just want to know what was un-Hindu/ insulting/ "stomping on your belief" about her post. The curiosity is killing me.

Thanks

One must accept the fact that one can be questioned on the assertions that are made in the public. I would call this as a healthy debate because it allows me to gain a deeper understanding in something that I truly hold to be true. And I am willing to stick on to my views and my write up.

Most of the questions arise because of deficient understanding of the issue. One cannot ever know all and that is the spirit of enquiry that sustains "intellectual capital". With this brief introduction, I have nowhere asserted that my insight is better than the "ordinary mortals". And I find it indeed amusing that this post is seeing a resurgence of "latent feminism". Point taken madam! I am as feminist as you are and in a "true blue Hindu way" hold this belief that women are far better than men in many ways. Though this is not the topic of discussion here.

The sum of the beliefs is held to be true if a majority of people hold that view point. I am nowhere concerned with the various interpretations of Ramayana and yes Aditi, I am aware of the various translations. I did not in any way suggest that we alter the course of history either.

First and foremost. Hinduism isn't "religion" as religion you know of. It is Sanatana Dharma (Eternal or Universal Righteousness). Indeed the word Hindu is a corruption of the word for Persian which meant "the people living beyond the river Indus". For all the feminists here, in Hinduism, the divine can be conceived as a feminine form. Hence the worship of woman as a symbol of "fertility".

The supreme can be worshipped in many forms is a unique aspect of Hinduism. Anything that was the nurturer and giver of life was "worhsipped" in the sense that it was held sacred. Cows are held sacred. Indeed, Cow dung has been used in "havans" because of it's "sacred" value. Inherent symbolism all the way. Every single facet of our lives as "sanatana dharma".

It's pointless to debate the symbolism and as I mentioned earlier, my objection was only to the "interpretation" of a symbol.

There is a thin line of the distinction here. I criticise the rituals associated. They are useless crap and have been propagated by the Brahmins of yore. It was against these Brahmins that Shankracharya, Nanak and others arose. 18th Century saw the rise of Swami Vivekananda who questioned the very basis of these rituals and established his own order.

If I question your interpretation of symbolism it isn't "un Hindu"! I hold the symbolism in high esteem because these symbols are beyond any explaination for the rational mind. And you learn to believe them unquestioningly. Why does Sun rise in the east and not otherwise? Why not any other direction? Why do you love your parents? Why do you hold them important? Why the bond that holds you all together as a family? Any reasoning? You just believe it.

Question the crap that Hinduism is riddled with. And I very clearly mentioned about the individuals and the "political parties" that jump to the gun proclaiming about being the "saviours of the faith". They are as useless as the pond scum. But I would use political means to spread awareness and not to lie down on my back just because someone finds it amusing that I worship a "monkey God". I hope the differentiation is apparent.

Well, this post just shows how intolerant we have become when it comes to the question of religion.

>> Indian marriages have always stressed on this fact that decisions taken in the larger interest of the society are mutually beneficial because it was Hindu way of giving. The society came much before your own personal interests

Like Sati was such a holy ritual once upon a time? Wasn't society so nice those days?
Ask a Widowed woman of this day and she'll tell you what society has done to her. "Society" is the biggest illusion that we have forced upon ourselves, and religion is only fuelling the farce.

The same people who felt the ban on Da Vinci Code movie by the Christian institutions was baseless because it was just a work of fiction, are unable to bear it when MF Hussain drew pictures of hindu gods in the nude. So it's bad to portray gods in the nude, huh? Have you been to Khajuraho?

abishek... you still have not answered the burning question.

Moreover, I would posit this... there is little value in questioning the "crap". Real value lies in examination of one's core values, the things we take for granted, the absolutes... this is the very center of knowing and loving God. Because I worship God in a glass of water or a cow.. this comes from a true examination of beliefs.

You say you did not assert that your interpretation are better than anyone else's, but your tone is condescending and preachy. Clearly you think yours is the only way to go. You ran all over Aditi, and you still cannot say why! You called her a pseudo-intellectual for a reason I cannot even place.

oops. hee... I meant Amrita and not Aditi :)

Bihari writes: Of course Rama was a Marya purushottam but his acts went against Dharma and Aartha which were higher than maintaining his personal Maaryada.

Another fundamental error. Dharma is always contextual and there is no single, overarching "dharma" that trumps everything else. There is a dharma attached to each of the roles that Rama plays - as a son, a kshatriya, a ruler, a brother, a friend, a husband - and he showed us how to balance each of these often competing dharmas while staying within the maryaada of each.

He should have stepped down but a wife made of gold is easier to make than to give up an entire kingdom.

Rama never re-married and lived the same - or worse - quality of life that Sita was living in the ashram. In effect, he gave up all the benefits / privileges/ pleasures of rulership without compromising his duties and responsibilities towards his kingdom.

Women were second class citizens at the time, no different from slaves in their status. Of course it was easy for him to discard Sita. Lets not make any bones about it and dress it up h man made terms of what Marya was supposed to be.

If Ram really wanted to discard Sita, he would have left her with raavan and never fought a war to get her back. This argument falls very quickly. And if women really were such slaves, then this must be first time in history that a king exiles his own son on the request of a "slave". We should all be such slaves!

@ Aaman:

I think religion and beliefs dont exist in the realm where things can be explained in black and white, and anything in the metaphysical realm needs you to believe in it before it can be explained.

I dont want anyone else to believe in what I believe in, thats perfectly fine with me, I dont want to preach. However I also dont want anyone to criticize what I believe in, because I dont criticize their beliefs. I respect them for what they are.

For all our attempts to rationalize religion, there exists this tiny part in all of us that believes in something that cannot be explained to others, even the most atheists of people have their beliefs ( which is not to believe in God)

Is it too much to ask to keep that personal space personal without getting trampled on?

..which is coming to the point, then how do we ensure all of us get to know the truth about religion?

The answer to that is even more trickier, because we try to learn from people who never made an attempt to really understand the meanings for what they actually stand for. So while their transliterations might sound profound, it may be far removed from the truth.

Which gives all of us enough ammo with our half-baked knowledge to go around spewing kudos or otherwise about something that we had ought to keep to ourselves and try to build upon.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

and that it would take a complete lifetime to actually comprehend what most religions really mean, so we'd rather be wiser investing our resources in learning rather than debating when you dont even know how much the others know, and you dont know the intent of the people in the debate.

Some people get a kick out of trashing everything, so while their logic might be to bring out hidden but unexplained truths about religion, what they dont understand is many things in religion are open to interpretation, and unless you reverse engineer the entire code, working with just one piece of it will stand out like a sore thumb, or the half baked ammo as i mentioned earlier.

You want a debate, get to know it first and then have a debate with someone else who knows that much.

Or else its just a waste of time.

Abhishek - that's all very interesting and I'm glad for you that you're progressing so well in your quest for whatever it is that you're seeking, but you still havent answered my question.

How did I or Nina Paley bash Hinduism?

You've written a couple of thousand words so far on this post and its board, all of which has nothing to do with what I wrote. What gives?

Swami Dayananda said, "I accept as Dharma whatever is in full conformity with impartial justice, truthfulness and the like; that which is not opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas. Whatever is not free from partiality and is unjust, partaking of untruth and the like, and opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas - that I hold as adharma."

By that definition Sita was not given justice. Sanjay if Rama considered it okay for Gautuma to accept his sullied wife why was Sita then discarded?

Dashratha had made an oath to his wife and he had to fulfill it. It wasn't a whim but a promise and fulfilling one's promises or oath is part of Dharma.

ss, of course there are people who have a tough time dealing with feminists being at odds with Sita's fate. They can't deal with women questioning male authority over what is morally acceptable and what is not. They call it Western influence and I call it breath of fresh air.

Indian feminists like Madhu Kishwar have already engaged extensively with this topic and her essay "Yes to Sita, no to Ram" is probably a self-defining one for how modern Indian women feel about the Rama-Sita issue. This same essay is also posted on Paley's website and she would have known that the overwhelming majority of the Rama critiques originate from within the hindu world (from extreme Ram bhakts like Athavale) and there is no need for "fresh air" from outside.

I have minor quibbles with some parts of Kishwar's essay but agree with her on substance. My major issue has to with the almost complete absence of philosophical/ cosmological relevance that often help to reconcile seeming contradictions.

Even i have got pissed off with Rama banishing Sita and Yudhisthtra betting his wife "Draupadi" for his leisure.I have argued endless times with my grandmother who had supposedly attended a vedic school in her childhood about the injustic inflicted upon Sita and Draupadi.But i only understood it when i was studying in Chinmaya Vidyalaya.Aswami used to come every saturday for giving us lessons in hinduism.He told us that Ramayana and Mahabharatha wre written so that men wont commit the same mistakes as Rama and Yudhishtra and even Krishna.Think about the injustics inflicted on Karna even duryodhana(many learned ppl says that duryodhana was a much better person than Yudhishtra and the only bad thing in Duryodhana was his anger and arrogance).
At the end of Ramayana and Mahabhartha ,Krishna is cursed by Duryodhana's mother,yudhishtra goes to hell(for a brief period) and Rama drowns in grief and repentence on what he did to Sita.
So as you can see its from only mistakes man can learn.
If you show only goodness and righteousness ,how will man be able to diffrentiate b/w good and bad?
Ramayana and Mahabhartha was written for the very purpose of showing good and bad and the thin line whihc separates them.
But very few ppl can understand them.Ramayana and esp Mahabharatha is deep you cant just translate it ,you have to delve in deep like Chinmayananda, parnamhamsa,vivekananda etc.Having said that Mahabharatha and Ramyana are not the only books we should follow ,we are free to choose any of the thousands of scriptures written by great gurus in the last 5 millienias.
I personally am trying to follow Sankaracharya's advitha(i am pretty much ignorant in this stuff but thanks to a few ppl am able to understand them).Criticizing any good thing is easy,cos only fools criticize.Try to understand it that is what takes effort the afct is that most of us are not ready to sweat it out to understand it.Majority of the ppl criticizing hinduism is having onlu half baked borrowed knowledge omn Hinduism.If a religion sorry i like to call it a way of life like the great vivekananda has surivived for so long there must be something very special about it right?The same "way of life" spwaned world's greatest minds in it universities
like Nalanda
Taxaxila
Kerala school of mathematics etc.
Hindusim is is polytheistic cos its tolerant or i must say it was tolerant to new ideas.
Once it stop assimliating new ideas and became rigid its downfall started.
Pdeuso intellectual and extremely superstitious fundamentalists are two sides of a coin both are destructive forces.
Hari om tasat.

Rama and krishna wre just mortals remember that.Even you who are bashing ramayana will do the same thing if your spouse spends even a single night with a stranger And its not wrong we feel jealousy and sadness on betrayal cos of love.
Rama comitted that mistake of not trusting Sita ,see to it that you dont do the same thing in a similiar situation.

pramod, thats where trust comes in and taking a spouse's word that nothing happened:)

It is one thing to remember the colonial era and how it shaped/shapes our world today; it's completely another to thrust the onus of more than 200 years of institutional racism on a single artist merely because she is white and she has dared to tackle one of our holy cows.

@ Amrita. This is the tacit "agreement" with Nina Paley that caused my heckles. While you were trying to express the issue in a fairly balanced manner, this paragraph tends to give away. Each one is welcome and entitled to his/ her opinion. There is no issue on that. However, in my opinion, your write up was based on flawed understanding of the symbolism that majority of us hold dear. This is something that I reacted to and the result is for you to see. I must repeat that there is nothing personal against you.

Much of the outburst was caused because of the sorry state of affairs that I have been reading. We have become a nation of wimps and increasingly, the debates are moving towards being shrill and without any substance. My political affiliations too have a major role in shaping up the response.

@ss The theorem does hold true about Hinduism being good and everything else bad. You may not agree but being a Hindu reminds of the greatness of my culture and the heights that India achieved way before the "light of dawn" centred on the dark ages elsewhere. We have been described as "pagans" but in the inherent polytheism is a rich treasure trove of knowledge that is difficult to describe in a few words. Name ANY "religion" that has attained the heights of intellectual discourse.

Mahabharata and Ramayana took placed in two different "yugas" and you cannot compare them for God's sake.

Similarly, I stand alone for the Sanatana Dharma and not for the rituals or the "hinduism" that you know of.

I'd agree with you ss that one needs to question what we are told. However, the spirit of enquiry needs to be tempered with time and place of enquiry. You cannot view the events that happened in past from the implicit understanding of today. How would our legal system react to a man deserting his wife? The answer comes in consonance with the present realities and not of the ages gone by.

Finally, good and bad are subjective. Yet this too has to be seen in the framework of what the society accepts because you and me are an inherent part of it.

Unfortunately, the debate has veered off course and it's plain simple semantics. I mentioned it before that it is the easiest way to confuse an issue. Whatever Ram did to Sita was appropriate given those times and ages. I am not even sure whether it really happened! Thousands of years later a looney white woman challanges our heritage in the name of questioning it. She even has the gall to represent the Devis in various forms by representing them in "cartoonish" characters. Just check out her website on Amritas outgoing links.

In the end, we're all monkeys

Abishek, while it's easy to understand where you're coming from, I'm not sure who you are talking to: you start off with pseudo intellectuals here on Desicritics and then graduate to indicting an entire "nation of half wit people and educated duds". I wonder which half of the nation you belong? By "educated duds," do you mean those not brainwashed like you? Or those who don't know the role religious myths play in inculcating certain viewpoints?

Long before "westernized" scrutiny of religious beliefs, Indian culture had a very sophisticated sense of inquiry and critique of everything religious. Hence the openness to other viewpoints. Blaming such scrutiny on modern western culture ignores this important history of Indian culture. I suppose "educated duds" wouldn't know it.

i think hinduism and what it stands for at the core is not so fragile that we need to protect it.

that it survived, jainism, budhism, islam, christianity and many more shows that it does not need mortals like us to protect it. it integrated new thoughts, contenting at that into itself. that's how it cd survive. not by being rigid.

it does not need protection. what needs protection is people's egos.

and about hurt feelings, here is my take.

like some sufi preacher who was going along with his disciples, he found a young guy who abused his mother. the preacher seems to have laughed it off.

his disciples were upset that the preacher laughed off. he seemed to have said the guy does not even know how to abuse - if he abused my mother when i was young i'd have been hurt, if he abused my sister as i was growing up i'd have been hurt, if he abused my wife when i was young i'd have been hurt. if he abused my daughter when i grew older i'd have been hurt. now that i am old and he abuses my mother how does it matter. he is 'ignorant', let him be. (it beats me as why men should be offended when some one abuses the women in their lives!)

yes, we cannot protect our hinduism if it is not open to question, open to interpretation, open to change.

if not i guess it will die a natural death. and no blog righeteous anger can save it.

if i am a non brahmin, and bhagavadgita through krishna tells me that chaaturvarnam maya sristham i'd rather denounce that type of hinduism. if we say that was contextual for the time and it is irrelevant now and indignifying today and probably re-write it probably yes i'd accept the wisdom of bhagawadgita. there are many wonderful insights which bhagawadgita offers. there is also rubbish, from my point of view and my current state and the current times.

if dharma does not change according to kala then it is not dharma. that also is from hinduism.

cheers.

Hinduism ? surely you mean Brahmanism.....or are you actually singing the virtues of paganism..woman-worship,the divine feminine ? count me in :)

Abhishek - thank you for finally responding to my question. However, your reply has just confirmed my belief that you basically piggybacked on my post to rant about things that have obviously been pressing on your mind for some time and have very little to do with my post itself.

It's all very well to say at this point that its not personal and you were responding to one solitary paragraph in my post - I beg to differ.

Since symbolism is your big bug bear, you should appreciate better than anybody else the complete and utter dishonesty of your actions.

Let's deconstruct what I said vs. what you said:

I said, Nina Paley as a white American woman shouldn't be made the focus of all our feelings re: colonialism merely because she's working on a central character from the Ramayana.

To which you said:
1. present modern history is a distorted version of the JNU nuts and the leftists
This is your opinion and has nothing to do with what I wrote or Nina Paley's work.

2.Having systematically destroyed the fabric of lives in those places where the British ruled, they gave us a permanent sense of inferiority complex ingrained in our texts and sense of history which is deplorable.
Again, not only is this your opinion and have nothing whatsoever to do with my post, it also makes an astounding leap of logic in which you seem to suggest "leftists and JNU nuts" had some sort of special power under the British.

3. Unfortunately, most of these "bloggers" have not been able to go beyond the routine and instead focus on ideas that seem to be floating around in the name of "secularism".
Well, your paranoid trifecta of "JNU nuts", "Leftists" and "blogger" is complete. Are you trying to say that as a blogger I am a "JNU nut" and "Leftist"? Prove it. The voices in your head don't count.

4. A product of the present times and the education system would only adhere to those ideas which they have been brainwashed with.
Nina Paley went to school in India? Or are you talking about me? So where did you go to school, Abhishek? Mars?

5. A white man's words seem to hold more weight that your scriptures! What an irony! It isn't about a white man trying to "tackle one of our holy cows".
Your entire life seems to be a reaction to the white man but here's some news for you: this is a white woman. And she doesnt have anything to say about my scriptures. She's animating the life of one of the central figures in my scriptures.

6. It only serves to betray the author's own sense of understanding of her culture and inferiority complex- finding acceptance with such awful ideas of insult to our symbolism.
Yeah, I see how this isn't personal at all. And please, do tell me what is this symbolism that she's insulted? You've gone on and on about it but you're still to spell it out in so many words. Go on, tell me. And while you're at it, learn what the word "symbolism" means - the meaning the rest of us poor Indians learnt when we were in school getting brainwashed.

7. A nation of dead people, intellectually and spiritually, blogs about such "issues" where one seems to find these reprehensible ideas as "classy" and "trendy".
Ooooh, you're so much better than us, Abhishek! Especially now that you've gone to such pains to tell us so. Yeah, I'm just going to take your word for it since you're so enlightened and everything.

And that's just one paragraph of the most trite rubbish I ever heard! In short, nothing you wrote had anything to do with me. You had a box all ready and I was the first target your eyes fell upon.

Yup, you're just brimming over with intellectual honesty.

oh now I remember Nina Paley,apparently she was having a torrid time over at the sepiamutiny blog ,she posts there regularly,I think Amrita is just rehashing the same stuff,I might be wrong though since I never bothered to read what the fuss was all about

The worst hindu critics i have come across in Gail omvedt and Amrita thapar.Eventhough Ms gail omvedt doesnt uunderstand a word of sanskrit(the toughest language in this world--its full of Dwaiyardhas)she still naive enough to trash our Vedas and its collective knowledge.Even Einstein has said that Advita is the most profound philosophy abt god.
Hindusim encourages debate but not lies.
Many of the hindu bashers think that english education have made them invincible and super intelligent.I must say that these self proclaimed intellectuals are bufoons of the first order.In future these buffons will be discarded to anonymity while Hinduism would still be there flourishing.
Remember hinduism was almost extinct before Sankarachrya' bharat pariyatan.Sankaracharya's Advaitha brought back hinduism to the limelight.Hinduism always had such great leaders in all periods.Hinduism spawns "real"intellectuals
and great thinkers.
Even great thinnkers like Aldous huxley and his brother Julian Huxely have praised and studied hinduism.Scinetists like Schroedinger and Max planck.You might notice maya is nothing but Schroedinger's equation of uncertainity of position of electrons around and atom's nucleous.
So let the dogs bark .camel passes on.
It would take something more to destroy this great
"sanathana Dharma".

[EDITED]

Anyway hinduism never preached "earth as the centre of the universe"
or Earth is flat"
or did witch hunt"
never persecuted great thinkers like "copernicus"
or" leonardo Da vinci".
Also hinduism never said that whole of the human race came from 2 persons.
Afterall you cant call a culture which had given this world
1,numerical system
2.Algebra
3.Zero
4.Calculus(calculus existed in kerala almost a 1000 yrs before newton or lebenitz)
5.Astronomy
6.world's oldest and biggest universities.
7 .greats like Patanjali,Buddha,Sankarachrya,bhaskara and Aryabhatta.

The only camel i see here is you Mr Kela,so cut the crap have some iddly vada with hot Sambar and go to sleep.
I

btw if the iddly sambar is from Woodlands Hotel in kochi i am in

Kela dont start trolling when you havent got any counter arguments.
You think tht being anti indian and anti hindu will let you into White madam and sahibs good books.But sorry mate there are still lots of fhindus i mean millions who are proud of their relgion and have got enough self esteem and self confidence in them to call themselves a "indian" and a "hindu".

Keala i know that you are mallu ,so if you want to see greatness of hindusim just go to a place called Malakkara in Patnamthitta district.There you will find Atmananda ashram.In the sitting room you will notice 3 giant potraits
1.Julian huxley with Guru
2.Sarvepaali Radhakrishan 2 nd indian president
These people wre the smartest of their generation they cant be wrong abt hindusim
Or Mr kela you think you are above these men,if thts the case then i cant help you.

I wouldnt recommend Woodlands.. Bimbis and CBH is better.

:)

Just to intervene here, I am not the Sanjay who is posting above in this thread. I am an atheist, and not religious.

That being said however, my understanding is that the part where Sita has to undergo a trial by fire is not necessarily considered canon, as far as the Ramayana is concerned. This is supposed to be part of the Lav-Kash Kanda, which is not universally accepted by all Hindus.

As you know, there are many different re-tellings of the Ramayana. Just browse through the comicbooks, and those alone offer a myriad of differing versions.

As far as Sita being buxom, I don't think that's a bad thing. I like buxom. Buxom is good. Ram is drawn with broad shoulders, in the classic macho hero style, and that's cute too. Likewise, Hanuman has muscles like King Kong, etc, and I think that's a cute stylization as well.

I'm a big fan of animation, and I was one of the first to discover Nina Paley's cartoons online years ago, and distributed them far and wide across the net.

I'm the Sanjay who finds the socialist drivel here on DesiCoconuts.com to be more of the same tired, worn-out rhetoric that has only brainwashed Indians into mental stupor.

But maybe Amrita can invite Nina to do a similar cartoon on the Prophet Mohammad, and see what happens. I'm sure Nina will sensibly decline, for obvious reasons. Nor would Amrita even consider asking her, for equally obvious reasons.

Remember kids, ethnically selective liberalism isn't liberalism at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d74zxZAs1m8

Enjoy.

Amrita, donot confuse the issue :) You have proven your view point and now that it's degenerating into a game of ego :)

I'd agree with the comment above. Let Nina Palley find parallels with the women who routinely get dumped and I would be thrilled indeed to see parallels from other religions too. All I know is that you'd be burnt on the stake for all that is worth it :)

Abhishek - do not confuse the issue? Excuse me, you just used my name to mouth off about some stuff that has nothing to do with me and you have the guts to ask me not to "confuse the issue"?

Sanjay - I'm neither the spokesperson for Nina Paley and neither does her work have anything to do with socialism or Desicritics apart from the fact that this site published my review of her work
I don't know what you're trying to prove by introducing yourself as an atheist or a fan of her work when all you're trying to do is make an extremely fallacious parallel between her work and that of the Danish cartoonists. What is even more repellent is that you (and let's not forget, the devoutly Hindu author of this drivel) seem to be very angry that nobody classifies Hindus with the kind of extremist scum that put a price on those cartoonists.
Abhishek started this rant by talking about pseudo-intellectuals: well, take a look in the mirror, both of you.

Amrita, maaf kardo:) Raat gayee baat gayee;)

Amrita, maaf kardo:) Raat gayee baat gayee;)

Amrita,
For some of us Relgion is a is serious business and we respect it and the gods like our parents.So we would be offended if somebody ridicule our gods and beliefs
Some "White Trash" like Gail Omvedt,Prof Witzel etc
take great interest in abusing hindu values and texts.

Gail omvedt,Witzel,MF Hussain or the above mentioned author who made cartoons on hindu gods are brave enough to do the same to Christians or muslims?
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to hurt others feelings.

I have specifically mentioned above that world's greatest minds respected Vedas,upanishads and hinduism.

Hindusim is in reality believes in One god.
ie why we have "nirguna prabhu" and "mara prabhu".
One god which is" abstract".We have countless no of gods i wouldnt say god but"states"/"sthithis"(of one god) for the covienience of worshippers .You are free to worship god(which is abstract) in the form or shape you like and that show the flexibility of this great "sanathana dharma".
Those who are criticizing hinduism just try to understand atleast the first adhyaya of "Bhagwath gita"--dhamra kshetre kurukshetre ".Plz dont start basing something you dont understand,it will noly show how your thickheadedness .

My Question: Why did Rama leave Sita on objection from a Dhobi?What was the justice he was trying to give to the dhobin who had come to Rama to beg for justice. How did Sita's exile give justice to that dhobin?

I have my understanding of above questions. But I would like others to enlighten me about it with their views/opinions before I put them on board.

Thx...

Dee - if you say so :)

Well, I know you to be a gracious lady:)

Amrita - in your description of Nina Paley, you say: "Your entire life seems to be a reaction to the white man but here's some news for you: this is a white woman. And she doesnt have anything to say about my scriptures. She's animating the life of one of the central figures in my scriptures."

So white women are no longer complicit with colonial politics? Or indeed postcolonial appropriation of discourse? Or for that matter neo-imperialist agendas? Or is this some sort of idealised "universal sisterhood" viewpoint?

I do find the representations (including animation) of Indian mythologies by Western artists very problematic, be they male or female.

Not only do they include the historical baggage of orientalising and essentialising the overt characteristics, they also proceed from a primarily binary view of the world (Semitic/Hellenic/Nordic) that is incompatible with the polymorphous "Hindu" view. The end result is that not only philosophies and narratives but also symbols are distorted and reduced. This may not be intentional but unfortunately is the case.

Echoing something that Salman Rushdie pointed out in his critique of the Far Pavilions many years ago, I would not have a problem with these Western representations if the images and narratives were countered by autoctonous images with equal frequency and power. However the reality is that while Indians do make the images and narratives that are equally or more powerful, they are rejected by the West in favour of the Nina Paley variety of essentialised, orientalised versions with all the colonial baggage of the past.

I do not agree with the way Abhishek has framed his argument, yet I understand and agree with the sentiment.

An aside: Btw, as Hindus we don't have "scriptures" - which assumes a solitary textual version as the "authentic" or truthful one. Terming Hindu texts, narratives, ideas as "scriptures" is to apply Semitic, binary, textually limited version to a far more complex and diverse worldview. It leads one unwittingly into a theological/philosophical/linguistic trap. It also ignores the idea of shruti (heard) that was the first medium of transferring texts (and devalued by Western/Macauley Indian colonial thinkers!).

Finally, are we talking Ramayana here as Paley's basis or the Ram charit manas? And which version of the Ramayana is she using? I bet she will pick the least complex, most populist, and most easily orientalised version!

Anamika

wow!!! Kya response hain. :-)

I wish we Indians stop being so obssessed for or against goras in general. At the end of the day we will have to fix our country's myriad problems by finding solutions rather than whining and crying and criticising about it everyday.

I was also wondering if we could profile writers on the basis of the school board they appeared in. Are we likely to see more India whiners from the ICSE boards (missionary schools) or that the CBSEs/ State board kids are equally likely to be whining about India. The second profiling cut would be the background of the individual as well. We are likely to see upper class (non-business) to be more likely to be whining about everything Indian.

What I find problematic is the notion that NO westerner could ever understand Indian ideologies, while it's clear that the same people who make such sweeping generalizations feel they totally and completely understand the west. How is that possible?

I'd second to what Anamika says. She may not agree with my tone of write up (written in total disgust) against the pseudo bloggers (whoever they are).

It still beats the logical conclusion that you wish to reach. Merely by silencing the "war of words" with their contortions, it doesnot brush away the issue.

Nina Palley, her interpretations and your write up clearly amounts to "blasphemy"- just the word that you don't associate with Hinduism. All in the name of tolerance. Tolerance is a word for the meek.

I have never claimed and I shall never claim that I am the "protector" of the "religion". It is not possible. But what is possible is the defence of the holy symbolism that I have mentioned above. Even if it raises the heckles of the people around. For once, the write up, even though "balanced", is jaundiced about the Hindu view point.

It is a syndrome and a "mental disease"- blogging community is full of so called "secular" idiots brimming around who jump around to the defence solely because they have been reading about the whole thing in the media. I nearly went through a trial myself before I realised that whatever is made to appear look like, it isn't so.

There are few people who stick out like sore thumbs but someone has to provide a counter view point. There is no other way to describe a stick as a stick and a pseudo intellectual as a pseudo intellectual!

Any other place and any other time, Palley would have been served a fatwa and she would have been hiding and scampering for cover. In similar vein, M F Husain finds it safe to run away from India despite being declared as a proclaimed offender by painting Hindu Gods in the nude.

Palley has intentionally distorted the figurines on her website with representations varying from weird and absurd to downright offensive.

Amrita, you may not find them offensive. But then, our conditioning has never been like that.

Abhishek, thats the point no sane Hindus will put the fatwa on the Cartoonist. You have just proven Amrita's point. Our faith isn't so weak that it can't withstand some different interpretation even if its from a supposedly 'ignorant' Westerner.

BTW we have our own naked gods that we appreciate in the Khajuraho and Konak. Maybe you would like to do a Taliban demolition there since they also probably offend your sensibilities.

small squiirel wrote: What I find problematic is the notion that NO westerner could ever understand Indian ideologies, while it's clear that the same people who make such sweeping generalizations feel they totally and completely understand the west. How is that possible?

The issue is not about goras or green martians, it is about depth of knowledge of the complete range of Indian philosophy, theological/ secular literature, epistemiology etc. Just because one happens to have indian heritage, brown skin and black hair does *not* make you automatically knowledgeable about Indian culture.

To learn just one of the hindu philosophical systems, its variations, extensions, recensions and commentaries takes almost 12 years to master if done in the traditional manner. Dr Karl Popper at University of Washington has been working on an producing an Encyclopedia of Hindu Philosophy since the 1970s. Over 30 volumes, each 1000 pages, is barely enough to capture even a summary of all the available literature. I know firsthand because I happen to own the first 14 volumes. This remains a work in process.

Just as one cannot hope to understand the complete depth of western culture without deep knowledge of western philosophy, literature, theology, epistemiology etc., one cannot do that with Indian culture either. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Anamika - you missed two very important points in your eagerness:
One, in my post I very clearly said that what I object to is the attempt to thrust the onus of centuries of institutional racism on one artist merely because she is white.

Second, those lines were written to Abhishek who accused me of taking "the white man's" word about my scriptures.

This is precisely why I'm so disgusted by Abhishek's behavior. Under the guise of righteousness, he's chosen to put words in my mouth and given me a stance that I do not believe in for no other reason than that I was the first person his eye fell upon.

And now here you are, putting your interpretation on words I penned in response to his ridiculous attack. In effect I'm defending myself from Abhishek's diseased imagination.

to continue, if you have questions about Paley's ideas about the Ramayana, I suggest you click a few of the links in my article and then get back to me. She makes her own case much better than I can ever do.

sanjay... I was just trying to make a point. I think you got it partially. But it's not all in books.. it is about living in that culture and all the things about cultural understanding that go with being immersed in it and having it in your blood. You can get most of the way there if you try.. but you can never really understand in the same way.

Which is why I get pissed when people think they understand westerners completely while telling me they cannot POSSIBLY get a thing about their culture.

Dat's all I meant.

And Abhishek.. you are no less extreme then the people you rail against. and I am starting to believe no less pseudo. when you get off your high horse, let us all know.

Chandra - "profiling", how very nice and progressive of you.

Abhishek - your response to Paley's work is your opinion of it. By your own admission, your entire rant was based around one paragraph and your own paranoid imagination. Please don't try to sidle out of it by jumping on the doubtful justification provided by other posters.

Face it - you made extremely personal attacks, misrepresented my words, and are now trying to justify it. Don't even try and talk about things you don't understand.

Pramod - please read my post instead of taking Abhishek's interpretation as the definitive one and then tell me what your problem is.

People like you and Abhishek, I think, don't have anything to say on that board because you can recognize yourselves as the kind of racist bigots I was writing about.

Sorry, but you're not going to make me apologize about NOT being a racist or a bigot.

Deepti wrote: Swami Dayananda said, "I accept as Dharma whatever is in full conformity with impartial justice, truthfulness and the like; that which is not opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas. Whatever is not free from partiality and is unjust, partaking of untruth and the like, and opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas - that I hold as adharma." By that definition Sita was not given justice. Sanjay if Rama considered it okay for Gautuma to accept his sullied wife why was Sita then discarded?

The vast majority of people feel very strongly that what Rama did to Sita was a great tragedy. Whether or not this is adharmic is another issue altogether. Was this the ultimate positive example of Raj dharm? or the ultimate negative of Rama's dharma as a husband? or, can we even say that some "higher" human dharma was flouted?

The story of gautama/ ahilya is very clearly an allegorical aside and it stands apart from the main temporal flow of the Ramayana. It is meant to convey some learning which is not of relevance to the story, imo. In any case, there are at least two versions of the story and it perhaps merits a discussion on its own.

Dashratha had made an oath to his wife and he had to fulfill it. It wasn't a whim but a promise and fulfilling one's promises or oath is part of Dharma.

Even the name Dashratha breaks down into Dasha = ten and ratha= chariot indicating a person who is controlled by his ten indriyaas or senses. These are people given to extremes of emotions and therefore there is plenty of evidence pointing to Dashratha having made the oath on a whim. Regardless, I do agree that coming good on the oath was part of Dashratha's kuladharm but he was still totally dependent on Rama coming through on his dharm as a son. I'm not sure that Rama had made any such comparable oath to Sita.

I can't believe that Hinduism cannot survive a few cartoons and paintings. I think people get bent out of shape because the intent of such disregard is not for Hinduism but the people who follow it. The artist is skewering the people. Get it. Get on with your life, ignore them. Hinduism will be fine, no thanks for bringing religion to fight your fragile egos.

KD - actually, she isnt even skewering the people. That's again the chip on Abhishek's shoulder.

smallsqurrel: Living in a culture like India's at best exposes you to a sub-culture but it doesn't provide context and reason. For example, if you were to live with the aghoris in India, you will find out "all about living" in that sub-culture, their practice of living in cremation grounds, begging from a bowl made out of human skull, even eating the flesh from dead human bodies etc.

It does not tell you why the aghoris are allowed to live & practice right in the middle of Benaras; on what basis do they consider themselves shiva worshippers and what is it in hindu philosophy that legitimizes this claim; and why the more conventional shiva worshippers have not run them out of town yet.

One thing is for sure, the aghori contribution to society cannot be denied - aghori saints have been a source of inspiration for many "ordinary" hindus, who have opened a hospital for leprosy patients, fought the abuses of the dowry system, helped to simplify wedding ceremonies and work for education of the poor.

sanjay.. .right. I never said it was all experience, I said it wasn't all in the books...

what I am saying is that some people in these forums use big words and have read big texts and what have you... they think they know everything. yet everyone else is a psuedo-intellectual. it's tiresome.

Sanjay - what you said is equally true about America. From the outside it may look like an ocean of white with a few islands of black but when you get closer there's a lot more going on.

Sanjay - this one - write for Desicritics - mail me.

Amrita, I could just hug you. thanks for saying what I was getting damned sick and tired of trying to not just blurt out. :)

SS - it needed to be said. But it's an argument neither of us will ever win: you, because they'll say you're just an American what do you know? Me, because ten people are probably already planning new ways to call me whitey's stooge for not being an out and out chauvinist like the oh-so-intellectual author of this crap.

true enough, true enough.
well we can just go back to being shrinking violets, then... aiyo....

Amrita: yes, I agree and the real question is what is going on in America and how does it differ from India. What are the overlaps and points of departure between whiteness as a cultural dynamic in america and the corresponding hinduness in India?

Today, these are not academic questions because I think globalization is not only flattening the earth in economic terms, it is also doing so in the socio-cultural arena. In other words, economic flattening is slowly but surely neutralizing comparative economic advantages between nations/ regions, making it less likely for some people to migrate for economic reasons. Maybe this is too much Maslow but I think there will be a class of migrants who will migrate not for economic reasons but for reasons of culture. All others equal.

The point is that it is not enough to say "a lot more is going on". We need to understand what is going on and how.

Amrita, you point out: "what I object to is the attempt to thrust the onus of centuries of institutional racism on one artist merely because she is white."

Well sorry for the reality check but the imbalances of power in the world today as well as the past 500 years of history of appropriation of cultural knowledge, traditions and representations of non-white cultures while suppressing autoctonous articulations of the same means that NO white artist is entirely free of complicity in that enterprise.

Nina Paley is free to create her art supposedly based on Indian mythologies/characters, just as Picasso was free to be "inspired" by African art. The difference between the two (other than quality) is that the nonwhite world is no longer willing to remain silent about the appropriation (cultural robbery as some African and Australian Aborigine artists will tell you), or indeed accepting of the appropriated and regurgitated representations. A look at her own words reveals definite hubris and a sense of entitlement that allows her to execute the appropriation without any acceptance or tolerance of protest from the "natives."

SS - I don't think living for a few years in a specific part of India would equip anyone to generalise on 5000 years of Indian culture. I have Jewish friends, and for a while a Jewish partner, and studied Hebrew and Talmudic philosophy. But that does not make me an "expert" on Jewish culture(s). If anything, it taught me to be more careful about intervening in/about/on Jewish cultural production.

Moreover, "speaking" for ANY marginalised people by a member of the dominant culture is an appropriation and abuse of power, no matter how well intentioned.

Amrita wrote: SS - it needed to be said. But it's an argument neither of us will ever win: you, because they'll say you're just an American what do you know? Me, because ten people are probably already planning new ways to call me whitey's stooge for not being an out and out chauvinist like the oh-so-intellectual author of this crap.

It is not immediately clear to me who is the intended target of this particular personal attack but it is only ethical that the attack be open. Besides, I believe "whitey" does not approve of shooting people in the back.

My personal view is that you are quite free to adopt any culture you want - whiteness, sub-sahara african or plutonian. Just be open & honest enough to admit which frame of reference you are using when you critique something that you know will raise people's hackles.

A bit of unsolicited advice to even the score on this count: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Sanjay in response to Comment62- the only oath that Rama made to Sita was the same oath we make to our spouses when we marry - to protect and stand by each other no matter what.

I will be reading up more to understand the Epic better. Thanks for the discussion it was a pleasure conversing with you.

Deepti: the only oath that Rama made to Sita was the same oath we make to our spouses when we marry - to protect and stand by each other no matter what.

If we go down this path, then all modern separations and divorces have to be classified "adharmic" because these also represent breaking of that oath. Regardless of reasons or who is at fault. I don't believe you want to go there.

Thanks for the discussion it was a pleasure conversing with you.

Likewise.

Amrita, nowhere I called you a whitey's stooge. I only objected to your understanding and "euologising" Palley without being able to grip the issue in real terms.

A pseudo secular or a pseudo intellectual is one who comments on, or is knowledgeable of, disciplines outside his or her own field of study is not a pseudointellectual, as long as he or she is intellectually honest and does not misrepresent his or her own background and understanding of the subject. Your article did not sound like one that you are speaking from a position of authority. I reacted in a manner because the write up focussed on someone who has the gall to hurt my sensibilities.

It further heckled me because there have been scores of write ups by various authors on seperate issues; partly being motivated by "concern" for the underdog and partly "motivated" by the corrupt media.

I being an Indian, does not qualify me to be an expert on the Indian culture. Likewise you seem to have no domain specific specialisation on the said issue. But then, this isn't the topic of discussion here.

I am not riding high on my horse and neither I am keen on berating anyone. I reacted to your write up strongly because of high visibility on Desicritics and that it would be interpreted by scores of readers as nearly the Gospel truth.

Unfortunately, I had to stick out like a sore thumb and there was no other apt description of your write up.

For obvious reasons, without cluttering up the write up, there are people who write about internal security issues, economics, education et al without being really knowledgeable. Blogging can be a good past time but all I am asking is to do some degree of research and provide the interpretation from all possible angles.

Palley would persist with her movie, nonetheless. You would not stop writing. But then why only Hiduism?

I have already mentioned earlier on and doing it again. It is NOT a religion that it is "under danger". It is Dharma. And being universal in appeal, it cannot ever go out of sync. It would perhaps be rediscovered in various other facets in times to come.

Khajuraho was a product of decadent times when Hindu kings fought and indulged in merriment. It was those internal divisions that made it easier for others to invade us.

As for the Brits and the White man influencing the culture, there is a lot that can be said about it. Anamika has said in so many words. A product of the "modern education system" is as disenchanted from the culture as someone from outside. It is not to say that I am not one. Luckily, my parents realised the value of incomplete education and made sure to supplement in the right areas.

For me, it has been a journey and discovery of all sorts in the recent years. There has been a degree of political awakening and it motivates me to stick out and challange the notions floating around.

Sanjay: I believe you are referring to 'abandonment' not divorce. By sending away his wife without evaluating her guilt/ innocence and by violating her trust, Rama may have done his duty as a king but as a husband and a father he fell short. A divorce requires both parties to either be mutually consenting towards the decision or give the court enough evidence to decide on why to grant the decree. In Sita's case not only did she not have a choice in the matter, she didn't file for alimony or child support as would've happened now :)

On a serious note, personally, I have always admired Hinduism for the deities who have very human flaws that we can learn from thus making them identifiable. By deeming something infallible, supernatural or difficult to understand we only make religion and the lessons from our spiritual teachings inaccessible for people.

Having read a few of the comments above, I am starting to get the feeling that some people seem to have mistaken verbose for lucid and complex for profound.

When people take an interest in my religion and tell me their interpretations about the tenets of my scripts, it makes me very happy. It almost feels like somebody else found a way of understanding a poem I always loved. But that's just me.

@Anamika: Just a thought: It is one thing to 'generalize' and another to philosophize. The former, I believe, could be condescending and presumptious even, the later actually brings more ideas or perspectives towards the understanding of scriptures or religious tenets. While you may not neccessarily be called an 'expert' upon learning about the Jewish religion, there are plenty of non-Jew academicians who engage in Hebrew religious studies and discuss their interpretations of Judiasm.

I have a question for people on this forum and I do hope somebody considers it worth their while to answer it: Can only a person belonging to a certain religion ever claim to understand or attempt to interpret its teachings or tenets?

It has been a fascinating discussion so far. The shuffles, the feints and the finesses have been of a very high quality, though I must say, there is intellectual dishonesty on both sides.

Hinduism has a depth that few people have clearly understood, and I don't claim to be one of them. I have been most impressed by Osho's writings; most others are not a patch on what Osho says. That he lived a life full of debauchery and downright criminality goes to show the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Most dharmic (just so I don't offend holier-than-thou hindus here) writings have layers upon layers of profundity and it is only when you uncover them you understand the beauty that's hinduism. However, one thing that distinguishes hinduism (and buddhism) from other religions is it makes no claim of originality or uniqueness. All paths are true and equal. You believe what you want, and if you believe strongly enough, you will achieve nirvana. I know I am being simplistic here, and yet there some truth to that.

Given that background, to claim that somehow Ramayan and Mahabharat are not open to criticism is to deny the very essence of hinduism. Hinduism even sanctions atheism, and I am proud to be a hindu and an atheist at the same time. It is ludicrous to suggest that our rich culture and history can be tarnished beyond redemption because of a few cartoons or opinions. I hold the opinion that, there are no rules that hold good for all the people, at all the places and for all the times to come. It is highly contextual and we have to change with time.

Abhishek, I do have some sympathy to your feeling regarding the "secularist" brigate (from JNU or otherwise). When a doctrine begins to enjoy official sanction and widespread intellectual support, it is hard for the opposing views to be heard. Early years after independence saw the emergence of such securalist genre, and they continue in the same tone even today. I have read some of their writings and to me it appears to be biased. Intellectual honesty is very important, and one can't compromise it for the sake of earning a few brownie points or a tenure. The political pendulum swung too far to the left for its own good, and thus the spectre of hindu fundamentalists' rise during the 90's. It is appalling to read some what Bajrang Dal and Shivsena folks have to say. So, even though I have been a supporter of BJP, I was glad to see them removed from power during the last elections.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Sanjay - that wasn't meant for you; it got to the person who it was meant for. And thanks for the advice, you should take it too.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have to say re: culture and exploration. And we have to allow for the possibility that some of us might not like what the person who's doing the exploration has to say. When you come across such a view, you can either debate it or else you can do what the author of this post has done and demand that people stop publishing the work that offends them. This is where my problem begins.

Anamika - in the "real world" the last time I heard someone say what you just did, it was a 19 year old in a class taught by Sekou Sundiata. And even Sekou found it a bit much. The central flaw of that argument is the implicit belief that a white person is automatically barred from interpreting/exploring/articulating in any way figures/aspects of nonwhite culture because he/she is inherently incapable of doing it in a nonracist way. If this is NOT what you're trying to say then I would suggest you take a good look at your own "articulation". If it is what you're trying to say then you should think about the question posed by Aditi. Or even apply that logic to gender and art and see how it plays out.

As far as responding to whiteness is concerned, I'm well aware of it, thank you. I don't know Nina Paley personally but I must say that if she's an artist in New York then I would find it extremely odd if she's not aware of the kind of currents you're talking about. Your entire problem with Paley seems to stem from a racial theory/postcolonial POV. If that is the case then we have a completely different debate on our hands than the one Abhishek is talking about.

As far as your opinion of her work goes - that's exactly what it is. Your opinion. Just like my post was mine.

Abhishek: let's see if I can make you see what your post looks like to me:

Say you're sitting on a park bench reading a book and some guy comes up to you and calls you a motherfucking son of a bitch. You ask him what gives. He says oh, you just sort of look like this guy who's a motherfucker and a son of a bitch and lives in the general vicinity and he once saw him read the same book. By now a crowd has gathered and all of them are yelling at you for being a motherfucker and a son of a bitch. Now you have to prove that you are neither. You turn to the other guy and tell him this is crazy. His defense? He doesn't like motherfuckers or sons of bitches and hey, you do look like that one he knows lives in the vicinity and reads the same book.

It's a crass example but then your whole post is pretty crass. How ironic then, that you would use terms like pseudo-intellectual. You call your post "Why Bash Hinduism" and then use me as an example. How intellectually honest is that? You say you don't call me "whitey's stooge". Not in so many words, no. But then you hold me up as an example of a person who would take a white man's word over her own on something as integral to a human being as religion. So portraying me as whitey's stooge is better than just calling me one?

Take for example your whole "Nina Paley hurt my sentiments" shtick. Every single one of the arguments you've put forth in that has been addressed in my post. And I relate every single one of them back to bigotry and racism. You could have debated that point by point. You didn't. And you still don't. Instead you chose to paint me as the poster child of all that bothers you without any basis whatsoever except that one paragraph which I've already countered and then had the gall to say, "Nothing personal" before going on to repeat your words.

Excuse me, but this is personal.

Hilarious analogy, Amrita! LMHO :D

If it weren't so sad it would be funny what prejudice does to people's judgment....it is not guilt but the assumption of guilt that taints our verdicts.

LOVED the example, crass or not crass, brings home the message. I wonder when people will learn that you can't beat an opinion out of a person.

@Abhishek: Shouldn't life be simpler than this? You don't like a cartoon film, walk away from it. Is religion really that shallow that one person's perspective could dilute such profound teachings and lessons?

Amrita, I am definitely looking at power issues from a racial/postcolonial standpoint. I don't have problems with "white" people or indeed green/blue/purple people looking at other races or cultures. The issue is not EXPLORING or STUDYING (although any social scientist with half a brain will tell you precisely HOW contentious that it). The issue is REPRESENTING which is what Paley has decided to do.

When I last checked simply LIVING in New York didn't make anyone automatically conscious of racial, postcolonial, feminist or any other issue. Nor did it automatically make somebody automatically more capable of "exploring/articulating/representing" other cultures. If it did, we wouldn't have the pleasure of Mr. Guiliani's and Madam Clinton's company!

So no reason to assume that Paley is aware of any of these issues, or indeed particularly concerned about it.

I can understand you like her art and want to defend it. By all means do so on its aesthetic merit. Ideologically, politically and yes, RACIALLY, it is deeply problematic, not in the least because of its ability to appropriate cultural icons and represent them in ways that are inimical to the culture of origin.

Aditi - most of us can reach some level of understanding about another culture/religion/race. To use that to represent that culture/race/religion is an entirely different issue. When that culture/religion/race is the nondominant one in terms of power, such appropriation based on "understanding" by a member of the dominant culture/race/religion becomes even more problematic.

In other words, its one thing to engage with Jewish ideas with Ruvy or SS, or for them to do the same on Hindu ones in either public or private fora. Its ENTIRELY another matter to REPRESENT those in cultural production without acute awareness of the power issues involved. And yes, I will make a point that given the power balances, it would be extremely problematic if either SS or Ruvy decided to REPRESENT Hindu icons/beliefs/society, simply because of disparities in accesses to cultural power structures.

Finally, Abhishek - hang in there! :-)

something that has happened thousands of years back is being viewed through the prisms of the modern day society.
if you look back at the works done by shakespeare or for that matter ivanhoe by sir walter scott, they are full of derogatory references to jews.
does that mean that they should be branded as anti-semitic and banished from the literary greatness that is just and due to them.
why should we apply the modern yardsticks of social justice and feminism to something that has been written so long back that if those authors were to come alive somhow they would die of culture shock.
things change, time changes... also the outlook of man(oops sorry politically incorrect please read it as humanity) changes... what does not change is the sheer genious of those writings.
the taj mahal would always be known for its beuty despite the fact that the workers who built it with thier own hands were not protected by any labour laws and exploited by the very king of the land.
one would say it is not fair but life never is.
AB is a very dear friend of mine and i have known him from the days when he had more fun with pink floyd than anything else in the world.
but then i have seen him change. i have changed and so has a large section of my contemporaries.
we are not the lumpens who bash the windows selling valentine day cuties, we do not go out and burn the m f hussain paintings.
but then the whole secular debate is so one tracked and infuriatingly biased and unfair, it drives me(us) off.
P.S. hussain never apologised for the nude paintings saying it was his right as a painter. no problems with that.
he produces a film directed by his son called MINAKSHI. it hurt the sensitivities of the muslims there was an outcry. a fortnight into screning mr hussain withdraws the film from market even DVDs and says he is doing it for personal reasons. no comments were offered by the seculars, the thing was published as a small news piece by TOi on the inner pages.
SO UNFAIR SO VERY UNFAIR

Anamika... this is too funny. so I could be a friggin clueless person who by chance was born in India and to Hindu parents, ever read the vedas or anything else for that matter and remain ignorant.... and it's OK for them to represent Hinduism. But I could not, say... be me... study what I have studied, marry in a traditional Hindu ceremony to a Hindu, have a child, raise that child as a Hindu, live life as a Hindu and represent Hinduism?

You crack me up.

#77 ...Khajuraho was a product of decadent times

and so was the practice of Sati,child-marriage,caste-system,sending young widows to Kashi,devadasi system ? lol just pick and choose your way to suit your BS

peaceout

Really SS? Thought you had made it clear (again and again) that YOUR people were Jewish? Oh wait - that only matters it is useful but when you need to comment on Hinduism, you trot out your "I married a desi" credentials? Or does it matter when your "Hindu" kid decides to take up his/her right to make aliya?

Grow up!

#86...NO, Sati the deplorable practice became extensive, only after Hunas invaded India in the later part of first millenium, which saw decline of Hindu(Gupta) kingdom.

Prior to that Sati was

a) Was gender agnostic.

b) Very rare

c) Always Voluntary.


Even practices like child marriage share similar origin on timeline.

#86.. even if i were to buy ur argument, why don't u knock down Khajuraho just like Sati was abolished?

Those relgious practices don't fall in the same realm as the art work of Khajuraho temples.. wrong comparison!

Amrita damn good analogy. Unfortunately, in your own words, it's crass indeed!

I wish I could respect your opinion but then it doesn't fall in the scheme of the things.

For once, I realised that it is nearly a crime to be a Hindu in a Hindu majority nation. If I align my political view points with the Bajrang Dal or the RSS or VHP or any of the so called "Hindu fundamentalists", that brands me as a "fundamentalist". Do you actually know the meaning of this word?

If I wear a saffron head gear, that brands me as a fundamentalist immediately. If you see a person with a skull cap, it brands him as a "devout" follower. Why this discrepancy?

I did not want to draw towards the political resurgence or the "rise" of Hindu "fundamentalists" in form of BJP, but look at what Modi has done to transform Gujarat. I would not go in the details because it does not concern to the present issue; I am sure that this would raise a lot of heckles.

Point here is that Palley is the symptomatic disease of a system that tends to reward people who deconstruct cultural ethos in a demeaning manner. Amrita, you have still not responded to my query. Why not write about the people like the Danish cartoonist? Or try and find some cultural references by those who write about Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country? Why not represent their rulers in form of cartoons? WHY ONLY HINDUISM??

I have this strong feeling that the ones who believe in the fatherland would not find ways and means to betray this nation. You would hardly find a Hindu traitor. Not many in the contemporary Indian History. Those who are attuned and wedded to the nationhood dream and those who have cultural ethos would not tolerate the crass commercialisation or any reference to the scriptures. Specially, the interpretation of the symbolism. I have no objection, there was never any, about the rituals. I find it offensive indeed! (Further, Sati et al never was sanctioned in Hinduism. I think it was in the laws of Manu but then I can't recall the historical references right now. But for sure, Hinduism never sanctioned this ever).

I have clearly mentioned in an earlier comment too, dear Amrita, that this is nothing but pseudo intellectualism. Your analogy notwithstanding. And no point in deconstructing and rebutting your write up point by point.

@Ravi Kulkarni. I was indeed dismayed when BJP lost but much of the blame was centred on the "India Shining" campaign. They violated the basic dharma of politics by relying on the media that was heavily against them. BJP needs to set it's own house in order desperately, but this is a seperate issue.

Frankly, I have set the cat among the pigeons for sure. Most of the reactions that have been coming on here were on expected lines. One write up will not change your view point. Or it will not change you as a person. The most important thing to know here is not to get disconnected from your roots. I may not be as prolific as Anamika in abstractions (I am hanging around here!) but my way of dealing with the issues here is direct.

If we present as a divided house outside to other nations (which we really are), it becomes easier for the other nations to mount subversive activites on my motherland. Only a pan Indian Hindu rashtra (and Hindu way of life) is the way out.

To this extent, that Palley's work and her interpretation (and her being a White woman) is reprehensible. I hope that I have made myself clear Amrita.

Anamika.. uh that was called an example. a "for instance" not to be taken point by point literally.... again, you crack me up. looks like I touched a nerve with you though.

Abhishek:

Why Bash Hinduism?

Because Hinduism needs to be bashed up a little bit!

Sanctity has reigned for far too long. 'Don't criticize, don't question, don't ask, don't insult, don't denigrate' attitude reigned for far too long and it needs to be brought down from its sacred pedestal to be questioned with reason and rationale. It needs a dose of maturity to handle criticisms.

We bash up Hinduism because we are Hindus. It's akin to criticizing our government and our leaders. If they are revered for far too long, they become authoritarian which in turn will result in suppression of freedoms. When a religion is not questioned for too long, it turns dogmatic which in turn will curb creativity and individual expression. We don't want that to happen.

Why would you publish something that hurts the sensibilities of people?

Why not?

It's for you to read it or choose not to read it. We are not mailing this into your cozy castles (called homes) or telecasting it on prime time television. Or do you want to convert this religion into a dogmatic and authoritarian one just like few Abrahamic religions out there where sensibilities are hurt by every little criticism and question?

I am proud to be a Hindu and I believe that much of the symbolism is lost on the mere mortals.

We are proud Hindus who believe (very much) that we need to criticize this religion to ensure it is not hijacked by fundamentalists and peevish devotees.

We discard that version of Hinduism which requires a degree in theology followed by a six-year course in Upanishads, followed by meditative course under a Banyan tree in some remote village in Bihar, to understand it or follow it. If this religion is not for a common man, please pack it up and go to some resort to make it an elite cult. Don't let it stand as a mainstream religion for a common man!

It only seems to give them a kick on their sorry butts to "criticize" a way of life that defined my nation.

You are in a wrong nation. This nation is not defined by Hinduism alone.

If you were looking for a Hindu nation, sorry, you just missed the bus. Even Nepal is turning secular shedding away its religious nature.

If Lord Ram left Sita Mata, he had larger interests (and duties) of statehood before his personal choices.

Yup, you are right. That's why every Tom Dick and Harry who became king later on left their wives BECAUSE they had larger interests and duties!

it was Hindu way of giving.

What was Hindu way of giving? Giving the punishment to Dalits for drinking water from village well? Giving a nice barbeque fire to the widow on the funeral pyre of her dead husband?

One has to realize that the Hindu way of life has been the ultimate.

;-)

So how come so many oppressed Hindus convert?

Hinduism in all it's glory is all encompassing. It needs a dedicated study and "dhayana" to realize it's true potential.

So, I am assuming Hinduism is 'ultimate' to those who have realized its true potential and those people happen to be selected few. It should be an elite cult- not a mainstream religion then.

Aditi wrote:I believe you are referring to 'abandonment' not divorce. By sending away his wife without evaluating her guilt/ innocence and by violating her trust, Rama may have done his duty as a king but as a husband and a father he fell short. A divorce requires both parties to either be mutually consenting towards the decision or give the court enough evidence to decide on why to grant the decree. In Sita's case not only did she not have a choice in the matter, she didn't file for alimony or child support as would've happened now

Usually, divorce is simply the trailing legal stamp of marriage breakdown following a long period of de-facto estrangement where people have already abandoned each other - physically, mentally - in real life. Words like 'abandonment', 'divorce' etc are nothing more than legal terminology for the reality of people breaking their marriage oaths to each other. It is only when people have finally had enough of this suffering that they "mutually" agree to seek a legal divorce. In the larger scheme of breaking marriage oaths, this means very little. In terms of alimony, Rama did send Sita to a rishi ashram knowing she would receive the highest care.

On the issue of guilt/ innocence of Sita, lets keep in mind that people regarded her as Sita mata and Rama as god. Even this elevated status was apparently not good enough for the citizens (as represented by the dhobi) to question Sita's character without giving her a fair trial. This must have been a shocking revelation to Rama and he was probably thinking "what the heck do these people want from me? how much more can I do"?

Another question I have for those who made Sitayana. What about Sita's double standard? When Rama begged her to return to him towards the end of Ramayana, Sita's choice was to reject him openly in favor of returning to "mother earth". Yet, when Ravana was keeping her in captivity, I do not recall Sita calling out to mother earth to take her back even though Sita could have had no idea when, or if ever, Rama would come for her. As it turned out, it was a year in captivity but, for all she knew until Hanuman got to her, it could have been 5, 10 or never.

Sujai,just wanted you to know I have become a great fan of yours,I love the way you think...keep posting :-)

Anamika - my reply is on my post. It's really very long so I havent repeated it here.

Abhishek - at last the truth will out!! Please note that I've had ample space and time to call you names like knickerdhaari and saffronista but havent. And yet you've taken the perfect liberty to not only trash me in your post without substance, you go on defending it by trying to put yourself on a higher nationalist/patriotic/religious pedestal.

You can't respect my opinions? You're the person who characterized me as a "JNU nutjob, a Leftist, a pseudo intellectual/secularist" and take great support from a woman who characterizes me as a "neocon, uber-American, neo-Imperialist".

The only way BOTH of you could be right is if I had MPD or you were full of BS. Since I don't have MPD, I call BS.

Respect? Another word to add to the long list of words you wouldnt recognize if it ran you over.

Lol. Anamika is absolutely right about the "neo-con" and "neo imperialist" part. Lol. Anamika, what is your email id??

If Anamika is right, then you're automatically wrong. Once more, you stand exposed by your own words. All this from a man who writes about "authority" and "pseudo intellectuals". Surprising? Not.

Amrita:
Abhishek is confused. He doesn't know who hit him from where. Fanatic religiosity can cause such blindness!

Sujai,

Very well said. Religions should be questioned, dogma should be challenged and everyone should keep an open mind. This applies to all religions and all groups, not just hindus.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Ravi Kulkarni, #99:
I concur. Not just Hindus. (especially few neighbors).

Sujai: On your comment #92, you summed it up for most of us here. Some very succinct and clarifying comments.

You said "We discard that version of Hinduism which requires a degree in theology followed by a six-year course in Upanishads, followed by meditative course under a Banyan tree in some remote village in Bihar, to understand it or follow it. If this religion is not for a common man, please pack it up and go to some resort to make it an elite cult. Don't let it stand as a mainstream religion for a common man!"

I say: Wow! :)

Way to go.


@Anamika: I believe, Amrita/ Nina Paley have not claimed to "represent" anybody or any religion. Nina Paley made a cartoon film based on her interpretation of a Hindu epic that has also been considerered a literary work. Several literary figures have chosen to make their own, very unique interpretations of religious poetry and prose (Mirabai's poetry has been evaluated for its sensuality and the Bhagavad Gita has so many interpretations). Amrita has written a review of this cartoon film and quite prophetically through her articulation has put out a disclaimer that invalidates people from assuming that she is in any way biased.

SS has not claimed to be representing anything either, it seems more like :"discussing" than "representing" to me.

On the contrary, Abhishek voices his opinions as if they were representative of Hinduism in general.

BTW who is Ruvy?

SS: #85 I see how frustrating and illogical that can be. I have never been a "religious" person, yet among a crowd of non-Hindus my religion seems to define me more than anything else I believe in. I am expected to defend scriptures that I myself have to yet achieve a full grasp on while a non-Hindu who has probably studied the scriptures and taken the time to come up with an interpretation gets bashed up for doing so. I wonder if people feel threatened and hence react in this way.

Aditi - Ruvy in Jerusalem is a fellow poster. He's turned into the local signpost for all things Jewish apparently.

As far as feeling threatened goes: I have no idea where these people are coming from or what their experiences have been so far. But generally speaking, it's what Jawahara says in her post about blasphemy.

And I agree with you: that quote of Sujai's pretty much sums it up.

Anamika,

You wrote,

Not only do they include the historical baggage of orientalising and essentialising the overt characteristics, they also proceed from a primarily binary view of the world (Semitic/Hellenic/Nordic) that is incompatible with the polymorphous "Hindu" view. The end result is that not only philosophies and narratives but also symbols are distorted and reduced. This may not be intentional but unfortunately is the case."

You also wrote,
"An aside: Btw, as Hindus we don't have "scriptures" - which assumes a solitary textual version as the "authentic" or truthful one. Terming Hindu texts, narratives, ideas as "scriptures" is to apply Semitic, binary, textually limited version to a far more complex and diverse worldview. It leads one unwittingly into a theological/philosophical/linguistic trap. It also ignores the idea of shruti (heard) that was the first medium of transferring texts (and devalued by Western/Macauley Indian colonial thinkers!)"

I understand clearly what you say when you assert that Hinduism has no "Scripture" - this is an attempt to apply a Christian translation of the Hebrew Toráh sh'b'ál peh where it clearly does not belong. Unfortunately (but fortunately for me), this conversation is being conducted in English, a foreign language not truly fit for effectively discussing Hindu concepts, just as it is not fit for really understanding the Talmud, Torah or Tana"kh or Zohar. This is the linguistic trap you evidently refer to.

Therefore, I can understand your evident distaste for the works of Nina Paley. But help me out here. What do you mean by a binary view of the world? What do you mean by a polymorphous one? I'm not baiting you - I'm asking a civil question, because it might help me to make sense of some of what I read in the comments here. At least one person is attempting a serious explanation of Hinduism, and I'm all "eyes."

We discard that version of Hinduism which requires a degree in theology followed by a six-year course in Upanishads, followed by meditative course under a Banyan tree in some remote village in Bihar, to understand it or follow it. If this religion is not for a common man, please pack it up and go to some resort to make it an elite cult. Don't let it stand as a mainstream religion for a common man

It is precisely for these kind of common/mainstream people who can not analyze and think deep, that Hinduism has panchatantra tales. You need animal animations to be taught. You logic is based on assertion that if a complex formula of inner product between two infinite-dimensional vectors in the complex space is required to prove Riemann Hypothesis, then Riemann Hypothesis is wrong.
Your inability to see beyond and the lack of intellectual prowess required for the deep reasoning hidden in Hinduism makes you feel proud when you brick bat at Hinduism without possessing even an iota of knowledge about it. A fool can ask thousand questions and still remain illusive to answer. You guys do that precisely and make monkey of yourselves, but declare yourself to the world as (pseudo) intellectuals.

You question on how Rama left Sita and The kinds who followed them practiced it, but fail to understand, as to why others who did so are not even remembered…forget about being commemorated.

Panchatantra = Hinduism;
Spiderman = Christianity;

;-)

Star Wars = Buddhism, Lawrence of Arabia = Islam?

And, BTW, you need to have mastered Riemann Hypothesis to understand Hinduism. Did I add Godel's Law to that list? Well, you should have mastered that as well to understand Hinduism.

And did I mention that you need to combine this knowledge with meditation under a Banyan Tree. And make sure you are not under Rahu Kala at that time.

See, Hinduism is quite complex and is more advanced than all results of Modern Sciences put together. Do you not know that results of Quantum Mechanics were already known to Hindus of Vedic Times? They used to have Bosons for breakfast, Fermions for lunch and play with Quarks in the evening.

Aaman: Quite innovative. I couldn't think of those for other religions. Sikhism?

Dune= Buddhism+Islam

"And Hinduism also invented the cannon, gunpowder, and printing."

"Garbage!"

"No! Hinduism did not invent garbage!"
(To borrow a classic bit from Mind Your Language, used in a different context, obviously)

Sujai #107: I like you more and more. Delightful! :) You bring to this heated discussion a much needed sense of humor.

"They used to have Bosons for breakfast, Fermions for lunch and play with Quarks in the evening." Heehee.

Aaman: Buddhism=Star Wars had me in splits!!! LOL :D

Something Funny: On this one episode of The Simpsons where Father Sean comes to meet Homer, Lisa declares that she is a Buddhist. He looks at her, laughs and says 'Well I guess lots of children have imaginary friends" haha.

The whole Panchantatra=Hinduism reminded me of that :D

I am enjoying this discussion more and more, especially since I'm not the one being bashed up....touch wood. :)

Few responses but more or less in order:

Ruvy - Shalom! Well without going into too much detail, one point that Hindu philosophies make is the issue of diverse opinions and approaches. So no single book is the "right" one. While most are supposed to contain "divine" learning, each of them has a different view of life and universe. The Bhagwad Gita sums it up as "Paths are many but the Truth is one."

One literary and philosophical corollary of this is that nothing is absolute. So Hindus - for example - don't have the ten commandments or an equivalent. A human must decide in each case what is correct because an act alone is not good or bad in itself. Similarly, there a various stories of creation - some of which contradict others - and none is discarded or given primacy (or indeed any attempt made to theologically collate and make the discrepancy disappear (for example, in the Jewish theological tradition, the debate over Lilith and the first story of creation). This also translates in to worldviews which isn't perceived as either/or but in terms of "ands."

Aditi - just a correction to Amrita's statement. Ruvy is a poster who generally posts on things to do with Israel and Judaism (the two aren't the same - so sorry if I am offending him, AND contradicting v. bellicose Amrita). Full disclosure: Ruvy and I hold diametrically opposing views on Israeli politics. Mine remain firmly entrenched in the postcolonial point of view. :-)

To return to your post, the moment one "interprets" a culture, one is REPRESENTING. This means through poetry, film, painting, whatever. So whether Paley likes it or not, she is REPRESNTING Indian thought/myths/characters. How and why of such representation then become problematic.

The issue isn't how often the Ramayana is interpreted. The issue - for me anyway - is that far too many of Indian/Asian/African/Indig American ideas have been "interpreted" and "represented" by those with an agenda. During the colonial period, this agenda was far more overt. Now it is cloaked in "personal choice," "freedom of speech" etc. What this doesn't acknowledge are the power equations in constructing that representation! To pretend that this does not happen in reality and is somehow an issue that only matters in university undergraduate course is naive.

Btw, look up Paley. She is hardly someone who has spent eons studying Hindu thought or understanding. It was just another cute "native" idea and she ran with it, with all the entitlement of a Eurocentric! Its happened before and happens on a regular basis now. There is no reason why however it should be accepted without a protest.

And for each Arundhati Roy or Vikram Chandra that punches back (and yes, I realise they have completely different worldviews), there are thousands of non-Indian "representations" of India. These latter are privileged over the Indian ones and thus form the "dominant" discourse on and about India (we should be glad though as the ratios are worse for Africa, Lat Am and ME).

What is more troubling is that few of these representations are rooted in real understanding or study of the cultures they purport to "interpret." (HATE that word as its SUCH a vicious feint!) Those who really spend studying India - whether they be Dianne Eck or Oscar Pujol - don't fall into these traps of representing or "interpreting" India with such entitlement and hubris as they know the pitfalls.

As for your question re SS - well, speaking about a culture is not the same as appropriating the ability to represent that topic and that people! And I agree, she hasn't been "representing."

Or indeed "discussing." Going back on both strings that this discussion has unfolded, I realised she is playing Amrita's wingperson. So good for her...her axe, hers to grind!

Abhishek: anvikshaki at yahoo co in.

Aditi:
I am happy that I could be of amusement. Usually I am bete-noire for many people here ;-)

Anamika,

I think I see where you are coming from. No, you are not insulting me at all. Israel and Judaism are not at all the same. And yes, for the rest of you, Anamika and I hold strongly conflcting views on Israeli politics. 'Nuff said.

Anamika, there may be a degree to which one can see an overlap between Judaism and Hinduism (smallsquirrel, this is for your benefit, so pay attention - I'm going out on a limb here!). In the Talmud, you have a bit of text and far ranging discussions on that bit of text and what it means - and there is usually no right or wrong view because the participants in the discussion did not have the power to enforce a decision. In this sense, there is something of a "polymorphist" view of the world. Additonally, in practice, since there is no Jewish "pope," (yet) there is no final decision on the customs practiced in any given part of the world.

Interestingly enough, Anamika, the very uncertainty you mention in Hinduism would appear make someone from your neck of the woods more easily able to understand concepts like quantum mechanics and quantum physics. They appear more compatible with what appears to be a world-view with no absolutes.

Ruvy, yes, there are areas of overlap as you point out - especially in the debating tradition.

I agree btw with what you said re
"concepts like quantum mechanics and quantum physics. They appear more compatible with what appears to be a world-view with no absolutes."

But if I say it (or indeed Narayan Murthy - head of Infosys does), I would be accused of Hindu nationalist tendencies. :-)

Anamika.... I am no one's "wing person." This is not Top Gun. Get real. I know you fancy yourself intellectually superior to me, and you can have at it. I just don't care to dance to your tune... I think you are tone deaf. I am fully capable of making my own arguments. But frankly, your side of things left me too lazy to care.

Ruvy... I paid attention! :)

Um, "Bellicose Amrita" (hee hee hee!) would like to point out that she never suggested Anamika and Ruvy were twins separated at birth.

That's another ASSUMPTION from the Queen of them.

Hey SS - LOl at Top Gun! You see, when Anamika and Abhishek agree on something, they're just agreeing. However, when she meets two people who disagree with her at the same time, they're obviously working in tandem! I guess this is what Abhishek would call intellectualism.

I guess I cannot be smallsquirrel anymore. You have to call me "goose"

(man I crack myself up)

Yaaaawwwwwwn.....and so it continues!

Guys(and Gals) chill out...go and read stories here…http://panchatantra.org. They may not teach you Riemann Hypothesis, Godel's Law or the concept of duality or familiarize you with existence of quarks, for they were never meant to.

However they will definitely tell you how to understand and appreciate a perspective which is brighter and better than what your ego had built up in you.

#120:
You forgot Jataka Tales. I would like to include Amar Chitra Katha and Tinkle into the list. Would you like to include CHACHA CHAUDHARY in to the list?

Should Chandamama be on the list? It is not exactly a comic, but still quite relevant.

How about the Hanuman animation flick?

Amrita, the Hanuman animation flick has nothing to do with the issue here. Though, I do fail to understand that how can you draw the parallels in here. We are talking of misinterpretation of the symbolism here alone. But then, you wouldn't understand.

One of the chief characteristics of the leftists/ macaulayites is that they tend to become verbose, blow up with hot air and try and prove themselves with inane examples. How does the Amar Chitra Katha feature in here?

No one is trying to prove himself intellectually superior but the Macaulayites are imagining themselves to be. I was indeed surprised to see parallels of the feminism being drawn from misinterpretation of a holy tradition. Any other place and any other time, you would have been either hanged or shot dead or got lashes as part of the "purification" process to purge you out of your delusioned ideas to question the very basics of the morality and holiness.

Most of the issues discussed here and the comments that have followed here hold no relevance to the ground realities. I ride no horse and neither I need to if I have to proclaim that this write up was in the pits. If Amrita really fancies herself to be a Whitey stooge, well she really is!

A person seeped in the "foreign culture" automatically attracts the baggage of "neo con" and "neo-liberalist"- whatever these words mean. They have no right nor any moral sanction to question something that majority of people hold sacred. I am no spokesman but then, I can't keep quiet just to let the whole thing pass away unchallanged.

The low brow "intellectuals" would love to draw themselves in the war of words. It was never the intention but I never knew that I am going to attract hordes of pseudos here like flies to a honey pot. I did and I am surprised indeed to see the decadence and rot in the ideas expressed here.

Your free expression here does not matter on the ground- which is the real icing on the cake. The pseudo idiots are far away cocooned from the realities and at best arm chair critics. I remember the time when we challanged the whole system, went out in searing heat and protested against the quota system and divide and rule policies. Most of the people around here are unwittingly playing to the gallery of "rulers" who are rubbing their hands with glee on seeing the deadwood produced by the education system.

But you wouldn't realise it at all anyway.

holiness is a delusion

What is the meaning of the word delusion, Sir?

NYTimes carries a wonderful article today on the "adaptation" of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (clue: once again, white man saves the day!)

Just another reminder that that racial, cultural, and indeed national/imperial power imbalances regarding representation have not been rendered obsolete. The write up on this 1971 book may well demonstrate - for those who care to question - just how Paley's work fits that larger pattern on cultural appropriation and "misrepresentation" (and yes, white privilege, American exceptionalism as well as colonial othering discourses ALL feed into this larger pattern).

But then a few posters on this forum will argue that in the interests of being "young, urban, cosmopolitan", none of it matters as long everyone has the "freedom to represent things as and how they like."

#121,2 Why not? You are the target audience... and hence you do get to choose. Help yourself !!!

Abhishek - I wasnt talking to you and the less you talk about "relevance" the better. If you want to know what "delusion" means, look in the mirror.

Anamika - You don't even know what cosmopolitanism means do you? Not surprising given that you don't know what any of the other words mean either. No wonder you and Abhishek get each other so well. Both of you are equally clueless.

i'm sorry, the more I read this bullshit the funnier I find it. Abhishek's latest is really cracking me up: so somebody calls me names and I object, and by the act of objecting I've proven that I'm the very thing I object to?

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAA!!!!!

He doesnt ride a high horse but he feels he has the authority to say the people with whom he disagrees ought to be flogged!!!

He also agrees with Anamika who says she would like to say that there are no absolutes in Hinduism but agrees with Abhishek's sentiment.

LMAO!!!

I just happened to remember something about Racial profiling, black riots in Los Angeles (after Rodney King murder), the white supremacists et al. The "blacks" had to fight for their rights from the White "supremacy". It seems to be ingrained in their heads about their infallibility.

I have encountered this attitude many a times. Most of the times, it becomes very difficult to access them for any scientific studies; they lay barriers to the open access and what not. Speaking of culture (which concerns here), they seem to take upon liberties on themselves for the "misinterpretation" or "representation" in any manner they like; all in the name of "free speech".

This is not generalised though. There are exceptions to the rule but then there is no need for a full fledged debate on that count.

The so called "civil liberties" or the "freedom of speech" and "secularism" is mostly British concept (or a white man's concept). Sadly, the svadharma or the Raj Dharma that was enshrined in Hinduism does not get the centre stage it deserves. The crap found it's way in the way we govern ourselves and it's a totally alien concept.

Discussing about "religion" is acceptable within the confines of "knowledgeable debate" but how much relevance does it have outside the narrow purview? Nothing. Interestingly, much of the discussion in Hinduism has centred on Theology and metaphysics and not about the "good" or "bad". Hinduism by it's very nature, does not differentiate between these conflicting emotions. Which makes it easier to interpret in any manner you like. This also means that you cannot exceed your own concious understanding of the issue. Which also means that Amrita, your view point does not necessarily match the generalised perception.

This is one another reason, Amrita that you are at fault. Much of Palley's work falls in her interpretation of what SHE thought was right and she chose it on herself to "prove" it. You chose to highlight it for obvious reasons because you seem to identify with the central theme or thought that was expressed in the work. This makes you a target as much as Palley is. Because even if you did it without realising (which I am sure you did), it offends the sensibilities of a majority of people. And that includes me. Many more who are not even aware of yours or my existence.

This brings me to the initial para. Whites have lot of their own "holy cows" and they realise what needs to be discussed in a "civil place". I know this because I am supposed to know this.

And clearly, you did a disservice to your own self (and the Pan Indianess) by highlighting something that needed to be rejected outright.

A disclaimer here. I am no one to dictate what you should or should not do. That is none of my business. Yet, be prepared for a reaction for something that you have put in a public domain.

Another thing Amrita. I have nothing to do with Anamika. As for being clueless, surely, the sentiment is mutual. But then, in the true ignorance of the issue, I am willing to ignore it and instead focus on the issue here at hand. That appears in my earlier comment.

Lot of anger against the whites! Abhishek here is a DID You- The Piss Christ?

This brings me to the initial para. Whites have lot of their own "holy cows" and they realise what needs to be discussed in a "civil place". I know this because I am supposed to know this.

Human nature is the same whatever be race and culture. I have seen enough animal behavior from the Christian Right against Gays and Liberal on boards where they threatened bodily harm and all.

Its not a reflection on the entire race just a bunch of bullies who rather impose their religious beliefs and interpretations on others.

Oh I see, how this works: you make a completely baseless argument, then defend it by saying if the argument exists then it must be valid, can't really prove anything other than the fact that you think people who disagree with you should be flogged to death and then borrow the arguments of another person to make a fresh stand and then say, hey, I have nothing to do with that poster.

You call me all sorts of names, then say the fact that I object to being called names proves that I must be the things you called me, offer the excuse that SOMEBODY ELSE called you names SOMEWhERE ELSE on SOME OTHER ISSUE and then out of nowhere this becomes something to do with blackness and then you CONTINUE calling me names and then say YOU are willing to ignore it.

So you're willing to ignore your own behavior is it? How very kind of
you.

When you're able to find an actual argument of some kind in the midst of all that persecution complex, do let me know. Otherwise I suggest you keep talking to people who understand your sentiment because your sentiment is about all you have.

Discussing about "religion" is acceptable within the confines of "knowledgeable debate" but how much relevance does it have outside the narrow purview? Nothing.

Who gets to decide who has the knowledge and who doesnt? Kabir was just a weaver and yet his words were so profound.

And if you don't like whats been said switch channels, don't read the stuff, or counter it with facts but don't try to infringe on the person right to voice their opinions or interpretations.

The more I read your comments the more I realize there is more personal baggage that you are putting in this argument than needed and you need to step back and figure out what is it you are fighting against - yourself - the changing times or the wrongs done to you by some people abroad.

Well done abhishek. Amrita is just a confused feminist who takes on hinduism just becos she can. What does she have to say against the repression of women in Xtianity or Islam? She wont utter a word, cos 1) Hindus generally are a benign lot who wont react or overreact. 2) She is not an Xtian or muslim. and 3) She aint got no BALLS!!

Leastways you got one of the three right, though she does have sharp skewers:)

At the age of sixteen , Saint Dnyaneshwar wrote the interpretation of Bhagavad Gita called "Bhavartha Deepika" (Dnyaneshwari). At the time not only did he counter severe criticism from the Brahmin scholars who claimed he was not knowledgeable enough to do so but also his family had been ostracized and denied basic needs like food, water and social provisions. Now I am in no way comparing Paley's work to Dnyaneshwari but today years later after that sixteen year old boy took a samadhi (vow towards an end) millions of followers gather in Alandi from not only Maharashtra or India but from all over the world to pay their homage to his contribution. So one cannot claim that knowledge of dogma is essential for innovating divergent philosophies. We have no way of finding out what is an enlightened view until we have given it a chance and seen the future.

neeraj, you need to go and read Jawahara's post to see how fearless Muslim women can be. And Amrita is fighting for the spirit that Abhishek wants to curtail which we Hindus cherish- Freedom of Speech

Abhishek,

Excellent article.
I agree 100 percent to what you say.

OOoo tigers ..these muslim women, in their bee keepers costumes..sharing their hubbies with three other women, marrying the koran, being pregnant for 15 years of their lives, ...real tigers..em lot.

neeraj, you have no idea how asinine and sexist and sheltered you sound, do you?

I could probably list enough successful, independent Muslim women to fill a book, and go on to note that they also serve who stand and wait, etc. but why bother.

amaan, you are just another blind follower of Mohammad the paedophile, mohammad the priate..why dont u go read prophetofdoom.net. to put some extra stress on those unipolar neurons of urs.

Aaman,

We appreciate that you can compile a booksworth of
"enough successful, independent muslim women", but surely you wouldn't deny that they would be exceptions to the general state of women in islamic world rather that the general state.

All you need to do is let a fool talk and wait for him to make a fool of himself.

Here are the gems from the author of this article:

But then, in the true ignorance of the issue, I am willing to ignore it [emphasis added]

;-) [Can anyone make sense out of this?]

Whites have lot of their own "holy cows" and they realise what needs to be discussed in a "civil place". I know this because I am supposed to know this. [emphasis added]

How do you know Bible is the truth?
It is the truth because it is the word of God

How do you know it is the word of God?
It is written in the Bible (that it is the word of God)

;-)

I know this because I am supposed to know this. This must be the mantra of all religious bigots on this planet.

It is not possible to know the truth, I have only defended my implicit faith in what I believe is true.

;-)
Hmm.. And how do they know what is true and what is not?

The sum of the beliefs is held to be true if a majority of people hold that view point.

No wonder these guys abhor Science. They vote on all truths. Does Sun move round Earth? They take a vote. Is Earth flat? They vote on it. Empiricism is 'alien concept' to them.

And that they don't understand even the basics of Science is given by:

Why does Sun rise in the east and not otherwise? Why not any other direction?

Though he doesn't understand what fundamentalism is (because he is one of them):

The word "fundamentalism" is flawed and we tend to use it without really understanding what it means.

He knows exactly what a pseudo-secular and pseudo-intellectual means (because that's what we all are supposed to be):

A pseudo secular or a pseudo intellectual is one who comments on, or is knowledgeable of, disciplines outside his or her own field of study is not a pseudointellectual, as long as he or she is intellectually honest and does not misrepresent his or her own background and understanding of the subject.

Could anyone make any sense out of this? BTW, if you have understood what it means, you should submit it to Abel Prize Committee. The underlying logic is so profound that it may have already solved the Poincaré conjecture, the Riemann hypothesis, et al, all in one go.

Now look at this inconsistency-

One must accept the fact that one can be questioned on the assertions that are made in the public.

However,

Symbolism ideally should be left alone. It makes no sense to devote time and patience criticize Hinduism.

They reserve the right to tell you what can be questioned and what cannot be. Hinduism is put into that category called Symbolism, and hence cannot be criticized.

This is what happens to you if you criticize it.

Any other place and any other time, you would have been either hanged or shot dead or got lashes as part of the "purification" process to purge you out of your delusioned ideas to question the very basics of the morality and holiness. [emphasis added]

Wow! And if you have any doubts on how their ideology works, look at this gem:

The so called "civil liberties" or the "freedom of speech" and "secularism" is mostly British concept (or a white man's concept)... The crap found it's way in the way we govern ourselves and it's a totally alien concept.

No wonder these Hindutva supporters completely oppose civil liberties, freedom of speech and secularism. Isn't this what we have been arguing about these upholders of faith?

It's really interesting that comments on an article that purports to question Hinduism-bashing devolve to Muslim-bashing, then again, maybe not.

Forget the book. name TEN. (ur family and ur 4 wives dont count)

thats the lamest argument of this whole discussion.
bet u slept on the post and could come up with this sorry reply only in the morning. just because your could not understand what it means does not man others don't. whats with the winks and smileys ?
cant u use words or what?

Can't you write proper English or what? ;-)

'Morning' is relative.

no i am like that onlee.
i use words.
not winks.

Good for you. Hopefully, some day you will start making sense too!

yes my life on this planet shall e justified when i start making as much sense as you do.

hey me see you blog.
bery bery good.
u atheist. u like muslims. u give them kashmir, chehcnya. u let them have their own oil.
if we sould av let em done that those camel-lovers would have killed each other.

yo peace for the atheist bro!

hey sujai, are u another coward, trying ur luck bashing hinduism over the net? does it give u some sort of an intellectual orgasm, when u do that?

nce thing u got going here.
ok let me call myself an atheist.
i'll make lousy nonsens statements.
when anyone wil challenge me, i'll make fun of their religion. esp those hindus.

[EDITED]

Read the real face of islam. at www.prophetofdoom.net

btw. i liked your posts on the dam. ( in all seriousness).gotta giveyou that.

Never quote anything about India from a western scholar. The western scholars have proved themselves to be incapable of understanding India. I am sick and tired of the Malculayites on this forum trying to denigrate and put down India and Indian culture just because some Gora wrote something.

Good Job Abhishek. I hope to see more writing like this.

The malcaulite mind ALWAYS has contempt for India and Indian culture. It is a real problem. And it pervades all of the media in India.

Such thinking is really indicative of people having an inferiority complex. These people are not happy to call themselves Indians and want us to change so that we be like the Goras. This is not going to happen. India will maintain its unique character notwithstanding the media garbage heaped on true Indians like Narendra Modi.

Please keep the good work going.

Suggested reading on tackling Macaulites can be had from the articles of Rajiv Malhotra, Sankrant Sanu, Rajeev Srinivasan and Ramesh Rao. Some of these articles are archived in sulekha.com

It is amusing to see the "progressive" indians living abroad hacking away the timeless classic Ramayana! Ramayana (or even Mahabharata) never ever take a position on any subject. They just present to the readers the moral dilemmas that the main characters faced and their final choices which they thought were good. Unlike Bible and Islam, none of the Hindu epics preach the readers what is right and what is wrong in black and white. It makes most intelligent readers think for themselves what choices they would have made had they been in the shoes of these characters. To me, interpreting the characters' choices in the epic and calling it right or wrong is utterly foolish! Appreciate the classics for what they are and try to understand what they are trying to convey rather than literally interpreting them! If the American cartoonist has interpreted it to suit her sorry personal life, others may find something more noble in the other parts of it which ispires them to nobler causes! Such are the gems you will find in these greatest works of human intellect of all times. The choice is yours!

Amrita, why do not you find anything good in Ramayana? Why do not you see the some of the noblest human qualities detailed there in? Like respecting his elders, keeping his word, helping the friends out in the time of need, so on and so forth. Why are you so hung up on what happened to Sita alone? Why do you think that Rama was happy with his decision to forgo Sita? Is he not the kind of husband you would like to have compared to wife beaters and promiscous men in the world? By the way, it is about Rama's personal life. Had he not loved Sita, would he have taken the trouble of going all the way upto Lanka against all odds to bring her back? Answer me these questions.

OOoo tigers ..these muslim women, in their bee keepers costumes..sharing their hubbies with three other women, marrying the koran, being pregnant for 15 years of their lives, ...real tigers..em lot.

This is like an aggrieved goon robbing your home and saying at least he isnt like the goon would have raped you along with theft.

Hilarious!!

Never quote anything about India from a western scholar. The western scholars have proved themselves to be incapable of understanding India. I am sick and tired of the Malculayites on this forum trying to denigrate and put down India and Indian culture just because some Gora wrote something.

So today if a Dalit woman wrote her version of Ramayana you fellows would accept it? I think not.
Stop using the race card.

abhishek... your interpretation of racial relations in the US makes about as much sense as if I based what happens in India on the Gujarat riots. You're an ignorant one, and it seems you're now got some equally as dense followers. Good on you.

Dear Bloggers,

I have a grouse here, other than the merits or otherwise of the topic under discussion. Why is it that many of the bloggers start attacking others? Like calling others names, such as stupid, idiotic, whiteys or whatnot. It is just distracting from the debate and in the end one can never reach a satisfactory consensus this way. I wish we all desist from personal attacks, even if couched in civilities, because after all the debate is not about individuals but the ideas.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Small squirrel, You also appear to have a squirrel brain! Blacks did not burn 60 innocent children and women! Had it happened in usa, Blacks would have been wiped out literally from USA! In fact, balcks were lynched, their women raped and were slaves not too long ago. Compare this with the lot of Muslims in India, including Gujarat. In fact, according to a recent survey, the urban Hindus lag behind Urban Muslims in terms of employment. Go figure with your squirrel brain!

What I am saying, if you are done needlessly insulting me, is that you're painting a skewed picture of race relations today in the US. You obviously do not understand a damned thing about how things work today. Is there equality? no. but those riots are NOT representative of everyday life in the US.

The inequality lies with the educational system which is entirely inadequate and mostly tax-based, so that people living in poor towns and ghettos within cities are being giving substandard quality of education. Without proper education, one's life is started at a massive disadvantage. This is only the start of the issues. I never said issues don;t exist, I said it's not a race war.

But you want to paint a picture like all whites are out there now lynching black people, and the US is one big race riot with blacks having nothing.... and that is just a load of crap. You pulled your sociological stats right out of your bum... and I caught you.

I see the dumbos have crawled out to play. Isn't it interesting to see the kind of people who support Abhishek? What was that about a man and the company he keeps?

As for the one person who asked me whether I'd write this way about other religions - Yes and I have.

Of course, it is entirely beside the point here that my article DIDNT criticize Hinduism. In fact, Abhishek HIMSELF ADMITTED that I didnt and that he simply picked on me as a convenient face for words he'd heard somewhere else.

In other words, let me make this absolutely clear - HE LIED and then his little friends came here to DEFEND HIS LIES. How very intellectual and brave of the lot of you.

@ SS - Don't bother. For him to understand those things means he would have to listen. That's too much of a big problem.

@ Madhwa - it's all very well and good for you to ask me those questions. But WHY are you asking me those questions? Please find an example wherein I have done the things that you accuse me of doing. I can't defend things I haven't done.

@ Ravi Kulkarni - that would be really nice and I must say you've done your bit. Except this entire "discussion" is centered on a massive bout of name calling. It is merely a reflection on your good friend Abhishek.

''This is like an aggrieved goon robbing your home and saying at least he isnt like the goon would have raped you along with theft.''

As usual this [EDITED] has completely missed the point. we are talking about a generation of muslim women who thinks hijab (a sign of oppression) is their birth right. and they even fight court battles to keep their ''right''. Im sure the pseudo sucukularists and pseudo feminists would be very happy with this,..as this gives these [EDITED] a chance to MOAN ...and MOAN is ALL they can do.

neeraj, the analogy went above your head. No harm done. Its the women's prerogative to wear what they want but it also depends upon the laws of the land they live in.

As far as being bitches is concerned we take ownership of the word. With people like you we have to be aggressive and nasty, its a word that denotes empowerment because thats the only way men like you try to get back at educated women who wont take your crap lying down.
Any other pot shot you want to take since your entire argument is based on nothing but venomous froth?

Else run along since the village is soooo missing it's idiot.

Someone above said ''religion isnt open for discussion''. I couldnt agree more. Especially in the case of Hinduism. cos most of us are BORN INTO a religion and we just absorb the values handed down by our way of life. Most religions try to balance itself between Positive values and Negative values.Some have more positive than negatives. Hinduism is probably the BEST RELIGION because it has the LEAST negative values in it. (as opposed to ISLAM which preaches to kill, kill, rob, and then kill). So debating about Hinduism would be like debating about your own paretns. trying to figure out their positives, negatives, and critisizing their each and every actions. Any one can do that if they choose to, and if they find toomany faults can rebel, hurt and eventually disown their parents. And you could do the same with your own religion. and THAT would be the easier option. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to ones own parents ands ones own religion. Hinduism as I think of it is much more than a way of life, it is a science. It is not just ramayana or mahabharata or veda which makes hindiusm. it is also the ayurveda, the vaastu shastra, jyotisha shastra, and even the kamasutra. IT IS THE MOST COMPLETE RELIGION THAT EVER EXISTED. Im sure if everyone understood the complete picture of the REAL hinduism, their ONE BOOK, ONE MAN relgions would be minisculed to oblivion in their own minds. But HINDUS neither PREACH nor have a CONVERSION AGENDA. Instead they chose to live and let live. And chose not to critisize these NEO - CULTs. But dont think of that as a WEAKNESS. Cos it isnt. Every ATTACK on hinduism and our values, WILL BE defended. So cut the crap and move on..

Deepti, Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. Islamic women never CHOSE to wear their bee-keeper costume or their hijabs. It was forced upon them. And no, it does not depend on the law of the land, they fight for their ''RIGHTS'' in EVERY single country they go to. Muslims are the only lot who dont care for the law of ANY land. FYKI, most of these court battles are fought by ''EDUCATED WOMEN'' like you. That puts you in perspective, doesnt it? Now since you ARE the village idiot, you probably wouldnt know what goes on elsewhere, but there is very little anyone can do to change that. Try marrying a rich man, that might be ur ticket... [EDITED].

My take on Hinduism:
Link: The Beauty of Hinduism - If There is Any

Wow sujai..another orgasm?????

Neeraj, as usual you resort to crap to cover your sorry ass.

Hinduism too mandates a lot of things but we have moved forward, atleast most of us. But if a woman in Rajasthan remains in purdah its her prerogative or would you lecture her to wear a mini and parade around in the name of feminism.

Lol your macho anger shows your immaturity. You are nothing more than Taliban version of a Hindu fellow. Glad there are less men like you in our faith.

Pipe down or you will burst a vein or something.

Deepti, Amrita:
"Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

;-)

Deepti, Amrita:
"Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

;-)

Deepti, definition of crap isnt ''any thing that deeptis pea brain doesnt fathom'' ok??
Hinduism mandates nothing to oppress their women. If it does, prove it, by quoting a shloka from any of the hindu epics. No, I wouldnt dare asking hags like you to walk around in a mini skirt, cos ppl might have a heart attack. Purdah, suits you just fine...
It is funny to read your ignorant ramblings, your stupid ideas, about feminism. Your kind of man, Ill never be, you need a hen pecked guy who jumps like a monkey to all of ur whims and fancies. Sure you wont like real men. HEck, i dont think you will ever come face to face with a real man. cos the minute they find out what you are..they will walk the other way. As for you, [EDITED]

sujai... normally I would agree with you, but I think it's time for us "bitches" to speak. :)

this guy doesn't know his bum from a hole in the ground.

neeraj... I think you're laughable. hinduism is not up for discussion but you can talk whatever trash you wish about islam? please. and you clearly don't know the first thing about it. but it's nice you take in all the spoon-fed pap that's given to you and regurgitate it as your own. you're a brilliant thinker, really. have you considered a career in stand up comedy?

Neeraj, put away the meth and talk civilly if you'd like your views to be considered and discussed.

smalllll..[EDITED] er, squirrel, I dint start discussing islam, until the suckularists and islamists like you started discussing hinduism. this is one thing you peabrained lot could never figure out, could ya? here it is again. hindus dont go attacking other religions..we dont discuss other religions, or our own. UNLESS SOMEONE ATTACKS OUR RELGION. (emphasis on capitals for gits like you) Get it? Phew!! that was a hard one to figure out isnt it?
Standup comedy?
sure..here is one for you..
Qn: why is smallsquirrel called so...
Ans: cos he his brain is smaller than [EDITED:BASELESS SPECULATION].

my views.. considered... by you??? hahaa ..hilarious. you are the only islamist to enter the forum with a muslim name, ill give u that. the rest of the lot like dipti, and sujai..rely on hindu names to get their point across. pathetic!! Get this straight..the only view I have is stop critisizing hinduism ... but seems like your lot cant stop doing that can ya, so face the music.

liked your joke... good thing, too cause I am a woman! and now apparently an islamist! wow, what a day for me....

(laughing hysterically)

dipti,
Dont worry about my vein popping. it is your oestrogens that you should worry about. Cos right now..theyre flying high, babe...but Dont worry dear, it will pass off in a few days..until the next cycle!!

smallwhatever,
no wonder!! whats it today..oestrogens day out, or something?? u NOT an islamist?? why dont u tell us WHAT YOU ARE??? (if you have figured it out , that is)

I'm split wide open with the generalizations and stereotyping going on - it's evident this troll got evicted from his bridge, for obvious reasons, I should add, 'cause he couldn't deal with his own identity.

Aaman, my bridge is and always have been India. Cant say the same for u dude. Dint your lot take a piggyback ride on indias freedom struggle and then DEMAND a pakistan all for yourself, once the hardwork was done? wonder why your forefathers dint go there? kicked out for obvious reasons, idendity crisis? or did they decide to leave a mole and let u do ur thing?

I know what's going on. neeraj is a Hindu God.

Wow sujai....[EDITED: PERSONAL ATTACK]...was that for the road??

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Man, did Neeraj get flamed!

Sujai - you're doing pigs a disservice by comparing them with this kind of offal. It's so hilarious that Abhishek the fearless Hindu warrior with S&M fantasies went crying for help. And Neeraj calls the women on this board "bitches". Hahahaha!

I hope Ravi Kulkarni is paying attention.

Amrita:
Sorry, my bad. I will not demean pigs further.

Amrita:
How about pig god?
Do I restore some dignity back to the pigs?

Another OESTRGOEN [EDITED] joining in..oh wait..Ill be damned..if it aint the [EDITED] who started the whole thing. Looks like the only one who got FLAMED was your sorry ass. And puhleesse dont laugh like that..you are scaring the kids...but then again...cant control it, can ya, [EDITED]

Way to go sujai...another one...you beat the meat like no other [ EDITED :BRAINLESS ALLEGATIONS] are gettin all excited...what a nice lil orgy u got here.
now why dont u pick on the gods by name..or are u waiting for the climax?

neeraj

i just wonder if you are doing any service to hinduism. especially with the kind of language. to each his own - prakritim yaanti bhootani as the Gita says.

what are you defending in hinduism? so if you are born in hinduism you can't find fault?

what if i am born as a dalit and i do not like the way my parent hinduism treats me. should i take it lying down? do i become an enemy if i point out the rubbish that is there in hinduism?

sujai, [EDITED: BRAINLESS ALLEGATIONS]

My Fellow Commenters:
You have to excuse me here, but let me repeat myself here (from #144):

'All you need to do is let a fool talk and wait for him to make a fool of himself.'

Balaji:

do i become an enemy if i point out the rubbish that is there in hinduism?

In the version 2.0.0.7 of Hinduism, Yes, you do. Didn't you get the circular? Ask one of VHPs or Bajrang Dals. They may send you the latest version.

no balaji, you dont become an enemy if you oppose dalit oppresion. but the truth is no hindu scritpure has ever glorified casteism. it is easy to get confuse hinduism with some of the social injustices that some manipulators created for their own personal reasons. i dont think YOU should have any problems if you are a dalit in INDIA now. Cos you get 50% reservation for any damn thing you choose to do. Isnt it great?? Effectively, it is like we are telling half of our kids they cant go to school cos their seat is taken by someone, who great grandad was discriminated against. if you are a brahmin in india , you are doomed in this era. i know a poor music teacher, who sings really good, but wont geta job in AIR just becos he is a brahmin. ONe social injustice DOES NOT rectify another. Two negatives DOES NOT make a positive.
As for my language, I m not (or pretend to be) a characeter out of a shakespearean play ..I speak the way I see it.

sujai.. well, now I agree. which is why I am not saying a word. pointless!

(you know, battle of wits with an unarmed man and all that....)

Oh my god, Neeraj called me a bitch! What a bad word! How daring of him! How very representative of Indian and Hindu culture! How will I live? Let me cry into my pillow. I'm so shattered...

on a side note: devil woman? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sujai - Is a pig god the god of pigs? Because I think pigs are too intelligent to worship this dumb ho.

Guys, for once in my life I find myself pitying this fellow's low life condition.

I know the stuff Mr Neeraj is spouting will get edited but its so damn hilarious. O-estrogen?

character out of a Shakespearean play? ROFL!!! this display of ignorance is priceless.

SS, he's not just unarmed, he's bare naked!

I am just happy... I have had a big growth day. I went from being a jewish woman to an islamist man all in one day! but I am still a bitch! with a dick! hooray!

Deepti - no, no - OestrogenS! Don't forget the S at the end!

YOU amrita, have made the biggest fool of urself by saying
''How very representative of Indian and Hindu culture!''
It was you who said you never said anything against hinduism..PERFECT EXAMPLE FOOL MAKING A FOOL OF HIMSELF.... This is what you always had in mind.
If you hate India and Hindus so much why dont u change your name, get yourself out of the country and never come back? Try Saudi ARabia, heard women are held in a pedestal there..
With that laughter, youll be 'held' even higher..;-))

And I am supposed to be an unmarried bitch/hag looking for a meal ticket but no macho man would have me ...woe be on me.... Ahem......This is more fun than watching a monkey baring his teeth on a tree.

pity ppl dont know how to spell their main driving hormone. pity they dont know it is a protein..pity they dont know basic english grammar (not the one who married your grandad)..tsk tsk

And he spoke...AGAIN!!....pearls of wisdom....let me gather them

Ams, we have our own comedy show going on;)

I apologize to you all on behalf of neeraj.

One has to speak for those who can't speak for themselves (or cannot speak intelligibly).

the women of this form started off with such high standards, but now they have displayed their true colours. i have to agree with neeraj here, (except for his abusive language)..everyone is having a go at the hindu religion. say hinduism, automatically they relate it to sati, dowry, casteism etc, i dont think any of these values are ever mentioned in mainstream hindu scriptures.

excuse me ladies. oestrogen is the british spelling and estrogen is the american spelling. like colour and color.

ahh finally, the BITCHES' fighting skills reach yet another level. this is their penultimate trick..they try to CRACK JOKES, when they are stuck for an answer. The next step is THE GREAT TEAR TRICK....made my day..seeing the variety of these skills from them.

Um, no neeraj, you assmonkey.. Dehydroepiandrosterone is the most prevalent hormone in my body. And it would be in yours too if you were a human.

Wow..dipti frantically GOOGLEING FOR OESTROGEN...Moron..it is DI hydro epiandrosterone..and DHEA is NOT YOUR PREDOMINANT HORMONE.
What a complete IDIOT..it is OESTROGEN AND PROGESTERONE, fool..go back to school (or go to school, whatever)..

Soothsayer thanks of the nugget of truth but apart from that little piece of clarification there is nothing new that you have added to the argument.

Here is where we stand- the religious right rather the brahmins, Godmen and pundit have the right to interpret the religion but we rather let the world discover it for themselves.

By coming into contact with the religion there is always the potential for them to learn something new and thereby become better people but its their choice how deep they dip into the ocean of knowledge and what they make of it.

Ultimately what we -ladies and gentlemen are arguing is to Protect Freedom of Speech which Hindus hold dear to their hearts.

And why bring Muslims into the argument? Whats that got to do with this argument?

When a family is having a fight they don't go around throwing muck at the neighbors right?

Neeraj had nothing to prove if anything else he did the other side a gigantic disservice by becoming totally incoherent, irrational and abusive

buraa jo dekhan mai chalya,
buraa na miliya koye.
jo dil dekhya aapano,
mujhsa bura na koye.

dipti, sure you are doing a great thing arguing for freedom of speech. but when you say things like ''behaviour typical of indians, and hindus'' arent you stereotyping an entire country and religion?

I dint bring muslims into this argument, but I am sure you would agree that, if a woman is oppresed in Islam, that issue needs to be addressed just as much as a hindu woman getting oppressed.

Secularism is protecting all religions, isnit it? so why focus only on minority religions. we should also protect hindiusm. in india, if you write or say anything against islam, you get punished by law, becausse it is a minority relgion, but there is no law protecting similar attack against hindiusm. isnt this unfair? which other country has such laws which lets any free attack on their values, based on the principle of freedom of speech.
finally, im not here for a fight. so pls dont think that i am taking sides. but i always focus on WHAT people say rather that HOW they say it.

Neeraj/soothsayer (stick to one nick, btw, easier to demolish your arguments, and in line with our comment policy which you don't seem to care about) - your point is valid, in the sense that oppressed people must be spoken up for, but how does vitriolic commentary help make your point, anyway, if you're going to continue in the vein of #217, you're entering the debatable spectrum, and we'll listen and perhaps even respond.

BTW, it's Deepti, not Dipti, and also, FWIW, my dad came over here in the Partition, not the other way round as you mentioned in #186 and I've got ancestors back to the trees who fought for this land, so these recent divisions and even religions mean squat to me.

I dont think i have broken any comment policy, aman. it is surprising that you think the pro-hindu argument cannot be made by more than one person.
Nice to know about your family. deepti, forgive my spelling error.

hey aman, ...why dont u go to pakistan or saudiarabia and fight against the burkha. why dont u come in open saying that you dont need any reservation, cos you are just as good as the hindus, why dont u fight for the indian cause for kashmir, why dont u fight against the inclusion of sharia law in india.
dipti, some info for you, this is not a family fight. if it was, muslims like aman wont be in it. this is apublic forum open to the whole world. and India dont have separate laws for Hindus..

Sooth sayer- Some women want to wear the hijab, thats their choice and those who don't should have the choice not to wear it.

Any woman whatever be her religion should have the right to follow her faith as she deems fit.

I am against the concept of minority except for those who are economically downtrodden


The heart of the matter is that we cannot curtail others freedom for one day our own will be in danger.

soothsayer:

Few clarifications-

Secularism is protecting all religions, isnit it?

Not really. Secularism is actually separating state from the religion. This is to be done my 'giving no importance to any religion'. However, Indians modified this to 'giving equal importance to all religions'.

We are not debating that here.

However, protecting a religion is not inclusive of either definitions of secularism. However, protecting one's rights to a practice a religion is included in the Fundamental Rights, and protected through laws framed to ensure that.

in india, if you write or say anything against islam, you get punished by law, becausse it is a minority relgion, but there is no law protecting similar attack against hindiusm. isnt this unfair? [emphasis added]

We would rather have no punishment for criticizing or hurting any religion. Instead of applying that 'no punishment rule' to Islam, you want to include Hinduism into that retrograde laws. That's what we are fighting here on this forum. Don't make Hinduism dogmatic and authoritarian that suppresses individual expression (even when that expression includes downright criticism, ridicule and insult).

You should have framed the question reversely. Isn't it unfair that while Hindus enjoy the freedom, Muslims in India are still stifled by age-old dogmatic systems? Shouldn't they also be freed from the clutches of religious bigots? Shouldn't their women get more freedom, Shouldn't their people get more freedom to live their lives their own way?

which other country has such laws which lets any free attack on their values, based on the principle of freedom of speech.

;-)
What do you think?

Neeraj, what makes you so sure that Aaman is a muslim and not a Parsi?

corrections in #222:
This is to be done my 'giving no... should read as:
This is to be done by 'giving no..

...protecting one's rights to a practice a religion should read as:

...protecting one's rights to practice a religion

I feel that there is this feeling of being persecuted amongst muslims that is at the heart of the problem. Pls explain what you mean by hindus enjoying a freedom that muslims dont? what age old dogmatic system are you talking about? as far as i know, hindus are the ones being victimized by the govt, media, and even some of their own, simply becasue of their past. should a son be tried for their fathers crime? i dont think so.
you are right about the word meaning of secular. but the concept in the indian context is misconstrued to anti-hindu.
when you say you dont want to any punishment for critisizng any religion, then we should change our laws to include islam in it. because currently islam cannot be critized in india. appears to me that it is islam which is the authoritarian relgion here.
finally, i dont think i can change ur way of thinking. nor can you change mine. i dont believe in religious fights, or religious revolutions. but i feel that some amount of respect should be in place amongst all relegions to others relgion and also to their own. this is only possible when people stop discussing religions on public forums. it will always lead to arguments and abuse. i have seen it on many other forums. there are no winners in this. so i will rest my case.

dipti. parsis are not hindus either, the last time i checked.

Since you ask, here I tell.

Pls explain what you mean by hindus enjoying a freedom that muslims dont?

While Hindus enjoy the freedom of bashing up their religion, Muslims cannot.

appears to me that it is islam which is the authoritarian relgion here.

Yes. No doubts on that.

but i feel that some amount of respect should be in place amongst all relegions to others relgion and also to their own.

Agreed.

this is only possible when people stop discussing religions on public forums.

Disagreed.

Respect does not diminish with discussing, criticizing, ridiculing, and insulting the religion. On the other hand, such discussions, criticism, ridicules and insults allow people to vent their anger, express their feeling and allow the religion to accept diversified views. I would rather berate and bash up my religion to make sure it doesn't turn dogmatic.

so i will rest my case.

And I will keep fighting.

Soothsayer, fortunately on the net everything goes except for pedophilia, stalking and threats to do physical harm or kill.

Public boards actually provide the means to air out issues which in real life could and do bring people to blows.

One can hold civil dialogs without resorting to name calling. It gets very tedious after a while dealing with those who resort to verbal violence when all fails.

Sarcasm is a double edged sword....sigh...why do I even try to joke with neeraj who simply doesn't get the humor.

sujai, I repeat: I cannot change the way you think , nor can you change mine.
but pls remember, when you berate and bash your own religion, you set off a revolution against your own, in the minds of the young and impressionable. that does irreparable damage to the religion as a whole and all the good values will soon be forgotten.
i prefer the better way of highliting the positives and omitting the negatives, (which never was hinduism anyways), so that the new generation never learns it. this is the way i was brought up, so i dont know to discriminate by caste or religion.
finally, i will continue my dharamyudh, and good luck to urs too.

love you all.

and what this definition of hindu religion? the practice of religion in its rituals and all? then rituals lose meaning as time goes by. kaala dharma?

if it is a philosophical tradition then it includes many more schools - many of which do not fall under the 'vedic' school alone.

and neeraj does not krishna in the gita say chaaturvarnam maya sristam?

and thank you for the brilliant example of the music teacher. no the dalits only get about 12 -14 percent reservation. often times they get cheated out of that also.

a religion (the version that you seem to be fond of protecting with all that seem to have) doesn't care for the plight of 15-20 percent of its population what kind of religion do you call it?

and if you say, should i be penalized for my father's crime, you are talking of a contract system, which seems to be from the rationalist modernist western inspired school - i am responsible for my actions not of others.

you were not responsible for the caste system, aren't you? then why are you so upset if someone criticizes that part of hinduism?

''Respect does not diminish with discussing, criticizing, ridiculing, and insulting the religion. On the other hand, such discussions, criticism, ridicules and insults allow people to vent their anger, express their feeling and allow the religion to accept diversified views.''

REALLY???? YOU never cease to amaze me..after all that you rambled about me critisizing, ridiculing, and insulting you...you come up with this!! simply amazing.

balaji, sure man..thanks for opening my eyes. the 80% of this country will step aside for 20% minority. thanksman..what a brilliant idea. why dint we think of it before?? ever heard of the word MERIT????

I dont think sujai is a hindu at all. he says he is an Indian Hindu therefore he will fight INdians and Hindus..try deciphering that logic!!! He is like a net - terrorist, fighting a guerilla war. Thankgod he cant explode in my computer.

Amrita, sure you seem to have been beaten up in the corner. I don't know Neeraj at all but after these comments, I would want to know this guy. Neeraj, click on the link below my name, you'd be directed to my blog and there you could contact me with your email id. I'd be glad to know you for the concurrence of ideas.

Frankly, this is the typical reaction of the educated elite. FYI, I am a superspecialist (a doctor) but in no way, I subscribe to the notion of buckling as far as the Dharma goes. For my dharma teaches me to respect other view points and it teaches me to defend it from the onslaught of the morons weilding their keyboards.

The next battle is the pen. For too long, the "secularists" and the "leftists" and the whitey stooges have held sway over the media and the blogosphere. For all those who concur with my idea, we need to take them on and highlight our view point.

I don't know how the discussion veered towards hormones but then I am naturally inclined to concur with Neeraj that most of these females resort to "humour" and "sarcasm" when they have nothing substantial to say.

Unfortunately, our very own grounding does not allow us to appreciate the beauty of our own heritage. Partly by circumstances and partly by education. Most of the Indian Americans seem to subscribe to the notion that berating anything and everything about India would automatically place them on a higher pedestal. Perhaps equating themselves with the Whitey nuts and supping with them. Hinduism is far more resilient than anything else- except for the fact that constant attacks on it's ideas and roots would surely weaken it. And I am determined not to let that happen.


Amrita, mind you, so far, I have not equated you with the female equivalent of man's best friend as others might have done so. But someone who cannot really believe in her own culture and in a very concious and unconcious manner berates it to the extent that it hurts the sensibilities is really [EDITED] And as Neeraj was saying, [EDITED]

neeraj:
REALLY???? YOU never cease to amaze me..

That's because I am in the business of amazement. ;-)


And unless you do something dramatic to increase your IQ or 'capacity to learn', you will continue to get amazed by every scintilla of intelligent thought thrown at you.

And this is to give you (and some of your friends on this forum) a primer on how I work- so that you cease to get an 'orgasm' each time you read a comment from me.

Link: Why do we criticize our nations?

'Questioning our government's stance and oneself is only the first step towards rational thought.'
[Now, I will include 'my religion' in addition to our government].

'Why do they want me to stop criticizing my nation that I take pride in, when the very reason I take pride in it is because it allows that criticism?'

[I will include 'my religion' in addition to my nation].

'We, the miniscule few critics of India, consider ourselves different kind of champions of India and its institutions. For us, the greatness is not found in ancient texts or Akhand Bharat.'

'We believe in looking inward to build institutions that give fair trial, equal opportunity, and guarantee for fundamental rights. However, we do not believe in forcing those values down the throats of others- then it becomes an ideology.'

And you should understand why I oppose this author (who represents the 'upholders of Hinduism') when he says:

The so called "civil liberties" or the "freedom of speech" and "secularism" is mostly British concept (or a white man's concept)... The crap found it's way in the way we govern ourselves and it's a totally alien concept.

Lol, Sujai: "...I am in the business of amazement." Priceless. I've been following this one from a distance lest I be accused of things like my Muslim brother Aaman is being accused of. Welcome to the fold, Aaman ;-).

soothsayer:
I cannot change the way you think , nor can you change mine.

I don't agree with you on this. I can change in belief systems. And I have changed. And I will change if there is a rational thought put across that questions my preconceived notions.

Rather you should say that you cannot change and you don't want to change. That's quite OK with me. Please don't change. There are many out there on this planet who don't want to change. I don't go about changing all of them. And I am not in the business of changing people either.

But if someone wants to impose their version of what is right on me changing my lifestyle (because they think their version is better than mine), I am going to fight tooth and nail. That's what I am doing here.

Abhishek, taking a page from Neeraj's book? I'd have expected you to be more civil under pressure being a doctor and all.

We as a nation would be very glad to disown you. And as Neeraj was saying, no REAL man would ever want to be associated with you.

Now you speak for the Entire Nation? Most Indian Men would disagree with your definition of 'Real men' who think the best way to drown out an argument is to get as verbally offensive as possible.

None of us would like to associate with your kind of Men.



J, ;)

hilarious..business of amazement..LMBAO!!! Trying to pass of as an intellect!! YOU can oppose whoever you want sitting inside the four walls of ur room and hiding behind a firewall. I bet you would Piss in ur pants when it comes to facing a crowd. I dont think you and people of ur ''kind'' can DO ANYTHING to make a difference ANYWHERE. All I have to do turn the computer off to shut u up. Thats how easy it is to get rid of you..Thats what you are, and thats what you ever will be..

jawahara... hey, don't leave me out... I am muslim now too! :)

abhishek/neeraj/soothsayer... have you contacted a good psychiatrist about your fractured personality? usually when a person has issues like this the personalities are distinct and take on certain roles... you seem to all be saying the same thing. I am bored!

I chose not to engage in an argument with any of you because it is not a true dialog. you take ridiculous stabs at anyone, confuse who you are talking to, resort to meaningless rhetoric at the drop of a hat, and call everyone whatever silly name comes into your vapid head at the time. why should I engage when I have been called a bitch, a turd, and all other manner of childish names? it's pointless.

As for your point that no real man would want to associate with Amrita. That's funny. So now you guys also define real manhood, too. Oh goody. I will stick to unreal men, then.

Save us the grief of putting up with your incoherent violent trolling.

We'll still be here in DC. Apart from Abhishek no one else would cry tears of blood at your departure.

As it is you have taken too many liberties as per our comment policy.

Sorry ss...you are my Muslim sister. How could I forget? Let's drink to that...uhmmm...ooops!

[EDITED]

Abhishek, I'm really disappointed in the ending of your comment #235 - you've not just degenerated your opinions on the topic, you've hit rock-bottom as far as civil discourse is concerned.

I believe you do owe Amrita an apology specifically, leastways that's what a gentleman would do.

Your comment policy is to allow comments which agree with ur delusions, and paranoias..and to filter out any rational thoughts. Resort to 'humour' 'sarcasm' and now 'comment policies'..desperate times call for desparate measures..huh?

Neeraj:
Which part of our comments policy did you mis-read?

aman are u a muslim or are u a paki, i mean parsi.

DG, you are just an SOL in DC.

DG, why dont u EDIT out everything I say??? huh..now that would be a very FEMININE way of doing it, wont it? LMAO.

Sujai wrote: Secularism is actually separating state from the religion. This is to be done my 'giving no importance to any religion'. However, Indians modified this to 'giving equal importance to all religions'.

I'm afraid this definition of secularism is problematic because of the implicit assumption that "secularism" is itself not a religion and somehow stands apart from religion. Prof. SN Balagangadhara has sharply refuted this notion, arguing that the western form of secularism is actually secularised christinaity, in particular the Protestant version of christianity. According to Prof Balagangadhara:

Usually, the `enlightenment period', which is identified as `the Age of Reason', is alleged to be the apotheosis (or the `high point') of the process of `secularisation'. What people normally mean by `secularisation' here is the following: the enlightenment thinkers are supposed to have successfully `fought' against the dominance that religion (i.e. Christianity) had until then exercised over social, political, and economic life. From then on, so goes the standard text book story, human kind began to look to `reason' instead of, say, the Church in all matters social, civic, political etc. The spirit of scientific thinking, which dominated that age, has continued to gain ascendancy. As heirs to this period, which put a definitive end to all forms of `irrational' subservience, we are proud citizens of the modern day world. We are against all forms of despotism and we are believers in democracy; we believe in the role of reason in social life; we recognise the value of human rights; and we should understand that `religion' is not a matter for state intervention, but a `private' and personal affair of the individual in question. This, as I say, is the standard text book story.

The problem with this story is simply this: the enlightenment thinkers have built their formidable reputation (as opponents of `all organised religion' or even `religion' tout court) by selling ideas from Protestant Christianity as though they were `neutral' and `rational'. Take for example the claim that `religion' is not a matter for state intervention and that it is a `private' affair of the individual in question. (Indian `secularists' agitatedly jump up and down to `defend' this idea.) Who thought, do you think, that `religion' was not a `private' affair? The Catholic Church, of course. Even to this day, it believes that you should believe what the Church says, and that because the Church mediates between Man and God, what you believe in (as a Christian) is decided by the Catholic Church. The Protestants fought a battle with the Catholics on theological grounds: they argued that `being a Christian believer' (or what the Christian believes in) is a matter between the Maker (i.e. God) and the Individual. It was God (i.e. the Christian God), who judged man; and men could not judge each other in matters of Christian faith. The Church, they argued, could not mediate between Man and God (according to their interpretation of the Bible); the Catholic Church argued that men could not, using only their reasoning and interpretative abilities, interpret the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). To think so is to be seduced by the Devil, and the only guarantee against the seduction by the Devil and eternal damnation was the Church itself and its interpretation of the Bible. (There is a famous doctrine of the Catholic Church, which says, `Extra ecclesiam nulla salus': there is no salvation - i.e. being saved from the clutches of the Devil - outside the Church.) To cut the long story short, the Protestants won this theological battle. The enlightenment thinkers repeated this Protestant story, and this has become our `secularism'"

Of course, the good Prof has a lot more to say on this topic but this suffices to make my point. What this means is that the idea of the state 'giving no importance to any religion' really boils down to giving no importance to any religion, except secularisation (=secularised Protestant Christianity). From this perspective, the Indian version of secularism is far more "secular" than the one Sujai has in mind.

[EDITED]

DG, join the party! Its degenerated to a one way cuss festival

[EDITED - WHATEVER, DUDE]

jawahara... LMAOOOOO! Yes, and a pork chop, too! :)

Aditi wrote: At the age of sixteen , Saint Dnyaneshwar wrote the interpretation of Bhagavad Gita called "Bhavartha Deepika" (Dnyaneshwari). At the time not only did he counter severe criticism from the Brahmin scholars who claimed he was not knowledgeable enough to do so but also his family had been ostracized and denied basic needs like food, water and social provisions. Now I am in no way comparing Paley's work to Dnyaneshwari but today years later after that sixteen year old boy took a samadhi (vow towards an end) millions of followers gather in Alandi from not only Maharashtra or India but from all over the world to pay their homage to his contribution. So one cannot claim that knowledge of dogma is essential for innovating divergent philosophies. We have no way of finding out what is an enlightened view until we have given it a chance and seen the future. The idea behind the lunches is to provide you with an opportunity to learn more about your business, the strategy, other employees and their responsibilities. Because there is no set agenda, you can also use this opportunity to engage in a group dialogue on any business topic that you wish.

This is quite a misrepresentation of Sant Dnyaneshwar's life starting with the fact that the saint was himself born a brahmin. His father, Vitthal Pant, a devoted Brahmin, had earlier left his home to pursue a sanyasin life but was sent by his guru back to family life. A sannyasin returning to family life was unacceptable to the society of the day and a social boycott was called on this poor family.

Sant Dnyaneshwar and his siblings being denied basic needs like food and water predated, and did not result from, his writing of the "Bhavartha Deepika".

Neeraj:
DG, why dont u EDIT out everything I say???
Cos, unlike you, I have a. a life and b. a job and don't have much time left to clean the paths littered by the likes of you.

Dee:
Some folks need stuff like this to jerk off. All kali yug! ;)

really DG? [EDITED]

Dee..po dee..

Aaman, I wrote the "disowning" specifically on purpose. It suits the people to become vitroilic indeed. A so called 'civilised' debate is not possible in the given context because of one simple reason. People have not been used to the "shock and awe" tactics- something that they so used liberally on Hindus. A simple verbal duel and they would suck out like cowards.

It doesn't make any difference frankly because as I mentioned that the ground realities cannot be altered. What pisses me off that people who speak out for Hinduism are labelled as "talibanists", "confused demented" et al. The fact remains that there is no alternative to call a neo liberalist and pseudo intellectual as such. There are no alternative words! And the whole tone of Amrita's write up was so!

I had major issues with DC's policies but then it was the sheer audience that it gathered which prompted me to write other articles. I was conciously avoiding writing about issues close to me which defined me and the ideas that I stood for. But it was the last straw when Amrita's half baked write up appeared.

I'd concur with Neeraj that it is very easy to ignore your diatribes against Hinduism. If you call for a civilised debate Aaman and if you really wish me to apologise here publicly, I believe that the order of the apologies should flow from Amrita first for hurting our sensibilities. Why should be cower down so that a whitey stooge heap abuses on our ideals that we hold dear? If I fight for my right and speak out against this injustice, why am I labelled as a "talibanist"?

For that matter, this only exposes the utter rot and filth in their minds. Goes without saying, Aaman, a person's religion has nothing to do with the way I deal with them. But then, speaking from a lofty pedestal about interpreting the symbolism would do no good at all. Trust me.

This is something that Amrita has to face. And yes, I didn't go out asking for help! Neither the people who comment here are my "friends". It is a figment of imagination for sure.

how dare u edit my comments, u [EDITED] editor??

stop editing my comments, u [EDITED]

listen to what i have to say first,before editing. am i not even allowed that???

Is it just me who finds this statement absurd?
how dare u edit my comments, u [EDITED] editor??
The clue is in the statement you typed, pathrose!

Abhishek:
And yes, I didn't go out asking for help! Neither the people who comment here are my "friends". It is a figment of imagination for sure.
Oh really? Are you quite sure about that?

"...I didn't go asking for help..."

This is just social conversation then? This is a site I trawl, and I was surprised to find you clamouring for help there.

editor,
please explain why you have completley edited my earlier comment #254. Nowhere in your comment policy does it say that I have to use english only to comment. I am free to use whatever language i want as long as it is not offensive. and it wasnt.

So why did you edit it???

Our apologies, it came in the midst of quite some vitriolic drivel and got swept away in the flotsam. No problem with any language, but no direct personal attacks.

Bihari..go see 'kya hal wa makhadman' and enjoy..u can buy a ticket in black. [EDITED]

right! apologies accepted. so please unedit it.
thank you

this is no fun..editor playing GOD ;-) dipti, where have u disappeared..come back ...no fun without ya

PLEASE PUT #254 BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Sanjay:

What I said: "At the time not only did he counter severe criticism from the Brahmin scholars who claimed he was not knowledgeable enough to do so but also his family had been ostracized and denied basic needs like food, water and social provisions." (nowhere do i say that the denial of basic needs was due to his writing)

What you interpreted: "Sant Dnyaneshwar and his siblings were denied basic needs like food and water predated resulting from, his writing of the "Bhavartha Deepika"." .....This I did not say and is not true.

"This is quite a misrepresentation of Sant Dnyaneshwar's life starting with the fact that the saint was himself born a brahmin."

I know that Santa Dnyaneshwar belonged to a Deshastha Brahmin family...this did not deter the Brahmins from ostracizing him and I don't know how his being a Brahmin changes the fact that when he wrote Bhavartha Deepika he was not considered someone who had the knowledge or credentials to do so.

The example was meant to be to demonstrate as I very clearly said in #137:

"So one cannot claim that knowledge of dogma is essential for innovating divergent philosophies. We have no way of finding out what is an enlightened view until we have given it a chance and seen the future."

And just FYI, I also said that I was in no way comparing Nina Paley's work to Dnyaneshwari.

Sorry you missed the point

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....put 254 back..pleasee pleaasee pleeeeeaaaaseeeeeeeeeeee

type it in yourself - or ask the author to paste it back - he gets an email copy.

Give the man his post back!! Geeees

I typed it in myself once..You edited it..Now give it back!!! thief!!

I typed it in myself once..You edited it..Now give it back!!! thief!!

this is very bad mr editor. i think you have lost my post #254. do you know how much time i had to think to come up with a post like that? do you even know the effort i put in, the research i did. all gone in waste now. you are not doing your job well, mr editor. very very bad.

to all my fellow posters, er publishers, er commentators,
please keep a copy of the post you send with yourselves. because mr editor aaman lamba is famous for losing posts. he lost my #254, but apologised later.

To those who said it wasn't, Christianity has been "reinterpreted" as well. The "Jesus in Love" story has been around for a long time, even before The Da Vinci Code, and did not run into all that much trouble around the world (except in that Republic of Public Interest Litigations, India). Let's not forget "Life of Brian" either.

Aditi wrote: (nowhere do i say that the denial of basic needs was due to his writing)

Of course you didn't. The implied connection with Paley's writings being questioned in this forum unintentionally conveyed that impression. Who could know?

I know that Santa Dnyaneshwar belonged to a Deshastha Brahmin family...this did not deter the Brahmins from ostracizing him and I don't know how his being a Brahmin changes the fact that when he wrote Bhavartha Deepika he was not considered someone who had the knowledge or credentials to do so.

The first point appears illogical. Being from the same social group never deterred anyone from ostracizing fellow group members deemed to have violated group norms. Why should brahmins be any different? The second is not required. Whatever the source of a new interpretation, its thesis, logic, rationale etc needs to be defended to prove the author's knowledge and credentials.

The example was meant to be to demonstrate as I very clearly said in #137:
"So one cannot claim that knowledge of dogma is essential for innovating divergent philosophies. We have no way of finding out what is an enlightened view until we have given it a chance and seen the future."

Another illogical point. Without a knowledge of what you label dogma, how would you even know that you were "innovating divergent philosophies" and not plagiarizing someone else? Usually this was done via the tradition of debate and discussion known as "purva paksha" which requires that you state the other side's arguments so well that they are compelled to admit "you are representing our arguments as well as we would have ourselves". Most great reformers were pretty solidly grounded within their respective traditions (i.e. knew the "dogma") and this is how they knew what needed to be changed or challenged.

Sorry you missed the point

Thanks for clarifying what you really meant.

Abhishek - first of all, out of your own mouth you have admitted that I DID NOT HURT YOUR SENSIBILITIES.

At least, I didn't do any of the things that you accused me of doing in your diatribe. This you yourself admitted.

If I hurt your sensibilities by having an opinion of my own, then that is not "hurting your sensibilities" that is you getting pissed at my actually being a human being rather than some sort of puppet in your hands.

Secondly, Bihari's link is explanation enough as far as begging people for help is concerned. And the quality of your support shows how much your opinion is worth.

ooh, guess who's been telling porkies....

Dear Amrita,

I don't know why you get the idea that I am on Abhishek's side. Be that as it may, calling names is not getting anyone anywhere fast. I understand there are individuals here, whose language leaves much to be desired, a civilized discourse should be maintained no matter what and those pests will eventually go away. Remember what Gandhi said, "Be the change that you want to see in others".

Some of the comments by folks who appear to defend hinduism mirror what I have heard on many islamic forums. Believe me I know, because I have been debating on those forums, the limitations of koran and allied topics, and was even banned from Islamicity by an extra zealous editor. Anyone who claims hinduism is the best and the only way path to salvation is actually contradicting the main tenet of hinduism.

There is no question in my mind is that hindu thought is one of the most enlightened and profound of all the great religions of the world. In fact the breadth and depth of hindu scholarship of ancient times is breath taking. And yet, the current practice of that same great religion leaves much to be desired. There is much scope for improvement and a lot of that wisdom is given to us on a platter by our forefathers.

Given any group of people, there are some good and some bad. It is wrong to say that, just because I am a hindu, I am good. I apply the same yardstick, whether it is hinduism, islam, christianity or judaism or others. So all this name calling and having a better-than-thou attitude is wasted, because the evidence is there for everyone to see.

As I said earlier, in India, there has been a tendency among certain intellectuals to berate everything indian or particularly hindu. God knows, there is much in hinduism and its practice that needs to be criticized. But, to trash everything, including our heritage, culture and knowledge is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. These intellectuals go so far as to turn a blind eye to actions by a politicians, religious leaders or groups of people even if they are clearly wrong. I can give many examples of such bias:

Persecution of pandits in Kashmir
Famous Shah Bano case of 1980s
Uniform civil code

Whenever there are attrocities committed against muslims or dalits, there is a huge outcry and justifiably so. I am proud of India to that extent that minorities are protected and there are many who raise their voice to register their protest. Could things be better? Of course! Is India the worst place for minorities? Not by a long shot! And yet, these same intellectuals denigrate and demean all of India's achievements present and past, and that does seem to give them a certain standing in the international circles.

The secularists on onse side and the hindutvavaids on the other in India have a common set of beliefs just as the conservatives (and perhaps liberals as well) in the US. For them everything is black and white: no gun control, no abortions, no new taxes and so on and so forth. I am a conservative so I have to believe in these principles. To be an effective democracy it makes more sense one to be issue based rather than party or ideology based. So if I were truly objective, then I would agree with some of the things that conservatives say and some that liberals do. This kind of bias is not only detrimental to the dialog but to the process of democracy itself. I see similar bias and hypocrisy in this particular debate on both sides as well, and that is lamentable.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

One more thing Abhishek - so far you've called upon your mummy, your daddy, your friends, your job and god only knows what else to support your existence.

I on the other hand, have not asked any of these people on this board to say anything to you, have not offered any extra credentials or my parents or background to answer you.

If I called you "confused" then I said so based on your post and your responses. I can prove that again and again.

On the other hand you have called me names for no reason at all (AS YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED), called me names that have nothing to do with anything pertinent, and have consistently refused to engage in any kind of debate when it comes to the work in question other than harp on the response of other people.

To crown it all, you don't even have the guts to come out and say what's in your mind and have to say things like "To take a page out of Neeraj's book" - first you were "agreeing" with crit from Anamika when it became more than apparent that you didnt really have anything to offer than your persecution complex, now you can't even come up with galis on your own. [EDITED].

[EDITED]
I hope you don't apologize. An apology has to come from a place of integrity and honesty. You have none of either and anything you have to say is completely worthless.

And sorry, I'm not the kind of woman you're used to - it takes more than a troll to make me cower down. To shut up and cower in a corner is the kind of behavior "men" like you specialize in.

Every single woman on this board - including Anamika btw - has you beat like yesterday's newspaper.

Hi Ravi, Sorry, i got you mixed up with this other guy up above.

I get what you're trying to say about official sanction and the extremists on both sides. You seem to be a person who understands the difference between conservatism and bigotry. I'm a conservative liberal from a liberal conservative background (talking in the classical sense). I see the difference and appreciate it deeply.

You and I aren't really having an argument except on certain things perhaps that are a result of where we find ourselves on the political spectrum. That's sort of inevitable no matter how centrist we try to be.

The problem is Ravi, and I've said this before to Anamika, that when you say these things to me I get the feeling you're talking to the Amrita in Abhishek's post. Unfortunately, the Amrita of Abhishek's post is a figment of his imagination.

If that's not so, then that's all good and fair and I look forward to talking to you. If that is true then it's unfortunate and I'm afraid I don't have anything to say because the views ascribed to me by Abhishek were entirely made up by him.

[EDITED]

very cheap of amrita to bring abisheks father and mother into this. otherwise interesting reading.

abishek, you rock!!!

@Sanjay: Hmm, this is interesting.....ok, lets see:

You said: "Without a knowledge of what you label dogma, how would you even know that you were "innovating divergent philosophies" and not plagiarizing someone else?"

Plagiarism? That actually arises from too much knowledge of existing convictions and internalizing of other people's ideas. Human creativity is not likely to regurigitate and generate verbatim interpretations of accepted beliefs. Several scientists who had no access to or prior information about existing doctrines and sometimes belonged to an entirely different field came up with some of the most divergent and original theories. Now as for the literary interpretors, they are even more emancipated. Very simply, reading a text and walking away from it without bothering to interpret it is actually insulting the text. Now this is a very simple point and the only way one could really complicates it is if you confuse "scriptures" with "dogma" and then miss the whole point....yet again.

Now the most bizarre part of your argument:

Upon my having clarified why I did not mention the fact that Santa Dnyaneshwar was a Brahmin you said: "Being from the same social group never deterred anyone from ostracizing fellow group members deemed to have violated group norms. Why should brahmins be any different?"

Umm, hullo? That is my point! YOU were the one who mentioned his being a Brahmin and accused me of having "misrepresented" Sant Dynaneshwar's life for having left out that detail (#256)! For me the ostracizing was just the example of an adversity that Sant Dnyaneshwar had to encounter.

Now, your assumption that I was somehow insinuating that the ostracism was a result of the writings....I was not responding to Abhishek's post or Nina Paley's work (which my disclaimer should have indicated) but to a preceeding comments in there that suggested one needed to have enough knowledge of existing dogmas before interpreting texts.

***BTW, you know something: You try arguing/ miscontruing this and find something else in my comment to "prove wrong" and "illogical" go ahead...have the last word. I am a little weary of people who will just keep arguing because they want to. I'd rather take a nap. Yawn.*****

Hey all you commies

If you all are soo hung up on tolerance and accommodation why dont you go and criticize Islam once and see where it gets you. It might not be important for you but what the author has said is 100% right.

I have a question: Who bashed Hinduism?

Aditi:

I'm really not interested in playing this little history revisionism game. The fact remains that you did suppress material information about Sant Dnyaneshwar's life in a bid to reconstruct Paley as a martyr. When this was pointed out, you responded with truculent defensiveness.

Had all the facts been put on the table, the folks here would have been free to make their own decision: (1) was Sant Dnyaneshwar ostracized because he wrote a different interpretation or vice versa (2) was Sant Dnyaneshwar predisposed to write an alternate interpretation because his family was ostracized by the community, dating from well before he wrote his interpretation?.

I suspect the latter.

Why do you weirdos always judge Hinduism by the Islamic yardstick. Don't you have your own identity?

Has anybody noticed that we have just been introduced to a fresh "...ism"......revisionism!

@Sanjay: What I say to all the folks here, believe it or not, hasn't thus far seem to alter their decision may it be about Sant Dnyaneshwar or about Nina Paley.

You don't read my rebuttals in their entirity and then use words like "truculent defensiveness"....it reminds me of another commentator in this discussion. Hmm.

So here's the thing: the multiple choices that you put out for our readers don't really matter since my analogy was not meant for Nina Paley's work it was in response to comments #130 by Abhishek and in support of #134 by Deepti Lamba (where she uses the example of Kabir in a similar sense). Somewhere in my rebuttals I clarify that.

If you choose to make it about something else, I can't help it.

To be honest. Paley's work to me is a cartoon film. One doesn't have to be a martyr to make a cartoon film.

Dear Amrita,

Thank you for your reply. I liked the way you put it: "a conservative liberal from a liberal conservative background" :)

Usually I prefer not to attack individuals and so, many of the things I said earlier, were really not targetted towards you. If I was talking about your comments, then it was mostly about ad-hominem attacks. I have read some of your blogs and I like what I read. Especially your short stories are awesome. So I felt, it reduces the quality of your dialogue if you get down to the hand-to-hand street fighting. I do not agree with many of the political views expressed in your blogs, but that's not a big problem; I don't agree with myself most of the time :) :) (with apologies to whoever said it first).

Most general comments about secularists were just my observation as to how so-called lefties in India behave. It is interesting to note that I am somewhat right-leaning while in India and somewhat left-leaning while in the US.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Aditi: Has anybody noticed that we have just been introduced to a fresh "...ism"......revisionism!

The term history revisionism is not new and has been around for decades. Google it. Usually it refers to people wanting to revise history written by someone else. What is perhaps "fresh" here is that you actually want to revise your own.

To be honest. Paley's work to me is a cartoon film. One doesn't have to be a martyr to make a cartoon film.

A bit late in the day but I believe there is a saying in hindi about "kal ka bhoola..."

Aditi - the mere fact that he thought you were saying he invented revisionism and that you were the one who were obsessed about this cartoon should tell you more than enough about Sanjay. What's the point?

Ravi - Usually, even I don't like to attack individuals. But that doesn't mean I'm going to back down when somebody gets in my face either. Actually, with some people there is no point:

for eg, when I sarcastically told Neeraj that I could see he was a prime example of the HIndu culture he was so busy defending, he came back and accused me of denigrating Hinduism by making that reference! When a man's fallen that far in his own esteem, what could I possibly say?

I'm glad you've been to the blog even if you disagree with my politics - I tilt in exactly the opposite direction to you re: States and India.

As far as civil discussion goes, you and I can have one, you and a lot of people on this board can have one - but i don't know if you have it on this board. It's a little too tainted by its author who has openly said he doesn't like any of that democratic stuff.

I look forward to seeing you on some of the other boards on this site. :)

Gosh... 1 full article, 7 days and 298 comments And Amrita is still clueless on what is wrong with her ;).

Old habits die hard. Abhishek you should not have done this to her.

FF, "old habits"? I don't even know who you are, much less what you're referring to. I bet you don't either.

Amrita: Since FF here pointed out that you were "clueless" about what was "wrong" with you, I thought as someone who has been reading your articles here on Desicritics and liking them, maybe I should try and tell you what it is that is "wrong" with you.

*You have reviewed a cartoon film...which in itself is a crime.
*You have reviewed a cartoon film by Nina Paley who happens to be white....now I believe there is a section in the Indian constitution under Hindu law prohibiting that, or wait, maybe not. Never mind.
*You have reviewed a cartoon film that portrays Sita's perspective instead of Ram's. Hmm, now that can't be good at all. A woman's perspective can do a lot of damage.
*You might not be aware of this but you can't just like what you want to, especially not a cartoon film. You have to ask for permission from the er, umm....wait, what is that Hindu organization that surveys cartoon films. I don't know but I am sure there is one for such grave religious issues.
*Now your biggest and most heinous of crimes: you chose to put up your views on a public forum under the title of "opinion". How "feminist" and downright insolent of you to think that you or Nina Paley can have an opinion, a perspective or an interpretation?!!!

How can you, Amrita, not admit your mistakes when they are SO very serious in nature? I mean agreed that almost fifty of those comments were unrelated to your review and some of the comments were even in support of you, #299 is still a big number.

Are you weary yet? Coz I could go on you know......

Yeah, even I was wondering that what prompted dear Amrita to drag my folks in the whole discussion. It's surprising to find Amrita's own comments being edited. None of mine were edited :-) Unless of course Amrita is becoming paranoid, driven to tear her hair apart and imagining things like people swooping on the board here to "support me".

I'd agree with FF.

The correct interpretation of the History can never be known unless one breaks off from the stranglehold of the "leftist nuts" and "secular morons" who blog here.

I have come to realise that there is no point in arguing with an idiot because they tend to draw you to their own lowest common denominator. So far, I had no intention to stoop so low Amrita. At best, I was happy while sticking on to labels like "neo con" and "neo liberalist". In the scheme of the things, it makes no sense to drag your folks or attack your family for any personal reasons. It makes no sense to me.

We do have a major difference of opinion and I found it worthwhile to point out that the apologies should flow from you instead otherwise. I merely reacted to the kind of diatribe that was posted on your blog. Whatever your political views are, this is none of my business. Whatever your personal ideas about the world view are, this is none of my business again either. My response was to oppose YOUR write up and oppose any degree of your conjectures/ ideas that may get passed off as gospel truth.

I guess most of you are not used to being challanged. I am challanged daily in my workplace and in the public forums. Yet if the accusation is valid, I back off. If it isn't I take a stand.

But in no way, I have to abuse anyone's folks for that. Amrita, I thought that you would maintain a composure when challanged. But you seemed to have started frothing at your mouth, getting hyperactive and crying "wolf wolf", getting paranoid about people coming and "supporting" me when it was NEVER the scene.

If this is what you call as"low brow intellectualism", I am glad I am not a part of it. And I thank my folks for giving me decent "samskaras" indeed.

Feminism being equated with Ramayana? Where did this frigging perspective come from?

Anyone in their sane minds would see the stark contrast. What is the real meaning of the word feminism? Most of you are not even aware of the orgin of this phenomenon. It is being equated with the liberation of women and I believe that Hinduism has always treated the women the way it was needed to be.

You pick up some subtext of a whole picture, distort its meaning and present it as gospel truth. In some of the comments, someone has mentioned about "purdah" system being a part of Sanatana Dharma. Nothing could be farther than the truth! But then, ignorance drives the diatribe against the Hinduism for sure.

You are pardoned for your ignorance dear.

Hahaha, this is really funny.....my sarcasm is completely lost on some people. Lol

Title: How Abhuishek's 'sanskaras' prohibit him from saying the word "Bitch"

Example: Comment 235

Quote: "Amrita, mind you, so far, I have not equated you with the female equivalent of man's best friend as others might have done so."

Analysis: Man's best friend: Dog
Female Equivalent of dog: Bitch

Analogy: A friend of mine who when provoked would loudly cry out "FUDGE" in an obvious attempt to not say the F-word :)

Inference: We knew wheat she meant.

Abhishek - you're so entirely clueless that it's crossed unbelievable right now. Do you even read what you type? You're the one who brought your mummy and daddy into this whole mess and I merely pointed that out.

As far as the rest goes: your words speak very clearly for you -

1) YOU attacked Hinduism: when you say temples should be demolished because they're "decadent" in your view, how're you defending Hinduism?

2) YOU are against the Indian nation: you think Indian democracy is some sort of white conspiracy and you'd like to see it all come down.

3) YOU are against debate: when people disagree with you/challenge your opinion, you think they should be "flogged".

4) You can read exactly what I said in your email. The edited bits are there in full glory for you to peruse at your leisure.

Have a nice day.

SS I wish you realize why Indians are touchy about Western interpretations of Hinduism???

Aditi - Lol! Am I surprised? No.

I think Amrita should resign or retire. She has completely lost the plot!!

You gals are hysterical, if you have not figured out why a part of the crowd was after you.

Just because reiteration sometimes helps. The crowd is telling you...

1) Start being original with thoughts and not in words/jargons.

2) Stop being caretakers of Hindu reformists group. Hindu Reform is not your sole prerogative.

3) We do not object to your criticism. Our objection is with your reoccurring habit of not doing any homework and coming out in open with a contrived agenda to bash Hinduism...perhaps to earn some brownie points.

4)We are not annoyed because you put up a argument for/against Hinduism. First Get that mask off.

5) We are annoyed on how our liberal attitude w.r.t Hinduism is being pitted against your dogmatic views about liberalism.

6) Be optimistic and Stop getting inspired by Rakhi Sawant.

7) Lastly if you want a constructive and original perspective guard against tendencies which compel you to collate with DC mob because it kills your originality. One is idea, two is opinion, three is an agenda.

I am done...if you still do not get it, I can only hope you will get it some day.

FF: These are just questions out of curiosity, maybe if I have the answers, I will "get it". You can choose not to answer though:

The questions coinicide with each of your points:

1) Who was unoriginal? Paley or Amrita?
2) Who is this point addressed to?
3) Who is "We"?
4) Again, who is "we"?
5) Yet again, who is "we"?
6) Firstly, optimism gives people the hope that others will finally learn to see and accept conflicting opinions. Secondly, who is Rakhi Sawant? Wait, don't tell me....I'm almost too afraid to find out.
7) Now I hate to break this to you but your 7th point is not a complete sentence: "Lastly if you want a constructive and original perspective guard against tendencies which compel you to collate with DC mob because it kills your originality."

LMAO Aditi - FF I think stands for Fast Forward: that's what I plan to do.

#303, Abhishek:

and I believe that Hinduism has always treated the women the way it was needed to be.

And I guess you also believe Santa Claus is real, tooth fairy is real and even Cinderella is real. Are you referring to how Hinduism treated its widows- by barbequing them in the funeral pyre of their dead husbands. Are you referring to how Hinduism treats the girl child killing it before its born resulting in the worst man-to-woman ratio in the developing world? Are you referring to how Hinduism allows men to go on a rampage eve teasing women, sexually harassing, raping them and then blaming the women for the wrath they brought onto themselves? Are you referring to dowry deaths?

And are you referring to the champions and upholders of Hinduism as those seen on this forum- likes of neeraj who started to deride, mock and insult women right from his first comment? Or are you referring to the likes of you, the paragon of 'respect for women'?

The presence of the likes of you, and your friends (like neeraj) increase the idiotic quotient of mankind by ten folds.

Sujai: Good god, I hope our 'anti-feminist' commentator Hardy does not see your comments....he will have you believe all the stuff you just stated are hoaxes!

#303, Abhishek:

and I believe that Hinduism has always treated the women the way it was needed to be.

Here's time to teach you that Santa Claus doesn't exist anymore. I know it will disappoint to for a while, but soon you will get over it. I mean, you are a grown up adult now. Its high time you stopped believing that presents are brought to you by Santa Clause flying to every home on a Christmas night.

Here's a reason why you should grow out of your other beliefs too.

Link: No girls, please, we're Indian

'IN the 1980s, it was a suspicion. In the 1990s, it was a near certainty. In 2001, it became indisputable fact. India may be known for many things but it now has the distinction of being known as the nation that likes to ensure that girls are never born.'

'The adult sex ratio in India has been declining for several decades.'

'No one wants girls anymore.'

'The "Top of the Pops", so to speak, the districts with the worst child sex ratio were all in Punjab and Haryana, two of India's wealthiest States.'

'There is also an assumption that education and economic independence will ensure that women assert their rights, including their right to reproductive choice. But a survey by Action India of women in Delhi revealed that even highly educated women have resorted to as many as eight abortions to ensure that they only give birth to a son. In this country, education and economic progress seem to make no dent on attitudes. On the contrary, these are getting more embedded.'

Are you referring to how Hinduism treated its widows- by barbequing them in the funeral pyre of their dead husbands.

Good lord Mr sujai...40 deaths in 60 years(since 1947, spread over 30-40 crore of Hindu women. We still do not know how many(or if all) of them were voluntary. The ratio of 1 in 100 million in 60 years!!!, indeed speaks volumes about women oppression in Hinduism.

Only a week back, I read a man in Delhi immolated himself because his wife would not join him. I think he was accused of DV act after his death and had he survived he would have been sent behind bars for attempt to suicide.

Now Let us come back...

Firstly I do not think anyone on this board(or even outside) can advocate Sati practice, even if they extreme right wing activists.

Secondly to associate women oppression through sati to be part of Hinduism is doubtful on merits. The reasons are

1) Passages in the Atharva Veda, including 13.3.1, which offer advice to the widow on mourning and her life after widowhood, including her remarriage.

2) 100 kauravasa died for sure in Mahabharata. But even when there is a mention of famous "Lakshgrah episode" in such details in Mahabharata, not a single mention of over hundred kaurava wives commiting anything even close to such act.If Sati was indeed rampant and glorified there must have been mention of at least one such episode in the entire mahabharata.

3) Sita in Ramayana refused to undergo the so to be believed second angi pariksha.

Now let us try to look back a little. Let us to go your favorite colonial and Mugal period when Hinduism was suppressed and was at its nadir. Early 1800's was when Sati was at its worst in history(peak). 8135 sati deaths between 1813 and 1828 which is around 600 per year.

Now let us look at ncrb.nic.in data in 2005. Today we have around 216 females committing suicide due to divorce. Of the 5000 odd suicide committed by married women, let us assume 1000 commit suicide anticipating separation from husband in the imminent divorce. That makes it 1200 suicides. Add 1670 female suicides due to love affair. Which makes it 2900. And finally let us add no of attempted suicides which do not materialize because of better treatment facilities. All in all I think we have around 5000 such female suicides.(Note there are still much more male suicides). But Wait I am hiding the truth. We have grown by approx 20 times since then. So that makes it 5000/20 = 250 if we extend it back to 1825.Thus we can say there were(*probably*) less than 300 forced Sati's per year across *women* population of 25 million. And I have so far not taken any social and cultural changes into account since say 1825, which apparently have been massive and monumental. These cultural changes would only have decreased "forced Sati counts" further.

And now compare it to men who used to get killed in wars just because they were men. Should one deduce that Hinduism was oppressive towards men or women or both?

If feminist rants are hoaxes, let us boldly admit it.

If we want to criticize something, let us do it fairly and not just for the heck of it or to get a upper hand in the argument by making sweeping statements.

Let me muster data to get to the rest of the claims.

It is amazing. A few years ago, I would have come out on the side of the feminists, though the "pig god" comments were revolting. But having moved to the US, and been deeply disturbed by Indians who seem to seek approval from Americans by running down India and Hinduism, I find myself agreeing with most of what Abhishek says.
Anamika, I agree with everything you say. You rock!
To the women who think supporting womens' rights justifies any attack on our land and our culture, grow up and gain some pride in our heritage.
To Sujai - a pig god may seem amusing to you, but it teaches Hindus to respect all forms of life.

ron... I DO get it. I just don't think everyone need drink the kool-aid that some people here are trying to pass out.

one can criticize India or Hinduism and still be very supportive of those things. But according to some people on this thread, being supportive means shutting up, not thinking and towing the line. that is pure and simple crap, and dangerously close to a taliban mentality.

This thread was always useless but from the moment Abhishek went running for help, this thread is worse than useless.

Sujai - you're talking about a man who advocates the demolition of temples as a way to protect Hinduism. Nuff said?

Tripursundari - please provide an example of said accusation. 318 replies and counting - so far not one person has been able to do so except for Neeraj who apparently believes he is the worst thing to have happened to Hinduism (I'm not sure I disagree).

On the other hand more than one person has pointed out many examples where Abhishek has insulted both Hinduism and the Indian nation.

Amrita, the time that I had been in the US all I ever got to hear was respect and curiosity about Hinduism. Even in the bible belt when I spoke to my Christian neighbors about religion we looked for common grounds and when difference of opinion happened we moved on.

There are lot of preconceived notions being aired here and its the same old race and anti-feminist, anti-liberal sentiments being used to counter the need to remain objective and which has nothing to do with the right to interpret religion:)

Amrita was so trashed by Neeraj, that she cant even get over him. Now she is still fighting him, after the bell. Hilarious stuff. You should go on Jerry Springer show.

Tripurasundari:

To Sujai - a pig god may seem amusing to you, but it teaches Hindus to respect all forms of life.

Here is what I write on another article published recently on this forum.
Link: The Beauty of Hinduism - If There is Any

'I see beauty in Hinduism for various reasons.'

'...Any one living in this land could come up with their definition for a god and pray to it. No questions asked. They could pray to a widow, or a tree, a snake or a stone...'

In addition to life, I also include in here non-living objects.

Hardy:
In that discussion, Abhishek was talking about Hinduism as a long term entity (not the post-Independence India). My attempt was NOT to assert that Hinduism was brutal to women, but to CONTEND another assertion that Hinduism ALWAYS treated its women really good.

When someone asserts 'Person X always tells the truth', an example of the Person X telling a lie will act as a contention to that assertion. That's what I was doing.

And now compare it to men who used to get killed in wars just because they were men. Should one deduce that Hinduism was oppressive towards men or women or both?

I don't know what to make of this. Dying does NOT NECESSARILY mean oppression. Not all deaths are due to oppression. Dowry deaths are, but deaths due to a tsunami are not.

The biggest stone worshippers are Muslims, who travel thousands of miles, wear all white, and in the scorching heat, walk around a stone covered in a black cloth.

Yawn..Islam again? You people dont get it. Pointing out how dark the other religion is does not mean we curb our own religion.

This thread is not discussing the pros and cons of Islam but the right of people to interpret Hinduism as they see Fit which sets it apart from Islam

Bihari, your comment is very typical of so many people in this forum. Changing the goal post, when you dont have a shot. You are wrong bihari. This thread is an open discussion. There is no rule prohibiting comments on Islam. Especially when an Pro Islamist is criticizing Idol worshipping.

Sujai, I have started a new pig cult and take offense to the term pig headed!! Pigs are divine. The pig god manifested himself to me late on night and gave me the 'Porky Sutra.'

Come join my sect. Discounts available;)

How dare you make fun of the Kaaba. It is you and your stupid religion which on the verge of extinction. Islam is a faith which is growing evey second. very soon,we will take dominate the world, not to mention a third world country like yours. learn to respect the prophet (peace be upon him)and you will be saved.

Narayan, the only idiot here is the one who uses the excesses of another religion to hide the chauvinism in one's own faith.

Our reformers were least concerned about Islam when they went on their religious and social crusades. Why then are your panties getting all wedged up?

Let see because you people always use fear against Islam as reason for turning conservative.

Good luck to you and your paranoid tribe. Most of us Hindus prefer to enjoy the freedom of loving which ever god or goddess we identify with and have our own way of expressing the beauty that is Hinduism.

Islam needs reformation which we already had and by taking away people's rights to interpret our faith we become no different from the mullahs.

If someone projects it incorrectly you have the right to debate and show them the errors in their thinking.

Debating is a Hindu tradition from ancient past that should be forwarded and not leaving it to be the religious elites.

Narayan:
Especially when an Pro Islamist is criticizing Idol worshipping.

Who is criticizing Idol worshiping?

Correction:
In #323, 'CONTEND' should be replaced by 'CONTEND AGAINST'.

I don't think anyone here wants to know what you did with a pig late at night, Deepti. To each his/her own :)

BTW "late on night"?? Really???
I recommend English 101 :):)

Typical misdirection is a weak form of argument. Your lob shot needs work- you are missing the wood for the trees.

#332:
Why act smart when you are not?

'After being out late on night, he invited Linda to his room.'
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_McDermott

From Nancy Rhyne's
MORE TALES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LOWCOUNTRY
Late on night, after attending a ball at the St. Cecilia Society, Alice became ill.

Link: Link

The debate came to a head late on night of 26 June, when the Dutch and Tanzanian Ministers presented a five paragraph text on financial issues for the political statement.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/pol-cn.htm

---

You try to use 'English 101' that happens to be American terminology. So, how come you are not aware of the American grammar which allows 'late on night'?

Sujai,
Why act smart when I am not? I probably learned that from you.
I promise I will start using late on night, definitely. While I am at it, maybe I can also mix up to, too and two, and also use apostrophe for plurals.
Deepti,
>>Typical misdirection is a weak form of argument.??? Are you missing a punctuation point in there?
Seriously, the English 101

#323....Well I did talk about Hinduisms and excerpts from its history too...I do not think we are being fair if we associate forced Sati with Hinduism. The mal-treatment of women does not have direct correlation with Hinduism.

As for men and wars...What I was essentially saying is that men were discriminated and chosen as soldiers to die in battles, while women remained behind...Is not it a kind of discrimination imbibed into our culture. There are numerous instances in history, where many men were force-picked to join battlefields.

Essentially Sati and such practices like (Nar Bali) should not be quoted out of context. Rani Laxmi Bia and Sati belong to same era. The draconian form these practices took, was because of lack of education and direction in the society, fall in Hinduism perhaps being one of them. Thus, such kind of sweeping statements that women were selectively chosen for mal-treatment is incorrect and the whole argument that "women have been selectively chosen for mal-treatment" is questionable and a possible hoax. There is a huge incentive to feminists for spreading hoaxes and it makes a sense for them to be doing so.

Lastly I talked about some post independent statistics because you mentioned about some post independence factors which have direct bearing to status and treatment of women e.g. female feticide. If we choose not to consider post independence statistics of women to analyze Hinduism for some reason, we should refrain from correlating post independent factors with Hinduisms as well.

I shall try to put across my perspective w.r.t. female feticide in another post. However I admit female feticide (which surpasses all religious boundaries) poses a grave threat to our society.

Sujai, The Flying Pig is happy with you and as a bonus gives you 2 tickets for the Pink Floyd show;)

Is that what it told you late on night?

Bihari,
''The only idiot here is the one who uses the excesses of another religion to hide the chauvinism in one's own faith''

This statement is a factual representation of what you (along with other Pro-Islamists) are doing. You attack hinduism only because your faith/religion/belief has a crack in its foundation. An Inferiority complex, leading to a common form of defence mechanism known as 'Reaction formation'

''Our reformers were least concerned about Islam when they went on their religious and social crusades.''

What Religious and Social crusades are you talking about? Somebody has told you a lie and you were naive enough to fall for it. The only crusades worth mentioning were led by people who had Conversion agenda, or a Commerical one. Hinduism had neither.

''Let see because you people always use fear against Islam as reason for turning conservative.''

Fear is not a word 'we people' would use. Aware if a more proper word. Was the US 'scared' or 'fearful' of Afghanistan when it attacked it? I dont think so..nonetheless it was very important to destroy the Islamic Taliban, or else it would spread like a virus. (maybe it already has).

''Islam needs reformation which we already had and by taking away people's rights to interpret our faith we become no different from the mullahs.''

Where on earth did you get the idea that Islam could be reformed. The entire Islam as written in Bukhari, Ishaq, Tabari, the Sira, Ta'rikh, Hadith, and the Quran are written in concrete. The Question of reform or change doesnt exist. There just isnt the scope. Unlike Hinduism which is more a concept, a way of life, a hand me down through the generations, and less of written rules. Islam can only be interpreted in one way, the way it was written.

''Debating is a Hindu tradition from ancient past that should be forwarded and not leaving it to be the religious elites.''

Debating is a Human tradition, not just a Hindu tradition. It could be done for Islam, Christianity, or any other religion out there. Constructive Debates are the need of the hour, rather than random superflous comments flavoured with personal insults.

Pop psychology suits you and so does delusional paranoia. I made my point initially but you are trying your best to side track the issue. Why do you people point to the excesses of Islam to excuse your narrow minded impositions on Hinduism?

Answer the core question!

BTW, the state I come from has seen enough violence in the name of caste system but hey you rather sweep away the people who got downtrodden by the upper caste hindus.

Let me guess you are an upper caste hindu arent you? Its always the elite who hate to lose the reins be it religion or wealth.

Hows that for pop psychology?

@Narayan, please follow the link under my name and this would take you to my blog. Please do contact me on the email; I would like to follow it up with the email instead of this public forum.
@FF please do the same. Thanks.

The best thing to have happened is that this post has attracted people from all places. I have met Anamika and Neeraj and we are on email contact. Narayan,Sanjay, FF please do email me. There is a lot I could learn from you all. Cheers.

As for the Porky God..Oh my God! Where did this discussion come in from interpreting symbolism in Hinduism? By the way, I am a major Pink Floyd fan...but well, Deepti given the vitroilic and bad karma that you have generated doesn't leave a very good taste in the mouth.

Anamika, thanks for telling me as to how confused I am. Each one of your comments posted in "response" to mine seems like "the last word". It only amuses me instead of irritating.

I am surprised as to how people can draw conclusions out of thin air about correlating Hinduism and Sati or woman bashing. We do have latent feminists sitting here but then they are just hot air. I wonder anyone takes you so seriously. I remember reading about the bra burning version of feminists who enticed only press for themselves. Well you sure have your moments of ego massaging together as a cabal here.

Abhishek, The Divine Porky forgives you for your slanderous thoughts and violent curses. In his compassion he offers you split second enlightenment. Join his flock while there is still time. Dial- 1-800-PORKY-LUV

I am in India and far far away from the evil influences of the DC cabal :)

Abhishek,

Deepti and Aaman Lamba live in India...

Carry on.

Bihari,
Thank you for making it very clear where you come from and where you stand. Your experiences as a low caste hindu, who was mistreated by high caste hindu(s), which probably nipped the buds of your young life, has created so much frustration and anger in you, that you have now become completely delusional. You now believe that it is the religion Hinduism which is responsible for your sorry state of affairs.

Let me assure you my friend, your anger and frustration is entirely misplaced. You have been a victim of a massive Exploitation Scam, which unfortunately was propagated under the name of relgion. And you are not the only victim, there are many more confused 'Hindus' just like yourself who to this date, uphold these false beliefs. Nowhere in Hinduism or its major scritpures,is humanity classified on a the basis of caste. This compound fracture of our society took place much later, when it suited a certain community (ies) with vested interests. These include Hindus as much as Non-Hindus. This is not Hinduism, this is divide and rule! (im sure you must have heard of that before)

I, for one, am doing my best to heal this fracture in the commuinity, in whatever little way I can.

Coming back to your ''point''. If your belief that anyone who criticizes another relgion is actually trying to defend their own religon or beliefs shortfalls is true, then surely you and your fellow anti-hindus must be must be feeling very insecure about your own religon or beliefs. There is very little one can do make you feel less insecure.

Yes, your state has suffered a lot, due to this exploitation which continues even to this day and this also explains the religious scavengers circling your heads with a conversion agenda. But the poor still continues to be so, long after their 'conversions'.
But dont blame hinduism for this, the same way you cant blame Christianity for slavery. A lot of this is primarily due to ignorance and naievity of the common man in your state.

And No, I am not a upper caste hindu, but I know a few with both Upper and Lower caste backgrounds who treat me well for what I am and what I stand for.