Desicritics Comments on Hindu Reformation and Equality - Is It Too Much To Ask For?

Comment by Ledzius

Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:39:42 EDT

Caste-based discrimination and animosity is not always because of religion. For example, in TN, the Thevars are a powerful community (although ranked relatively low in the Hindu hierarchy) and they dominate over other low caste communities in their strongholds. Now you seriously believe that some N Indian genius who reinterprets the Vedas is going to help the Thevars change their attitude towards other communities? The caste equations in India are very complex, and a lot of factors other than religion come into play. To blame the whole of casteism on one monolithic entity called Hinduism (if there were one) is to be quite naive. It should be noted that all over the world (including Arabia) you have always had some tribes dominating over others. In Pakistan, Punjabis dominate over the Baluchs. And this is with Islam that claims to be egalitarian.

Comment by Ledzius

Tue, 1 Sep 2009 04:54:34 EDT

I agree with Sujai #16. Also Hinduism is just an umbrella term used to describe various practices in the Indian subcontinent. The worship of Shiva and Amman in TN villages, for instance, has little to do with your Santhana Dharma or even Lord Krishna. The majority of Tamilians (I am talking about the backward communities, not Brahmins) while being pious in their own ways don't give a rat's ass to these Vedantic or any other philosophies coming mainly from Hindu intellectuals from the North. This is one of the reasons Hindutva kind of philosophies don't find many buyers in southern states (K'taka is an exception due to the monumentous bungling of Deve Gowda and sons). Many S Indians (esp. the non-Brahmins) see the attempts to unify Hinduism (by organisations like the RSS) as a sort of N Indian domination over them.

Comment by Morris

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:28:16 EDT

"For example, even though a recent Supreme Court decision has confirmed that non-Brahmins are entitled to serve as temple priests," Please enlighten me. Is it Supreme court's business to tell a religion who are and are not entitled to serve as priests? I thought India being a secular country Gov't has no business to interfere in working of any religion. It is one thing to pass a general law of no caste descrimination. But should they rule on who can and cannot enter temples. In hinduism there being no central or for that any authority, if a temple appoints a low caste person as prist who is going to stop? All temples do'nt have to follow same rules. Each on his own temple or even a person. Following one idea or path has never been a tradition in hinduism. Start a new branch of hinduism incorporating all the reforms you like. No one will stop you. But uniting all to agree what you think is good is not hindusim. Is it?

Comment by Peccadilloes

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:02:24 EDT

I have praised the leaders of my new country. They were happy. I criticized them. Their minions replied politically correctly. How can we seek to change the religious heads who have to change the complex dynamics of their institutions, limited as they are by their vision? The world has moved on. I have been exposed to heterodox ideas. Foreign views. Some more evil. Many better. One has successfully viewed Hinduism and found it wanting and prescribed its own radical transforming insights from empirical, humanistic, and egalitarian grounds. It sought to recognise a noble human being. It succeeded. I have met many such noble born people who though not Indians are grateful to the mind who gave them this priceless treasure. It has allowed me to critique the loftiest of Hindu thought without the clutter of millenia of accretions and encrustations. It does not concern itself with these lofty irrelevancies but common man and woman and their self realisation through rational, practical processes of transformation. Sweeping aside the ornamentation of ritual, devotional 'faith', it asks each man to go beond these confusion of forms and transcend to the common link which connects all life, on this planet at least. The greatest Hindu minds are blind to its power to catalyse and purify their institutional structures and they respond with silence. The masses know only of the myth. If there were a revolutionary way to reexamine the human condition and in the process render irrelevant all irrelevant dogmas would anyone come? Listen?

Comment by B Shantanu

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:04:09 EDT

Theitinerantindian: Thanks for your encouragement. Sanjay Garg: good point: "people who have no concept of their own culture and history are ill-suited to even talk about change". Pl. see my next article http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/05/redefining-hinduism-need-of-the-hour/ (- already up on my blog, and hopefully here too, soon) re. Tavleen Singh, Invading the Sacred etc. Thanks for the link to Outlook article. Anamika: Thanks for the TimesOnline link. Also, do have a look at the article I mention above Mansingh: Thanks for making the point and reinforcing the case. P.S. Have not yet had a look at the video re. Cauvery Layout, so will comment on it later.

Comment by Man singh

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:24:18 EDT

Sujai #16 Yes its is irrelevant how mummies were mumified, but for Egyptians, it gives an idea about their potential n self confidence by learning from history. Another issue is how that great civilisation who build pyramids and mummies wiped out from face of the earth. the mentality that attacked civilisations and eliminated them exists even today. We also have to develope self confidence about our potential from ancinet history and identify destructive forces who kill civilisations. We can evaluate our weaknesses as well. These three points help in revenating a civilisation and con be inculcated by studying n refering history cultura texts.

Comment by Sanjay Garg

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:11:36 EDT

Interesting to see the issues Hindus face in the U.K. Here is a new book Invading the Sacred that looks at how Hinduism is treated, studied and interpreted in American higher education. Labeled "Academic Hinduphobia", the following cartoons will provide the reader a flavour of this phenomenon. The book was released simultaneously in the U.S.A and in India. Here is Aditi Bannerjee, one of the three editors of the book, writing about her experiences in Outlook India.

Comment by Anamika

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 08:36:09 EDT

Sanjay, Shantanu: this may be of interest regarding how Hindus are perceived and dealt with: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2007352.ece

Comment by Sanjay Garg

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 06:38:12 EDT

@theitinerantindian#30: Reforming ourselves involves some attack on ones own self. Guys like Shantanu should not be castigated for this The strength of Hinduism has always been a constant, continual reform from within. The most successful reformers have always been those who had - paraphrasing Gandhi - both feet firmly planted in the culture but with the eyes looking towards the future. While those who are outsiders to or ignorant of our culture do sometimes offer valuable insights, in reality people who have no concept of their own culture and history are ill-suited to even talk about change. It would be like some guy with no engineering experience on the resume, claiming that he knows a better way to build a bridge! such folks may perhaps be well-meaning but cannot really be taken seriously.

Comment by Sanjay Garg

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 06:14:51 EDT

@Sanjay: Both Lalu and Basu came in via a parliamentary process not a revolution. So, it is your comments that are irrelevant. As for the Naxalites, they have never ushered in a revolution, only mindless violence and terror.

Comment by theitinerantindian

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 04:01:42 EDT

The only way we can protect ourselves from the kind of aggression in the "Cauvery layout tension" video, is to reform from within. Reforming ourselves involves some attack on ones own self. Guys like Shantanu should not be castigated for this. The motives are above board and laudable. We need to reform ourselves...

Comment by cauvery Layout tension

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:19:08 EDT

Please see the video (part 1 of 3). Please pass this around to all True Indians. Not only Hindus, but our Christian brothers also need to speak up against this sort of nonsense. Link below http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8woHykQgB8

Comment by Sanjay

Thu, 5 Jul 2007 00:52:31 EDT

What are you talking about, Garg? How did Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jyoti Basu get into power -- by an apathy vote? What do you call Naxalites -- constitutional democrats? Your comments are ignorant.

Comment by Sanjay Garg

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:35:55 EDT

@Sujai: If you want to confront the past, reinvent your stuff; don't try to reinterpret the past. Revolution is what we need, not resurrection Some one once said, based undoubtedly on empirical observations of history, "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." Indians are rightly sceptical of revolutions, which is perhaps why we did not sink to the level of a revolution, unlike many other cultures.

Comment by Sanjay Garg

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:00:10 EDT

I tend to agree with Anamika's take on this and feel that Ruvy's comment was gratuitous. It is like labeling someone an anti-semite for saying something like "unlike the semitic religions, Hinduism allows a plurality of ways of worshipping the Ultimate Being". I thought that drawing this type of distinction between the semitic religions vs Hinduism was both the letter and spirit of Anamika's statement. Then, to pile on the insult by claiming some kind of preemptive atonement seems way too cynical in my books.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:53:48 EDT

Anamika, I am an editor. Editors have to read EVERY word of a text. I guess I am used to people reading every word of what I say - not because I'm so wise, but because that is what I do. Now let's try this opne more time - only this time, do as I do; read every word of this paragraph. As a Semite looking in at your thoughts I find your means of expression most insightful. Were it not for the explosive freight the word carries, describing you as "anti-Semitic" would be pretty accurate. But such an assertion would probably be mis-interpreted to mean something quite other than what is intended. If you have read every word here, you will realize that 1)I have made no jokes, 2)I have recognized the explosive nature of the phrase suggested and 3)I have called you nothing at all.

Comment by Anamika

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:31:12 EDT

sigh...Ruvy, you said you "agree with me" but obviously you did not understand. Guess what, labelling someone an "anti-semite" even in jest is not exactly responsible or appropriate given the history of the term. Therefore I refuse to have a sense of humour about this particular term. And btw, I wouldn't want to be married to someone like you either. But at least there we are on the same page! small squirrel - thanks but I too had lots of stuff scribbled on my locker in high school in USA, but mostly racist. But then are we exchanging a list of hate words that got thrown at us? And I do think its a bit inappopriate to tell me to "try being a jew" as I could as easily respond to you saying "try being non-white." But that would be ridiculous and totally unhelpful to dialogue, wouldn't it? The reason I found Ruvy's remark unacceptable is simple: Just as you wouldn't appreciate being called a racist even as a joke, I don't accept being called an anti-semite, regardless of our particular "crosses."

Comment by smallsquirrel

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:00:56 EDT

ruvy... maybe I missed something but I did not see what anamika said as anti-semetic. of course, it also appears that you were making a play on the word semetic and she did not catch it and things got out of hand. anamika... as for you saying "anti-semetic" is thrown around too much. try being a jew some time. it is easy to be insensitive to something that doesn't effect you. but there are phrases used daily like "so and so jewed me out of XXX" or common thoughts people have no trouble expressing "the jews control the media" that you probably don't think twice about but are a serious pain in my ass. you might be more sensitized to it if you had "kike" scrawled on your locker in school like I did. we don't have it any better or worse than anyone else, cause everyone has their own ahem... cross (?) to bear... but.... just saying... can we all just be friends?

Comment by B Shantanu

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:03:50 EDT

Anamika: Thank you for your encouragement and support (#15) Sujai (#16): At the outset, let me say, to each his/her own. We can agree to disagree! As I see we are in danger of veering off-topic here, I will limit myself to just one point: Regardless of what the shastras say or do not say, there are certain distortions in the "Hindu" belief system, as it is widely understood (or misunderstood?) today. All I am trying to do is to point them and say that we need to fix them...and one approach may be to re-interpret the shastras (there is where you and I disagree, I think). Having said that, there may be other (even better) approaches. We can keep arguing about the causes, reasons and means but if the end goal is identical, than we are at least pointing in the right direction. Ruvy & Anamika: Thanks to your comments, I am learning a lot about Semitism, Semitic and related terms! On a more serious note, I will refrain from commenting on this side-debate as I do not know enough about it. Thanks all.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:59:31 EDT

Anamika, Are you having a bad day? I was agreeing with you!!! Boy, am I glad I'm not married to someone like you. I'd be dead from a heart attack already!

Comment by Anamika

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:39:27 EDT

Ruvy, I am sick of people throwing out "anti-Semite" as an insult for whatever they dont agree with. But the reason I explained myself was not because you "got to me." My problem with both your posts is your indiscrete and highly irresponsible use of a word that is consistently used to silence critics and to stifle debate. Such indiscriminate use undermines the power of that word. You also seem incapable of differentiating between Semitic philosophies and theologies (which is what I was talking about) and people. But for the record, since obviously this will make you so terrifically happy: YES I AM ANTI-SEMITIC!!!! Does that make your shabbos any more peaceful and happier?

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:00:17 EDT

Anamika, my remarks got to you just enough that you went on and tried to explain yourself. You needn't have. I got it the first time. And my response was meant in precisely the sense that you detailed above. And you are right as to the term "anti-Semite" in the global sense. Because of Arabs trying to beg out of the term by asserting that they are Semites too, along with other spinmeisters tossing all sorts of other bullshit around about "anti-Zionism" (we don't hate Jews, just Zionists, "wink" "wink"), the term as a word meaning Jew-hatred has lost its meaning. I use Jew-hatred for that notion and connotation, and precisely for that reason. But in this particular instance, anti-Semitic is the perfect term to describe your attitude.

Comment by B Shantanu

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 07:34:19 EDT

Sujai: A very quick comment and hopefully I will find time to follow-up later on with a longer response. I did not say we should look for answers in the past - my words were - "we need to face the past". And I dont think I ever used the word "resurrection"...If you read through some of the links I have provided and some of my earlier posts, a "revolution" is exactly what I am hinting at...

Comment by Sujai

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 07:28:26 EDT

#12, I do like those set of movies, and I do like the speech, I was not sure why you introduced it in here. There is lot more those movies convey other than the simple interpretation. that's for later.

Comment by Sujai

Wed, 4 Jul 2007 07:26:13 EDT

Shantanu: There is a point in revisiting the scriptures - because distortions and misinterpretations need to be corrected. The idea may sound retrograde but unless we have the courage to face the past, we cannot look at the future... I don't see any point in trying to look for answers in some holy books or shastras of the past to know the behaviors of a religion. My stand is the same – I discourage reading too much into Koran to understand the present behavior of Islam or reading into Bible to understand the behaviors of Christians. Supposedly Christians are supposed to be so kind- if I go by the message of Christ, but for some reason the history tells me a different story. The same is the case for Hindus. The answers for why and how Hindus are the way they are is NOT found in Vedas or in old Shastras. The way a 'Trojan War' would interest a linguist or history buff, these books would interest some selected few, not the mainstream Hindus. Mainstream Hindus are ordinary folks who have NO clue what is written in any of those books. And it does not matter if SUDDENLY we were to discover that IN FACT our interpretations were ALWAYS WRONG. They will go about doing the same in spite of such sudden revelations or supposed 'right' interpretations of these texts. You are missing that point. You and the other lady Anamika believe that reinterpreting the texts will somehow suddenly educate these masses to be 'true Hindus' and that is NOT the case. And there is this ridiculous assumption that those who deride these texts are those who have not read them or those who could not understand them. I don't care what those old Vedas tell us. I find them completely irrelevant - just the way I find Tolkien's Lord of the Rings- to the behaviors of the present generation. That's why I discard every attempt to bring in those holy or sacred texts into the discussions of the present. I don't care how mummies were mummified during Pharaoh times. It has no bearing on the present day Egyptians. If you want to confront the past, reinvent your stuff; don't try to reinterpret the past. Revolution is what we need, not resurrection.