Inclusive and tolerant India?

The two most common sets of words that I hear these days come from Hindus and Muslims, all of them well meaning. Hindus in India keep telling me that “Hinduism is an inclusive, tolerant religion” and Muslims all over the world keep telling me that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Now, no doubt, they are largely right. There is much in history to suggest that Hinduism is an inclusive and tolerant religion, and that Islam puts a lot of stress on peace: the basic greeting of Islam, salaam-alai-kum, means ‘peace be on you.’

And yet, if we stop with these words, we are either being wilfully blind or displaying a remarkable lack of awareness and self-criticism. Because, very often, these words are not redeemed by action. Anyone who reads the newspapers today can see that not all Hindus are inclusive and not all Muslims are peace-loving.

One cannot help noticing that if Hinduism was always inclusive and tolerant, then the recent controversy over Rahul Gandhi’s religious beliefs would not have occurred. One also cannot help noticing that if Islam was equated solely with peace, groups of Muslims would not be shooting at each other in almost every third Muslim country in the world.

Let’s face it: why should the fact of Rahul Gandhi’s religious beliefs — or, for that matter, Jawaharlal Nehru’s agnosticism — become a matter of discussion in an India full of inclusive and tolerant Hindus? Let alone the fact that the oldest community of Christians in India can be dated back to 2,000 years, a truly inclusive and tolerant Hindu would not expect other Indians to obtain a ‘Hindu’ religious certificate in order to run for office. Similarly, surely, such a Hindu would be able to accept not just Indian Muslims, who have contributed to India for about 1,500 years, but also monuments, such as the Taj Mahal, associated with the so-called Muslim period of India. I must say that I was surrounded by really tolerant and inclusive Hindus in the India in which I grew up, and I must add that their numbers seem to be greatly reduced today.

AHMEDABAD, India — The attack begins with a Hindu man, wearing a bright shirt and a white scarf, stepping off a motorbike carrying a long iron pickax. He pounces on an older Muslim man, attacking him from behind and striking him over and over.

“Babu, save my life! Save my life!” the Muslim man screams. He crumples to the ground, and a few seconds later, after several more blows from the pickax, he cries, “I’m dead, I’m dead.” He soon is.

The killing was captured on video — at the attacker’s request. He had his nephew film the entire episode with a phone and proudly posted it on social media, bragging that he had killed the man to protect his Hindu community from Muslim jihadists.

India’s biggest television channels aired the video, and it jumped at light speed across the country on Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, immediately stirring tensions. The Hindu-Muslim fault line in India can be very raw, and in recent years several Muslims have been lynched by Hindu mobs.

confuzzled dude wrote:I posted it from my home in my own time. Now go fuck yourself.

PS: most folks are used to reading news paper  in morning

confuzzled dude wrote:

The two most common sets of words that I hear these days come from Hindus and Muslims, all of them well meaning. Hindus in India keep telling me that “Hinduism is an inclusive, tolerant religion” and Muslims all over the world keep telling me that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Now, no doubt, they are largely right. There is much in history to suggest that Hinduism is an inclusive and tolerant religion, and that Islam puts a lot of stress on peace: the basic greeting of Islam, salaam-alai-kum, means ‘peace be on you.’

And yet, if we stop with these words, we are either being wilfully blind or displaying a remarkable lack of awareness and self-criticism. Because, very often, these words are not redeemed by action. Anyone who reads the newspapers today can see that not all Hindus are inclusive and not all Muslims are peace-loving.

One cannot help noticing that if Hinduism was always inclusive and tolerant, then the recent controversy over Rahul Gandhi’s religious beliefs would not have occurred. One also cannot help noticing that if Islam was equated solely with peace, groups of Muslims would not be shooting at each other in almost every third Muslim country in the world.

Let’s face it: why should the fact of Rahul Gandhi’s religious beliefs — or, for that matter, Jawaharlal Nehru’s agnosticism — become a matter of discussion in an India full of inclusive and tolerant Hindus? Let alone the fact that the oldest community of Christians in India can be dated back to 2,000 years, a truly inclusive and tolerant Hindu would not expect other Indians to obtain a ‘Hindu’ religious certificate in order to run for office. Similarly, surely, such a Hindu would be able to accept not just Indian Muslims, who have contributed to India for about 1,500 years, but also monuments, such as the Taj Mahal, associated with the so-called Muslim period of India. I must say that I was surrounded by really tolerant and inclusive Hindus in the India in which I grew up, and I must add that their numbers seem to be greatly reduced today.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/words-that-are-emptied-of-meaning/article21381903.ece

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Hinduism is inclusive and tolerant by nature and according to its roots. Whatever non-exclusiveness and intolerance is seen these days in Hinduism has merely crept into it from other religions, mainly as a reaction on the part of Hinduism to attacks on itself by other faiths / religions.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Hinduism is inclusive and tolerant by nature and according to its roots. Whatever non-exclusiveness and intolerance is seen these days in Hinduism has merely crept into it from other religions, mainly as a reaction on the part of Hinduism to attacks on itself by other faiths / religions.

Who do we blame for caste based intolerance, Seva ji?