In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

by MulaiAzhagi Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:42 pm

The secular group believes (or at least professes to believe) that Hindus are more communal than the rest even though the evidence is just the opposite. In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism. The Pakistanis have more or less cleansed themselves of Hindus, the Bangladeshis have managed to reduce Hindus to a third of their 1947 population (from 31 percent to less than 10 percent), the Kashmiris have ridden themselves of the Pandits, and in Sri Lanka a Tamil separatist movement has been wrongly labelled as “Hindu terrorism” – when V Prabhakaran was a lapsed Methodist, his son was Charles Anthony, and his best supporters in Tamil Nadu (Vaiko) have Christian roots.

A lot of the money that flowed into Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka has come from Church groups in the west that thought they were fighting for human rights, when most of the money went into buying armaments for the LTTE. In India, support to the Tamil cause is lowest among Hindus, and highest among parties that claim themselves to be Dravidian (and, hence, supposedly, non-Hindu). In fact, the whole Tamil-Sinhala rivalry in Sri Lanka is sometimes painted as a fight between Dravidian Tamils and Aryan Sinhalese.

None of this bothers our secularists, since they are fighting an internal battle to rid themselves of the demons of caste or bigotry – real or imagined – having internalised degrading colonial criticism of Hinduism.

To make matters worse, our secularists make matters worse by presuming that non-Hindus have a right to assert their identities, but not Hindus. Sudhir Kakar, one of India’s best known psychologists, notes that privileging minorityism cannot really be secular nor is communalism peculiarly Hindu. In his book on communalism, The Colours Of Violence, he demolishes the idea that communalism means only Hindu communalism and concludes: “…the solution is to build a state which protects the equal rights of Hindus and Muslims to be different.”

For secularists, Modi-bashing is no different from Hindu-bashing. They will attack a Bajrang Dal for vandalising a Husain, but not speak out on the ethnic cleansing of the Pandits or the abduction of Hindu girls in Pakistan, or the attacks on Taslima Nasrin.It is the way they have chosen to combat their own sense of self-loathing and guilt.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-we-love-to-hate-modi-we-can-hang-our-guilt-on-him-273608.html

by Kris Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:04 pm

Astute article by RJ. Good points about both the self-flagellation crowd and the flip side, the idiots who want to monolithize the religion. In the end, no matter how many contortions we twist ourselves into, Hinduism's strength is in its plurality and that's what informs the country's ability to hold onto secularism.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:14 pm

MulaiAzhagi wrote: In India, support to the Tamil cause is lowest among Hindus, and highest among parties that claim themselves to be Dravidian (and, hence, supposedly, non-Hindu).

amongst tamilians in india, support for sri lankan tamils is near 100%. religious affiliation is quite irrelevant. indian tamils clearly distinguish between civilian sri lankan tamils and the LTTE. something that non-tamil indians just don't seem to get. it's not even that nuanced. it's a simple matter -- there are the innocent civilians and then the terrorists.

by MulaiAzhagi Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:24 am

He is just a smart politician who used 2002 to build his power base and then tried to do some good with that power and reinvent himself as a development man. He will not make either group happy. Soon after he consolidated power, he sent the VHP and Bajrang Dal packing. The fact that Gujarat, which was crawling with these types in 2002, has not had a communal riot in the last 10 years is not just the result of good luck. It is also partly Modi’s work. But try acknowledging that.

The reason you can’t acknowledge this truth is that he has been anointed as Evil Incarnate. And this Hindu group has been successful in this portrayal for several reasons.

One is, of course, the rise of 24×7 television and an activist media. Two, Modi serves as a useful demon to advertise in the west for the neo-cons and evangelists. They can now raise funds to fight this scourge in India and do some aggressive proselytisation. For the neocons, India is virgin territory to accumulate converts for the next big crusade against Islam. Three, for our own politicians, Modi serves as a good scare story to bring in the Muslim vote. From Rahul Gandhi to Lalu Yadav and Nitish Kumar, the Modi name serves as a drumbeat to herd the minorities into the voting booth.

===> Good insight about Modi.

by truthbetold Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:15 am

India also did not have repeat of 1984 sikh roits. Does that prove anything?
Massive events like Guj 2002 roits and sikh roits drain the evil energy from soceity for a while. In other words the society's anger gets released in these outbursts and rest of the "good people" are now more alert and ready to act. Repeat events are not likely in most civilized societies.

There are several minor communal clashes in gujarat since 2002.

Over all Modi does not deserve any credit on those accounts. Also note that communal clashes have gone down and loss of life due to such conflicts have gone in last two decades. Again modi does not deserve any credit for that.

Modi and his followers attempt to redeem him from 2002 riots will not succeed. I am disappointed that Indian courts failed to get Modi on some count or other for 2002 riots. I am sure Modi will never be Indian PM.

by charvaka Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:31 pm

truthbetold wrote:India also did not have repeat of 1984 sikh roits. Does that prove anything?
Massive events like Guj 2002 roits and sikh roits drain the evil energy from soceity for a while. In other words the society's anger gets released in these outbursts and rest of the "good people" are now more alert and ready to act. Repeat events are not likely in most civilized societies.

There are several minor communal clashes in gujarat since 2002.

Over all Modi does not deserve any credit on those accounts. Also note that communal clashes have gone down and loss of life due to such conflicts have gone in last two decades. Again modi does not deserve any credit for that.

Modi and his followers attempt to redeem him from 2002 riots will not succeed. I am disappointed that Indian courts failed to get Modi on some count or other for 2002 riots. I am sure Modi will never be Indian PM.

I agree. The dissipation of communal tensions has more to do with more media coverage and economic development. The presence of 24x7 media reduces significantly the half-life of malicious, exaggerated rumors that in earlier times led to riots. Today such rumors are a lot easier to verify and disprove. Economic growth has reduced the percentage of unemployed young men who have nothing to do but create trouble.

by Sponsored content

In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

Re: In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

Re: In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

Re: In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

Re: In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

Re: In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.

Re: In the whole of south Asia, secularism survives only in India, thanks in part to Hindu pluralism.