Sharma says-' the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva would be to recognise that Hinduism is a religion (however defined) while Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, is a political ideology, whose relation to the religion of Hinduism could be considered analogous to the relationship between Christianity and Christian fundamentalism or Islam and Islamic fundamentalism.'
This is false. Ecumenism is not a political ideology though Nationalism may benefit by embracing it so as to overcome sectarian divisions.
Just as an ecumenical British Christian may be concerned with building bridges between sects prevalent in Britain- e.g. Catholics and Protestants in Ulster- whereas ecumenical Christianity in Ukraine may concentrate on improving the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Church- so too Hindus living in different places may have different types of ecumenism. There is no necessary link with Indian Nationalism unless one is actually an Indian citizen. For non-Indian Hindus, Hindutva is useful if it breaks down caste barriers- particularly when it comes to marriage or the provision of 'club goods'- e.g. temples or community centres.
Fundamentalism is a completely different kettle of fish. It may feature violent attacks upon fellow religionists on the grounds that they are not 'true' believers.
Rahul Gandhi- whose religious identity is unclear- claims that he has special knowledge of Hinduism (though he can't possibly be, as his party claims, a Brahmin of the Dattatreya gotra) and that this knowledge enables him to discern that Modi is not a Hindu. Worse, Modi is something else which is antithetical to Hinduism. This could be considered a type of fundamentalism in the sense that it is shit that a moon-calf pulled out of his fundament- i.e. asshole. However, it is scarcely worth discussing at any academic or serious level because the thing is simply hilarious- the equivalent of saying 'I know all about Catholicism coz my Mummy is the Pope.'
Sharma displays his ignorance of Abrahamic Religion when he goes on to say-
There is, however, one key difference. Hinduism is a plural tradition, as compared to Christianity and Islam which possess well defined universal creedal formulations that are largely absent in Hinduism according to most observers.
This is false. Christianity and Islam are just as plural as Hinduism. Indeed, they must be more plural because sectarian conflict is much more consequential in both. Where 'henotheism' obtains, there is no question of plurality. There is merely a nominal difference which does not preclude univocity in any way.
Any given Hindu sect has just as well defined a universal creed as any Christian of Muslim sect. However Hinduism embraced ecumenism a very long time ago whereas in Christianity ecumenism really only takes off in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. In the wake of the Darwinian challenge to Faith, Christians could agree that there was an essence to Christianity which did not entail foolish doctrinal fights or sectarian carnage. Indian intellectuals were influenced by the ecumenism they found in the London where they studied law and thus there was a similar literature on the 'tattva' or essence of Hinduism. This was particularly important because of conflict between the orthodox and the Brahmos or Arya Samajis etc. Thus some social and political formations featured ecumenical Hindu practices of various sorts. However, the really important aspect of this type of activity was that it could break down caste barriers and get rid of untouchability. That was the unique aspect of Hinduism. Its ecumenism could incorporate the combat of a social evil endemic in, but not unique to, the subcontinent.
Sharma gets hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick.
Therefore, Hindu “fundamentalism” is remarkably thin in terms of religious content as compared to Christianity and Islam.
This is utter bullshit. Sharma's grandfather and my grandfather would have had personal recollections of a common 'fundamentalism' which would have gravely restricted their life-chances. They found the Indian independence struggle to be very helpful in diluting that fundamentalism so they could rise in secular professions. Once again, ecumenism played a useful role. It curbed a wasteful type of status competition based on being holier than thou and claiming to be stricter in the observance of various quasi-scriptural injunctions.
Like Sharma, Pratap Bhanu Mehta fundamentally misunderstands the ecumenical nature of Hindutva. However, writing in the Indian Express, he warns against...some stupid shit he just pulled out of his arse.
In the aftermath of the overwhelming ascendancy of Hindutva,
where? Kerala? Rajasthan? West Bengal? Fuck is the cunt talking about?
there is a temptation to counter it by juxtaposing Hinduism to Hindutva, the virtuous Hindu to the nasty Hindutvavadi.
Tharoor, Pavan Varma and the moon calf have indeed succumbed to this temptation. I suppose they are trying to burnish their own religious credentials. But, at least in the case of the moon calf, the thing has backfired.
Rahul Gandhi has been harping on this theme. But this is also a new cultural zeitgeist. The temptation is understandable. It is better to align Hinduism with moral values than the discourse of blood and soil that Hindutva represents.
It is better not to tell stupid lies- e.g. Modi is Hitler and he is constantly foaming at the mouth and banging on about how we must invade Poland.
Better to reclaim Hindu traditions as a way of gaining political legitimacy.
Why not simply stop being shit at politics? Wouldn't that improve 'legitimacy'?
But this temptation is historically myopic and morally confused.
It is foolish. Why not simply say 'I'm a Catholic coz Popeji is my Mummy and I'm a Brahmin of Dattatreya gotra coz my granny's daddy inherited that status from his father' ?
This approach seems to want to settle the problem by definition. A true Hindu, you see, can never be intolerant or be tempted by power.
This approach seems to want to settle the problem by definition. A true Hindu, you see, can never be intolerant or be tempted by power.
This is the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. Either the word 'Hindu' is meaningless or else it can veraciously denote a fallible mortal being who can certainly be intolerant and tempted by all sorts of things.
The greatest Shiv bhakt of all time in Hindu tradition was Raavana.
No. That is merely a manner of speaking. Raavan wasn't a jivamukta so he couldn't have been the 'greatest Shiv bhakt'. We could say that he was samrambha yogi or that he possessed virodha bhakti. He may have received a boon from Shiva but he is said to have received a greater boon in that death came to him at the hands of Vishnu.
His Shiv Tandav Stotram is a most erumpent expression of both vikas and virasat:
No it isn't. 'Erumpent' means erupting out of a substrate. The context of the Tandav Strotam is Shiva easily suppressing Raavan's attempt to overthrow Kailas. This has nothing to do with vikas (development) or virasat (heritage). Why is Mehta pretending otherwise? Has he forgotten basic Hindi? The fact is this is a devotional composition praising the Lord and seeking salvation entirely by his gift of Grace.
Glittering temples, the beneficence of Kuber, along with great yogic powers and insight.
Does this silly man really not know that Ravan defeated Kuber? Furthermore, you actually have to perform austerities to gain 'yogic powers' though no doubt the Lord can bless you with the fruits of such tapasya. But that is not what happened here- as most Hindus have known from childhood.
But he also engaged in adharmic acts, and let his ahamkara (ego) dominate everything else.
Like many others. However, this was in an Occassionalist universe- i.e. the Lord was the only efficient cause of all the actions and thus this was simply a case of Divine Lila or play. No doubt, a popular preacher might be able to make something of this but Mehta is not a popular preacher. He is simply an erumpent asshole.
Did it make him any less of a Shiv bhakt? No.
Yes. A devotee can't put his own ego first. The thing is a contradiction in terms. Only if you say that God was the sole efficient cause- i.e. he inflated Ravan's ego and caused his adharmic acts so that Ravan would gain the highest boon of annihilation at the hands of the lord- only then can you hold this view. But Mehta is a Grace-denying Jain with a pluralist ontology, not a theistic Advaitin. He has written puerile, half-baked, nonsense.
Did being a Shiv bhakt prevent his adharma? No.
This shithead knows nothing about Saivism. If Ravan is considered as a Shiv bhakt, it must be the case that Shiva caused his adharma. Occassionalism works that way. Thus, in the Coptic Church, Judas is a Saint because the Lord caused him to betray Christ so that the Divine Plan for Humanity's salvation could be set in motion.
The tradition understood this complexity. You cannot define people away by saying they are not a true Hindu.
Nonsense! A guy who says he is a true Hindu but who is employed as a Bishop by a Christian Church is probably lying. Similarly, I'm not truly Beyonce,
Courts face no great difficulty in deciding who is truly Hindu and who isn't. Mrs. Gandhi fought a court case which established her sons were Hindu.
Both Gandhi and Godse are Hindus, just as Osama bin Laden and Mulla Sadra are both Muslims,
Osama was Sunni. Sadr was Shiah.
just as Francis of Assisi or Pope Pius XI are Christians.
Is this stupid cunt equating Pius XI with the murderer Godse or the terrorist Bin Laden? Fuck is wrong with him?
Religion enshrines the highest beatitude.
No. The highest beatitude is martyrdom which must be inflicted by guys who are against your Religion.
But it can also give succour to terror and violence.
while sucking off Mehta? Is that what he is getting at?
As any religious thinker knows, the same eros that pulls you towards the good can easily take a pathological form.
Agape may pull you towards the good. Eros may cause you to ask to be pulled off or, in Mehta's case, fisted.
You cannot get rid of Godse or Raavana by saying they are not Hindus.
But you can get rid of Mehta by saying he is not a Hindu because he is a Jain. Still, unlike Aurangazeb- who was Muslim- Mehta hasn't actually destroyed any Temples, much though he may lament the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
In fact, it is a cheap gesture of saying they are not our collective responsibility as well.
Do we have a collective responsibility to tell Mehta he is a worthless piece of shit? No. Not unless we get paid to do it.
And exactly who is this “Hindutvavadis are not Hindus” meant to persuade?
People who think Rahul Baba is a real smart dude.
This approach requires sincerity, moral credibility and a grammar of action.
This approach requires sincerity, moral credibility and a grammar of action.
Which approach? Mehta sincerely doesn't know. He just pulls this shit out of his arse and the Indian Express publishes it so as to give the rest of us a chance to laugh at the illiteracy of a guy who studied at prestigious colleges in England and Amrika.
The spouting of a claim “real Hinduism is tolerant” has become an easy meme. It has to be enacted in its exemplarity. Ramkrishna Paramhansa enacted this, living out several religious lives without contradiction or sacrifice of his devotion to the Mother.
So Rahul should demand to be made Pope coz his Mummy was Pope and then he should declare himself Imam-ul-Hind coz he once ate a nice biryani, and then he should become President of Pakistan and show great tolerance to any Army General who shoves his boot up his arse.
Gandhi could stand in the middle of unspeakable violence and exercise moral force, not just understanding but bearing the pain of others.
As did everybody else affected by the violence of partition. The difference is Gandhi had the power to expel Congress Members who, he said, had killed Muslims. Sadly, he refused to do any such thing. He just collected money and moved on.
Even that benighted Hindu, Jawaharlal Nehru, could jump into a crowd and admonish communal hate mongers.
But he passed a law preventing Muslim refugees who had fled from returning to reclaim their property. How many people did Nehru put in jail for killing Muslims? None. He did threaten to 'bomb Bihar' but- let's face it- that's a sentiment not uncommon amongst people from U.P.
But who performs that role now? Week after week, namaz in Gurgaon is being disturbed.
Sadly, some people find namaz disturbing. I wonder why. Dom Moraes once complained about namaz being offered at his neighbour's house. He had to get police protection.
Let us be clear that the Hindu hooligans disturbing it have no interest in public spaces or principles.
Let us also be clear that Mehta is as stupid as shit. The fact is those Hindus do have an interest in public places- viz. they want them for themselves. They have their own principles.
They use these as pretexts for exercising a vile kind of hegemony.
Whereas Mehta resigns from anywhere he has 'hegemony' or leadership because he is a vile man who does not give a shit about his students.
Would the true Hindu have the courage to come out and say to this crowd, face to face, “What kind of warped imagination sits around thinking whose prayer can I disturb on Friday?”
The true Hindu needs only to reflect on the recent history of that region to immediately acquit anybody of having a 'warped imagination'. Only a virtue signalling cunt would pretend otherwise.
Where are the “tolerant” Hindu leaders who would show their brethren a moral mirror, or protect those praying?
Where are the Jain Professors who would show Mehta that resigning mid-term is a shitty thing to do to your students?
This whole “a true Hindu cannot be intolerant” is just a moral evasion, if you don’t risk anything for saying it.
Whereas resigning mid-term is not moral evasion at all.
Following the “Hindu trope”, our leaders manage to show their cowardice more than their leadership.
Which leaders? Rahul? But we already know he is a coward. He didn't become P.M because he didn't want to meet the same fate as his Daddy and Granny.
We have tried this “true Hinduism” route before.
We have tried this “true Hinduism” route before.
Mehta hasn't. He is a Jain.
That was the generation of Vivekananda, Gandhi and Vinoba,
Gandhi and Vinoba belonged to different generations.
and countless others. But by the 1930s that project of recasting Hinduism’s spiritual foundations could not prevent deep and widespread communalisation.
Which had already existed for centuries.
Nor for that matter did debates in Indian Islam on “Indian Muslimness” prevent that communalisation.
Plenty of European and American Muslims have waged war against their own countries in recent years. Why pretend that the Hindus cause 'communalism'?
Historical memories are short, but Rajiv Gandhi more opportunistically, and PV Narasimha Rao more sincerely but deviously, tried to occupy the “let us engage with Hinduism” ground.
But it was Indira who truly devout. Still, it was her Daddy who presided over the ethnic cleansing of Muslims and their exclusion from any type of affirmative action.
In America you have seen “moderate” Christianity make its peace with violent Trumpism.
When were they at war?
Who draws these lines between a true believer and a fake one?
Who draws lines on Mehta's face using her own turds? Seriously, I'd like to know. I want to nominate the chick for a Magsaysay Award. It is vital that we increase female participation in such activities as part of a wider commitment to gender equity and environmental sustainability.
The attempt to publicly draw these lines between good and bad believers does not enlarge toleration; it intensifies the conflict over who has authority.
The attempt to publicly draw these lines between good and bad believers does not enlarge toleration; it intensifies the conflict over who has authority.
No it doesn't. The thing is simply silly.
Once you prefix any public moral argument with “speaking as a Hindu or as a Muslim…” you have probably already lost the plot, where identity will colonise reason.
Nonsense! You have added contextual information of a useful kind just as when you say 'speaking as a Medical Doctor' or 'speaking as a Barrister'.
All that will remain is the reinforcement of identity, not the enlargement of moral sympathies.
There is no reason that 'reinforcing identity' should be incompatible with enlarging moral sympathy.
It also encourages this cuckoo land thinking that if everyone simply retreated to their “true religion”, harmony would ensue.
But no one has made any such assertion. Mehta just pulled it out of his arse.
In a metaphysical sense, perhaps.
No. Metaphysics is concerned with what is true in all possible worlds. It is simply not the case that harmony necessarily arises where identity is heterogeneous. The reverse is the case.
But that kind of thinking does not help thinking about actual disputes in politics: How is representation to be organised within communities?
What's wrong with letting those communities worry about it themselves? Why not worry instead about how turds should be ground into Mehta's face?
How will public spaces be managed?
In a manner decided by those tasked with their maintenance,
How does one handle contested representations of history?
In whatever way one likes or finds convenient.
How do we create institutions that treat people equally?
We don't. Institutions may be reformed with that purpose- but then again the reverse may happen.
Whose nation is it?
That of the majority- unless they are feeble. History has shown this pretty clearly.
Can we take a consistent stand against all blasphemy laws?
Sure. Why not? Consistency merely means holding the same position. Mehta, because he has shit for brains, may think that it is inconsistent to be for a blasphemy law which protects your own religion and not any others. This is because one can consistently hold only your own religion to have a divine commandment in this respect.
These are the kinds of political disputes on which blood is spilled. By returning to “true religion” or metaphysics, you have left the political world vacant.
No you haven't. European history features wars of religion, which did have a metaphysical component and which certainly did not leave the political world vacant. Mehta is talking nonsense.
The debate over Hinduism also creates exactly the distraction the BJP wants.
Stupidity on the part of cretins like Tharoor and Rahul and Mehta is advantageous to the BJP. But there is no debate here.
Finally, this plunge into religious metaphysics evades calling a spade a spade.
Finally, this plunge into religious metaphysics evades calling a spade a spade.
Why? There is no evidence any such thing has ever happened. Consider the various schisms in early Christianity which had geopolitical ramifications. Nobody who participated in them 'evaded' anything of practical import.
The problem with people who spout bigotry or disseminate vile prejudice is not that they are “bad Hindus.”
Yes it is. You are a bad Hindu if you use your Religion to disseminate vile prejudice of a casteist, misogynist, or merely politically partisan type.
Seriously, who cares?
People who wish the country to progress and grow stronger.
The problem is that they have let their collective narcissism come in the way of basic human decencies, and are prepared to violate the terms of the social contract that honours the basic dignity of the individual.
Mehta is certainly a narcissist. He and his colleagues- who plume themselves on teaching a worthless subject- are collective narcissist. Mehta and Subramaniyam violated their employment contract by quitting mid-term and maligning their student's alma mater in a manner which hurt those students.
The claim that India is a nation of Hindus generates more questions than answers.
No. It answers the question as to which parts of India have no secessionist movement. Hinduism is what holds the country together. Improving Hinduism, improves what the country can coherently achieve.
In a trivial factual sense, it is true that this is overwhelmingly a Hindu nation. But that is simply a background fact.
No. It is a foundational fact which determines the trajectory of the nation.
What follows from that? That this is not a nation which also has Muslims, atheists, communists, liberals, and even Hindutvavadis?
No. What follows from that is that those Muslims, atheists, communists, liberals etc. have to deal in the main with Hindus, not Christians or Confucians.
It is also their nation, and they do have rights, and a voice to shape it.
The problem is that exercising one's rights, or one's voice, might lead to death which extinguishes rights and voice.
The challenge is: What are the basic norms of reciprocity that govern this conversation?
If the conversation involves talking to a virtue signalling cretin, the basic norm of reciprocity involves accusing the guy of being a Nazi who is killing billions of Jews and Homosexuals by sticking their heads up his arsehole.
Who defends those with credibility?
Credible people don't need defending. It may be that Mehta needs being defecated upon. I am incredulous that nobody has not already and very copiously done so.
In the great churning of our politics, a lot of poison is being generated.
In the great churning of our politics, a lot of poison is being generated.
But some 'elixir' too must have been produced- right? Perhaps Mehta thinks he can get a taste of it and thus become immortal. Oddly, he is right in this matter. I urge Mehta to eat Rahul Baba's shit. He will then become 'Amartya'.
Since Kashi is in the air, we can meditate on Tulsidas’s glorious Rudrashtakam, Shiv as the Bliss of Pure Consciousness.
Why not chant it no matter what might be in the air?
It defines the highest end of life.
No. That is beyond definition.
But I suspect Mahadeva is also whispering: Don’t expect the metaphysical project of defining a true Hindu to bell the political cat of building a decent society.
Mehta's suspicion is wrong. The person whispering that gibberish must be at least as stupid as Mehta himself. You could say 'we are like mice trying to build a decent society but there is a cat- viz religious dissension- which can disrupt our activities. We must bell the cat of religious dissension so as to build a decent society.' This is clumsy but meaningful. It is meaningless to speak of the activity of building a decent society as itself being a political cat. Why the fuck would you want to put a bell on it? Let it do its job and go on its way.
Definitions don’t absorb communal poison.
But Mehta's face could absorb a lot of faeces. This is just a hint for anybody in his vicinity who requires a place to relieve herself.
Who will do that, is an open question.
I suggest that the first lady to shit on Mehta's face on TikTok receive the Magsaysay Award. In the interest of promoting communal harmony, I hope a Muslim lady will come forward to do the needful. Mehta would not dare protest for fear of being called a Hindutwadi. Thus a good time will be had by all.
No comments:
Post a Comment