moderate vs extremist
Why should I be a Hindu partisan? I would rather like to support a secular organisation rather than be a religious fundamentalist.
Because you are a Hindu, it would be disgraceful if you do not stand with Hindus.
If Hindus were to support a Hindu group and Muslims were to support Muslim group, wouldn't that cause division between people and create polarisation? How can a polarised country be united? Moreover, the essence of Hinduism is its freedom and diversity. If Hinduism was to function as an organised religion, wouldn't it be against the spirit of Hinduism itself?
Because of the peculiarities of certain religions(e.g. Muslim), they cannot go in harmony with other religions. They form a separate unit in the society.They are not taught to compromise with other religions. In India,if Hindus form a Hindu organisation, it is treated as ultraist and fascist; and Muslim organisations are given the tag of being secularist. Such is the pseudo-secularism that exists in our country.
Extremism of any religion is bad for the country. Saffronisation of the country is as dangerous as islamisation. This will not promote openness among people. Man should essentially be free. Polarisation obstructs this free thought. Polarisation creates bias in our thoughts, however unintentional it may be. Forming religious groups, especially with political designs, leads to mistrust, suspicion and fear in the opposite community. Consider this situation: If a person from one community is beaten up by another person from another community, the general feeling of the people is that they should take revenge upon the other group; they want not just the culprits to be punished, but they want the entire community to be persecuted. Instilling such a mindset in young minds is not an advisable way of human development.
The general trend of Muslims all the world over is to congregate together, and if they are powerful, they dominate the social activities in the area. In many customs and beliefs, Hinduism is just the opposite of Islam.Considering many countries where Islam is a minority religion,the support India gives to Islam is noteworthy. There has been a growth in the percentage of population of Muslims in India since Independence. In 1951, Muslims constituted about 9.9% of the total population; but now it has risen to 14.4. But take the case of Pakistan, where Islam is the ruling religion. In 1951, Hindus constituted about 22% of Pakistan's population. But now it has come down to a mere 1.2%. This shows the need for Hindus to stand together. In case of any attack against Hinduism,Hindus will have to defend by organising themselves to protect their beliefs and way of life. Why does an ideal country build and maintain an army? Not because they want to attack and conquer others,but they need to defend themselves from foreign domination and to assert themselves in the international community. Same is true with Hindus.
When did this Hindu spirit originate? Before the coming of outsiders, there was no religion called Hinduism. None of the sacred texts of Hindus says about a religion called Hindu religion. And later, when it was recognized as a religion it was plagued with malpractices and evils like caste system and Sati. later various reform movements and outside influences brought the Hindu religion to the present state. It can be argued that Hinduism felt the need to reform when other religions and British rule seemed to threaten them. No civilisation can be destroyed from outside, but from within itself. History has proved it again and again. So there is no point in making Hindu extremist organisations to protect the religion; its protection lies power of its content; its own depth of thought or belief. The Hindu organisations that claim to protect and preserve 'Hindutwa' have nothing but political and other motives. Moreover, the era of religions must come to an end, because the destructive effect of religions felt in the current scheme of the world is more than the constructive effects they claim to have. Man ought to become more global in his outlook, wider in his perspective. The attack on Hinduism is similar to attack on any individual or organisation, it must dealt with like any criminal case with good and strong governance. The motive of forming religious organisations may seem justifiable, but more often than not, they usually end up in creating undesirable results.
This is not a practical solution at all. The wider outlook and pacifism sounds very pleasing to the ears, but this is just a Utopian ideal. If someone comes to hit you in your house, you will not talk philosophy to that guy. You will have to attack him. It is a natural reaction among living beings.
(cont.d)
When did this Hindu spirit originate? Before the coming of outsiders, there was no religion called Hinduism. None of the sacred texts of Hindus says about a religion called Hindu religion. And later, when it was recognized as a religion it was plagued with malpractices and evils like caste system and Sati. later various reform movements and outside influences brought the Hindu religion to the present state. It can be argued that Hinduism felt the need to reform when other religions and British rule seemed to threaten them. No civilisation can be destroyed from outside, but from within itself. History has proved it again and again. So there is no point in making Hindu extremist organisations to protect the religion; its protection lies power of its content; its own depth of thought or belief. The Hindu organisations that claim to protect and preserve 'Hindutwa' have nothing but political and other motives. Moreover, the era of religions must come to an end, because the destructive effect of religions felt in the current scheme of the world is more than the constructive effects they claim to have. Man ought to become more global in his outlook, wider in his perspective. The attack on Hinduism is similar to attack on any individual or organisation, it must dealt with like any criminal case with good and strong governance. The motive of forming religious organisations may seem justifiable, but more often than not, they usually end up in creating undesirable results.
This is not a practical solution at all. The wider outlook and pacifism sounds very pleasing to the ears, but this is just a Utopian ideal. If someone comes to hit you in your house, you will not talk philosophy to that guy. You will have to attack him. It is a natural reaction among living beings.
(cont.d)
