Freedom leads to freedom, not anything else

bharata, i’m posting two comments here, that kabir deleted on his post:

1.
The hindutva project is not antithetical to Ambedkar’s embrace of buddhism or the religion of buddhism or the dalits embrace of buddhism. From the hindutvavadi perspective your argument reads like a non-sequitur.

Now as per islam, ambedkar, right now, is burning in hell. And in this hell, he is to face eternal torture with absolutely no chance at redemption, because he has committed the worst crime that can ever be attributed to a human being, that being shirk (the worship of any other than allah). The same applies to every single hindu.

Now no hindu has any right to define what islam should mean to muslims, and if shirk is the worst crime imaginable then so be it.

But then one has to ask, what sort of a relationship can exist between a mushrik and a muslim? Can they really be friends? Does islam permit friendship with mushriks? Can they ever be equal citizens of a state which nominally privileges equality of all citizens, but where in one citizen blatantly believes that his political, moral and philosophical framework be based on a religion where in the other citizen is a hell bound mushrik whose religion is patently false.

Now the same argument can be presented by a dalit against a savarna hindu, and as long as the savarna hindu doesn’t acknowledge the faults of his faith, right down to the scriptural sources that became the justification for his prejudices and injustices against the dalit, doesn’t acknowledge the horrors of the past and then comes up with a political, social and economic framework to address the legitimate grievances of the dalit, he cannot, in good conscience ask for the dalit to consider extending his loyalty to the indian state.

The muslim too can make an argument that he or she doesn’t want to be partake in a charter of citizenship where in he or she has to have a relationship with a religion whose ideals doesn’t match hers.

The only way then to solve this conundrum is to come up with a shared political and moral framework whose values are acceptable to all, which allows people of different faiths, backgrounds and histories to practice their religions and cultures, but where in the religion is neither the basic of citizenship, nor can it enforce any veto over the shared political and moral framework.

Now when it comes to such a framework the hindu is more than willing to meet the muslim halfway, and the best example of such a framework is the Indian constitution, but a document like the indian constitution would not have come into force if the hindu had not been open to the faults of his faith and acknowledged the horrors of history.

The muslims on the other hand show no inclination to do the same. No criticism of islam is permissible. Muslims for the large part insist that their political and moral framework will be based on islam. Further more there is a militant mindset which produces a fair amount of violence.

Hindu nationalism or hindutva always was and remains a reaction against an islam that is unwilling to get with the times.

2.
AnAn;
Don’t disagree with anything you have written.

girmit;
“If the discourse around Islam ruining India wasn’t ratcheted up constantly, then the perennial background conversation about brahminism ruining Indian civilization would come to the fore.”

Highly speculative considering political power in India is now firmly in the hands of the shudra. Secondly the shudra or the OBC has not only been a beneficiary of the caste system, but most crimes against dalits are committed by the OBC. So it is the Jut sikh in punjab, the jat in harayana, the patel, patil, yadav, reddy, gowda, vellalar who in maintaining his feudal status exploits dalits the most. Beneficiaries of brahamnism taking up cudgels against it seems, well, speculative.

Why do you think sanskitization has worked so well with the OBC?

Ambedkar demolished the intellectual and scriptural framework that produced casteism, and no savarna hindu has come up with or can come up with a revisionist framework to demolish his work.

“This preoccupation with Islam serves a purpose, for communities with a legacy of high ritual status to consolidate their control over the wider society, and protect their interests, in the face of globalization.”

This is typical leftist spiel. The economic reality of India is much more complex than clever reductionism.

// Ambedkar himself admired ramanuja , advaita . He said in his annhilation of caste ” no foreign ideology is necessary…” . So, no, he didnt see Hinduism as without hope. As for moral development in India is concerned, Coming of Islam was a big factor in all round under development altogether. There are many more people in Hinduism who stood up on issues of caste and they were allowed to criticise religion in its entirety. Ambedkar was made chairman of constitution by Gandhi and congress whom he criticised a lot. He visited and praised rss in its service as well. One cant say that of Islam. Islam kills its critics. so, no, I dont hold the same degree of hope for thee. As for borg, that is more apt for christianity and islam. It is not Hinduism that seeks converts. //

You need to read Ambedkar’s work, esp. – The Buddha and His Dhamma & Pakistan, or, The Partition of India, to understand why he said ” no foreign ideology is necessary…”.

In one book he basically praises one religion over another i.e. Buddhism over Hinduism since that’s what he experienced in his life, while in another he shows why Islam was foreign & why Pakistan is necessary.

He believed that Hinduism can’t survive without caste that’s the central point of his book – Annhiliation of Caste.

As far as criticism of human social division goes it has been going on even since the human society has came into existence but from Hindu texts the best examples i can provide are –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrasuchi_Upanishad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apastamba_Dharmasutra

So no Islam was not needed for criticism of social division but i guess the number of such work increased substantially probably because of increased number of deprived people.

// Islam comes into it just as british are brought into it to explain harmful effects of colonialism to understand the relative under development. Europe succeeded because of 3 things, science, printing and freedom to criticize, India was the pre eminent place for new math and astronomy, it allowed freedom to criticize, atheists existed in India till the coming of Islam. Ramanuja , was the second greatest theologian in last 1500 yrs possibly and he stood against caste discrimination and so did many others in past 1000 years. Without Islam to worry about, people would have possibly be worried about these issues instead. Atheists existed in India for longer period than entire history of christianity thus far or the entire peak period of greeko roman civilization. To understand the influence of Islam, one only needs to wonder, what would have happened to western civilization had it been occupied, its universities destroyed, oxford and Cambridge being replaced with taj mahal and qutb minar. It was knowledge that changed the west and it would have been knowledge that would have changed India too, and knowledge production under Islam in India was bad. //

I agree with the views expressed in this paragraph though.

// There is only one rule that leads to progress. Disagreement. Allowing critics to live and voice their opinion . This freedom is of course not absolute anywhere in the world. But is the bedrock of all progress. //

Well said.

———————————————————————-

// You can convert someone by appealing to their conscience, as christianity or islam do, or you can claim that a people belong to your fold (and they just don’t realize it), as brahminical hindus and their affiliates do, both are strategies to strengthen one’s identity group. //

Yes agree the people convert for vary many reasons but the process of such diffusion & change is lost and now researchers have started looking into this phenomenon of how beliefs {not necessarily religions} of different communities interact & affect each other.

Hindus have had to make such claims due to historical reasons like from Oriental constructs {Orientalism 1979, Missionary Tropics. The Catholic Frontier in India} to hidden religious bigotry {The Nay Science}, to controlling the knowledge forming mechanisms the Hinduism survived by responding to such challenges {even if that meant responding in an incorrect manner, that’s what current Hindutva is}.

// And if shudras criticize the hinduism of brahmins, it is not something that is permitted to them through enlightened reasoning, it is something that no one can do anything about and must endure. Weakness is not tolerance. //

Problem is Indians are creating false narratives in Oriental framework since colonization to gain political patronage.

https://www.academia.edu/17241604/Untouchables_and_Contested_History – Shraddha Kumbhojkar, Savitribai Phule Pune University Faculty.

Yes weakness is not tolerance but unjust criticism only increases friction {as the no. of physical atrocities have gone up} & does not solve anything.

// In some parts of India we are seeing shudras and others (who have force of numbers and willingness to take personal risk) aligning behind brahmins, and we are now seeing the so-called tolerance to criticize hinduism. Targeted assassination of writers, ransacking history departments, its all happening. Hindu exceptionalism is dangerous, the idea that we are uniquely peaceful and open to a multiplicity of viewpoints, and the Abrahamics are violent logocentric absolutists. //

So you mean to say that we should disregard history of accepting criticism {Since you term it as Hindu exceptionalism} & accept that Hindus are also capable of perpetuating atrocities. Every group is capable of atrocities & so are Hindus too but to disregard history to put every ideology in the same basket is disingenuous & dishonest way to look at the world.

// I’m not drawing a complete equivalence between all faith communities, there ARE qualitative differences, but we don’t know the history of dissent in hinduism. The people who used to get flogged for casting a shadow in the wrong direction or drawing from the wrong well, it doesn’t occur to me that their dissenting opinions on theological matters would be well received.” //

I guess you simply didn’t put your own efforts to look into these things. For e.g. check the works of authors like Ludo rocher, Timothy Lubin or Donald R. Davis Jr.

How many places in the world do we find the common religious centres of Abrahamic religions {except Jerusalem} ? In most Ancient Indian dynasties we find that they patronaged all belief systems {Brahmans & Sharmanas} during their regimes & their personal religion did not matter most of the times.

// This person cant seem to recognize, that west made strides of progress because of this very reason.Even if you were to credit this new progress in India due to enlightenment values in west, it would amount to the same idea. As for history of dissent in hinduism, one can count the success of buddhism, ajivika, jainism, atheism in Indian history along with ramanuja, bhakti movement, veera shaivas among others, eventual displacement from India of buddhism, atheism was not due to Hinduism either.

And one is infact thankful and should be thankful that people to a large degree are obeying laws of the land, constitution introduced under chairmanship of Ambedkar, with An atheist like Nehru being the Prime .This happened because Gandhi built the social capital and entrusted it to them. The chap seems to not realize, without this social capital won and entrusted, which is what actually happened, the constitution remains but a piece of paper no one read. A formality. Without this trust if people had taken it upon them to destroy the social contract, massive amounts of damage could have been done . Especially if those people are the elites. So, yes, everyone must be thankful for combined cooperation that keeps the society working.To try to explain this away by calling it “so called tolerance ” is outrightly moronic. It is a form of leftist delusion that has become all to common to see all progress as a product of forcible extraction. There is such a thing as win win deal or one earned through trust. One makes progress by making it so, otherwise, degree of fighting would lead to civil war as it happens in real failed states. People who make the above arguments live under delusion that things could not have been worse. No, they could have and could go south in future as well. One must make sure it doesnt happen so. And be appreciative therefore of progress made and one continues to keep making. The assembly that passed important bill on hindu code bill had many hindus of upper castes origin.

And one must look only across the borders to realize what freedom really means. And one shouldnt make false equivalence even in partial way. And it is indeed right to praise polytheism to be better than monotheism on this issue. As for allowing dissent, it is the only freedom that counts, everything else is product of this one freedom. So, yes polytheism is most certainly more open for allowance of criticism. Infact I would argue that a world without monotheism would have developed far faster. Even the success of the west is under girded on the knowledge and practices of hellenic and roman civilizations. //

Bro let me welcome you to the real world with the latest book that traces the account of equality & Inequality through human societies –
The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton Economic History of the Western World)

I wish it could have included India but it would help you in understanding how human societies have evolved.

No matter what happens revolutions or wars or natural disasters only disaster leads to temporary prosperity. Secondly if social contract is working then why the protests & unrests continue in the same manner which Ambedkar warned against ?

https://scroll.in/article/802495/why-br-ambedkars-three-warnings-in-his-last-speech-to-the-constituent-assembly-resonate-even-today

Why such levels of inequality ushered by the social contract ?
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/Richest-1-own-58-of-total-wealth-in-India-Oxfam/article17044486.ece

Same situation in world –
http://fortune.com/2017/11/14/credit-suisse-millionaires-millennials-inequality/

Who gets to decide what is progress ? If you look closely they are the elites you decried earlier. Yeah the analogy of troubled neighbor shows us exactly why inequality continues because humans prefer inequal peace over equal Bolsheviks.