Hindus/buddhists threat perception of christianity and islam.

This ofcouse was always the issue, which anyone in their minds would have known, but this is the first time someone mentioned it for what it was about.


Threat Perception among Hindu and Buddhist Nationalists

I am not quoting the text as I am not sure of the rules regarding that with this person and I am not too sure of the permission.


But I also think Western analysis (especially press coverage) of these movements sometimes misses a key aspect of how they see themselves – as defensive projects provoked by expansionistic, proselytizing religions while being subjected to the hypocrisy and double standards of bien-pensant elites. “

Published by

Bharata Bharatavanshi


5 thoughts on “Hindus/buddhists threat perception of christianity and islam.”

  1. I have read the entire essay from which you cherry-picked one paragraph. It is very sensible and he is clearly not on your side.

    He also says this (and this is what I believe):

    “This does not mean analysts need to accept any of these claims, to discount the blood and terror that these movements have so often spread, or to believe they are not frequently just a cynical shield for the exercise of power. Rather than an oppressed minority, these movements have often acted in reality as a springboard for majoritarian dominance. Moreover, these dynamics are not unique to these movements – the same language that extremist Sinhalese Buddhists now hurl against Muslims has also been deployed against Tamils.

    But not taking these perceptions seriously – especially the belief that Buddhism and Hinduism have a kind of “cap” on their numbers while Islam and Christianity can always add to their ranks through proselytization – as a political force will continue to lead to the analytical gaps and misfires that we have seen in many assessments of the politics of Myanmar, India, and Sri Lanka. These are ambitious political projects with goals of political hegemony, fueled by a narrative of fundamentally defensive victimization from without. And they aren’t going away anytime soon, I suspect.”

    1. I did not cherry pick one argument, otherwise I wouldnt even post the link or even reference to it. I would instead have quoted someone more in tune to my views instead. I quoted what he himself admits , “western analysis misses a key aspect”. That was the whole point of the thread.

      1. Yes, “Western analysis” misses a key aspect. That is obvious.

        The man is a Professor at the University of Chicago. He knows whereof he speaks. But he’s clearly not on your side and he said that in the first paragraph. I believe he actually says “I don’t share their politics.”

        1. listen, I get that you are bothered by the fact that I quoted a person who would disagree with me. I am not .

  2. In many places where free speech is not allowed, everything becomes tribal. everything becomes about numbers and demographic. Everyone eventually takes sides because they cant see another way. Only by bursting the bubble of religion with criticism, satire can one offer a different path. I see this potential danger and I must try, no?.
    India has no free speech. This directly affects everything I care for in this world that is personal to me. I see Indian politicians as being dum dums and India being outrightly idiotic in how it refuses to allow this gift of reason for its own citizens. The consequences are potentially frightful. I am also a bit worried about the west that is also being coerced through empathyjacking (hijacking people’s empathy) into abandoning free speech.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits