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

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.”

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.

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.”