Thereâs a quiet but persistent coalition, inside and outside India, that seems intent on denying Hindus the right to define their own future. It includes unreformed Islamists who refuse to reckon with modernity, English-speaking liberal elites still shadowboxing for Nehru, minorities with veto power but no stake in cohesion, and a chorus of Western (and increasingly Chinese) voices, eager to manage Indiaâs trajectory from afar. What unites them? A shared discomfort with Hindu political consolidation.
Letâs be clear: Hindu identity is not a new construct. Whether you place its roots 3,000 or 5,000 years ago, itâs one of the worldâs oldest living civilizational continuities. That identity has always been plural, regional, and evolving. But it has also always been there; visible in memory, ritual, geography, and language. Today, that identity is waking up to its political form. And it will not be put back to sleep.
Hindutva is not going anywhere. Nor is the Indian Union. Those who hoped Kashmir would stay outside this arc have already seen the direction of travel. Pakistanâs decision to opt out of Hindustan, and then build an identity against it, has led not to strength but to strategic stasis. Bangladesh, too, for all its cultural richness, now stands as a separate civilizational lane. And so we arrive at the core truth: Hinduism and India are coterminous.
This isnât a call for exclusion. But it is a reminder that those who opted out do not get to dictate terms to those who stayed in. That includes foreign commentators and diasporic gatekeepers alike. There is a difference between pluralism and paralysis. There is a difference between nationalism and denial. And if majoritarianism is the anxiety; perhaps the deeper fear is that Hindus are no longer apologizing for being the majority. Let India decide. Let Hindus decide. Let the world, finally, learn to listen.
20% of India’s population is non-Hindu (according to the 2011 census). Do they not matter? This is the problem with majoritarianism.
If you’re being intellectually consistent you would have to agree with posts titled “Let Muslims decide for Pakistan” or “Let Jews decide for Israel”.
States should belong to all their citizens not to the majority. Mahmood Mamdani’s book Neither Settler nor Native explores some of these issues.
Finally, if India wants to become a majoritarian Hindu state, then they need to let Muslim-majority Kashmir go. A Hindu country cannot hold a Muslim-majority territory by force. The entire justification for Kashmir being part of India (aside from the fact that the Maharaja acceded to India) was that India is secular and that a secular state can contain a province that is minority-dominated. If secularism is no longer there, then there is no justification for holding Muslims against their will.
Muslims already decide for Pakistan?
Israel is a complex issue since it does also have a Palestinian population that is under occupation. If there is an independent Palestine then Jews would be pretty much the deciders for Israel? However I suspect there will have to be some sort of binationalism.
Kashmir can try to leave India if they like but it seems a non-starter (like Khalistan and all the other separatist movements?)
was my comment removed? if so why?
I suspect it was NOT the author of this parent post that removed my comment. This sort of random deletions are …. unacceptable.
I restored it?
thanks.
For the record, I deleted your comment on my post. It was personal and did not add anything to the discussion.
I would never dare to delete comments on XTM’s posts (asides from the fact that I’m not technically capable of doing so).
blatant and gross abuse of access. Yet again.
That was my thread. I am well within my rights to moderate it as I wish. XTM has asked for authors not to delete each other’s comments. You are not an author.
I’m not obligated to accept personal attacks.
and as the restored comment quite clearly shows – your motives for attempting to delete it are quite transparent.
I’m talking about your comment on my “Diljit Dosanjh” thread (which I permanently deleted).
I haven’t touched any comments on this thread. I’m not capable of technically doing that.
Muslims do decide for Pakistan. But that is a function of the demographics. 3% of the population is non-Muslim. In India’s case, 1/5 of the population is non-Hindu.
Israel proper contains 20% non-Jews.
Kashmir may or may not succeed in “leaving India”. My point was only that an aggressively Hindu majoritarian state has no moral basis to hold a Muslim-majority area.
Does Pakistan have a “moral basis” to exist?
This is a state that has for its entirety of existence, has failed to provide its citizens with basic azaadi, committed a genocide, an economic basketcase that survives on loans and extorting the international community with fears of ‘nukuclear implosion’.
I struggle to think of a single institution or corporation that is 100% Pakistani, that isn’t riddled with fraud.
Pakistan came about through an agreement between the Congress, the League and the departing colonial power. I’m not sure exactly what you think you’re getting at.
On Kashmir: beyond the principle of the ruler of the princely state getting to decide–in which case Junagadh belongs to Pakistan– the entire justification for Kashmir being part of India is that India is secular and therefore it is fine for it to have a Muslim-majority state.
Sheikh Abdullah believed a secular India was a better bet for Kashmir than an Islamic Pakistan. If he had known India was going to become a Hindu majoritarian state, he may have chosen otherwise for Kashmir.
If India is no longer secular then that Muslim-majority state must be free to go its own way.
If we are talking about “intent” at Partition, today’s Pakistan is not at all what Jinnah envisioned either. By your own logic, it stands to reason that a plebescite needs to be conducted, from Kalat, Balochistan, to the realms of Bacha Khan’s progeny in the NWFP – whether they wish to be independent, stay part of a “moth eaten Pakistan” (especially post the Bangla genocide), or re-merge back with the Indian homeland.
If you feel that its appropriate to ‘question’ Kashmir’s union with India, then Pakistan’s reason to exist is similarly questionable.
Trying to “re-do” partition to gain territory is a Pakistani zealot’s pipe-dream. Even discussing it, is enabling bigotry, in my view. Its very similar to identifying a holocaust denier as a Nazi.
Kashmir is a DISPUTED TERRITORY. What part of this do you not understand?
Balochistan and KPK are constitutionally provinces of Pakistan. Secession is not and will never be on offer. Not to mention that Pashtuns are by and large well-integrated into Pakistan.
You’re so concerned about ad hominem attacks but you can compare me to a Nazi?
XTM: Are you OK with your Indian friends implying that I’m a Nazi? This is not on.
Disputed according to whom? Pakistanis? Rest of the world has moved on. Even the Gulf muslim monarchies didn’t utter a peep when the Indian government updated J&K’s statehood in 2019. Wake up and smell the Chai. It is indeed, fantastic.
So there’s no dispute? When is your government going to stop claiming Gilgit, Skardu and Muzaffarabad.
Don’t be disingenuous.
No there isn’t. Substantively. What’s left is just an excuse for the PakMil to continue looting the ghulaam awaam (since you seem to enjoy that phrase so much).
Partition and the end of the British colonial project led to messy border resolutions. Pakistan’s creation itself is a debatable outcome – but I’ll let that one aside. Asking to re-litigate Kashmir or Junagadh, or any of the rest is beyond pointless. Bacha Khan and the Khan of Kalat have equally strong ‘cases’ of what-ifs, if not stronger.
Pakistani fixation on Kashmir is used by its military to keep on swindling and exploiting its ghulaam awaam, and the non-military apologists who peddle the same, are just using it to mask their anti-hindu bigotry.
If they genuinely cared about “holding muslims against their will”, why not apply their focus and concern where it actually can do something – within their own kleptocratic borders where the PTM and Baloch are being viciously persecuted.
Literally every single thing that India stands accused of, in J&K, the Pakistani state has done the same and worse, within its own borders. And continues to do so, till date.
Nope, its India, they’d rather fixate on, and pompously pontificate on. Gee, I wonder why.
Center-left, spare me the bull-dust.
Good comment
Is it really? It’s just full of anti-Pakistan vitriol.
facts and perspectives that you find inconvenient to your propaganda agenda, aren’t “vitriol”. This in fact, is an ad hominem attack.
Saying something is vitriol isn’t ad hominem. Do you know what ad hominem means? I described your argument not you.
The Baloch are Muslim and their ruler was Muslim. Not to mention, India doesn’t border Balochistan. So I’m not sure exactly what your case is on Kalat.
There are definitely issues in Balochistan. However, Balochistan is unequivocally a province of Pakistan. Kashmir is a disputed territory.
“Ghulam awaam”– So impressive you know a few words of Urdu! Bully for you!
“East Pakistan” ruler was muslim. Bangladesh had to be freed from the clutches of those genocidal muslims. A non-muslim army delivered azaadi for innocent muslims by de-pants-ing 90,000 gendarmes of genocide. Just as post-accession Kashmir was saved from the looting and raping by the very same non-muslim army.
Kalat/Balochistan, and many territories currently “occupied” by the Pakistan military may wish to share Bangladeshi outcomes. That’s my point.
Kashmir is “disputed” only for Pakistani revanchist pipe dreamers. That’s the cold hard 21st century reality.
Any and all arguments that can be made to advocate for re-visiting Kashmir’s accession to India, can be made for the dissolution of Pakistan as a nation-state. That’s my point. In fact, the case is arguably a whole lot stronger. This simple truth is an ideal litmus test to identify a “genuine” Pakistani liberal, instead of fake zealots LARPing as one.
Best for the entire sub-continent, to formalize the status quo and move on from history, and attempt a peaceful co-existence.
Really Kashmir is not Disputed? OK, then I guess there is no such thing as “Pakistan-Occupied” Kashmir. Stop harping on about getting Gilgit and Muzaffarabad.
Your litmus test for “genuine” Pakistani liberals is ridiculous. No Pakistani will ever accept the dissolution of Pakistan.
Watch your tone with me.
Don’t try to play this arrogant “tu jaanta nahi main kaun hoon” tone with me. It aint gonna work. This isn’t a traffic dispute at some Lahore intersection where you can try and throw your weight around.
This post isn’t “yours”. You do not get to ‘police’ opinions on this ‘thread’. Besides, its not possible for you to question the facts that I, admittedly, colorfully stated. Hence your goalpost shift to “tone”.
And yes, my view and argument is that the Kashmir “dispute” is dead and buried. What’s leftover is a residual conflict that is only stoked by one side – the looters that masquerade as Pak Jernails.
Any Pakistani non-Kashmiri that wants to advocate for re-visiting partition with regards to J&K, is disqualified from asserting that they are a liberal. It is intellectually dishonest to do so. This is my assertion.
“Pakistani non-Kashmiri”– I am ethnically Kashmiri. You are from Maharashtra. Those are my people we are talking about not yours.
Your litmus test for liberals was not even about Kashmir, it was about the dissolution of Pakistan (your words). No Pakistani will accept that.
If I said the true Indian liberal will accept the dissolution of India, you would rightly call that out for being ridiculous.
And it’s so cute that you know a few words of Urdu! I don’t know what you’re trying to prove.
you are yet again, either failing to understand my point, or intentionally mis-interpreting it in order to railroad me.
My point is that an actual liberal would recognize the objective fact that attempting to “dispute” J&K from India is in fact an illiberal position to hold. It is a revisionist fantasy that only serves to perpetuate extremism in Pakistan, and Pakistani engineered violence in India.
I am not at all interested in “dissolution of Pakistan” or making Pakistanis accept that. That is all you fighting self-manifested ghosts of your own making.
If I had a penny for every time a Pakistani Patriot claimed to be ‘Kashmiri”, I’d be a multi-millionaire. Its hilarious how none of these self-professed ethnic Kashmiris speak even one syllable of Kashmiri.
You literally used the phrase “dissolution of Pakistan”.
I’ve studied English Literature. I’m an expert at close reading. Don’t play these games with me.
In fact, an “actual liberal” would recognize that asserting that the Kashmiri people have the right to self-determination is a liberal position. They don’t have to join Pakistan. But they have the right to leave Hindutva India.
Pakistani advocates for “Kashmiri right to self-determination” would do well to try and attempt achieving Pakistani ‘self-determination” – Sometime in their own lifetime would be nice to aim at.
Not to be unduly pessimistic, but I do not see any real chance for the ghulaam awaam to manage to squirm out from under the PakMil boots anytime in the next decade or two. If ever.
And those claiming to assert a “liberal position” by supporting Kashmiri secessionist aspirations wouldn’t be so naked in their robust defense of PakMil colonial abuse of the Baloch. An actual liberal would honestly be able to apply the same logic to Balochistan. A fake one wouldn’t. So yes, my assertion stands.
The Baloch were never promised a plebiscite. Yes, Pakistan needs to address their legitimate concerns but secession is not an option.
As for your doubts about my ethnicity, you only have to look at a picture of my grandfather to recognize that he was Kashmiri. Secondly, it’s very offensive to question someone’s ethnic background.
Who’s going to hold a Kashmiri plebiscite?
Also what does that mean it’s obvious that he was Kashmiri
I mean you only have to look at his face, specifically his nose đ
There is a huge ethnic Kashmiri-Punjabi population, like the Sharifs.
The term Pakistani liberal is itself an oxymoron.
I have in fact met some. In person. Ran into a lovely couple while on vacay in Guatemala. Excellent conversation along a 2 hour shared shuttle ride. Shia muslims from Baltistan – he took great pains to indicate that his community is not like the average Pakistani, and that in his biradari they are proud to educate their daughters and wives, have them take the lead in public lives. Both his daughters were young med students.
The tragedy for Pakistan is that such actual liberals with modern outlooks wisely avoid taking public positions. They don’t want to get lynched. Hence the domination by the nutters and fringe on the right continues. Leading to mis-categorization of the right-wing as “the center”.
My views are basically those of the Pakistan People’s Party which is a centre-left party in Pakistan.
“Both his daughters were med students”– My mother is a physician. My great-aunt was a professor of pathology. What exactly is your point?
Thanks for making my point for me, yet again. What passes for “centre left in Pakistan” is in fact not anywhere near what centre-left would be, on the rest of this planet.
Every country on earth has a political spectrum. That’s a very basic fact.
Somehow I get the feeling that you’re really not as intelligent as you think you are. Let me guess: IT worker?
>Somehow I get the feeling that youâre really not as intelligent as you think you are. Let me guess: IT worker?
Such pathetic ad hominem attacks from a self-proclaimed intellectual and “liberal”. Sad really. You continue to make apt demonstrations of your prejudice, as well as your…. intellect. Please do continue hoisting yourself by your own petard.
Seriously, it’s OK to be an IT worker. But you clearly don’t have a robust education in the humanities.
Though apparently along with your few words of Urdu, you learned one line from Shakespeare “hoisting by your own petard”. Shabash beta! Now go write some code.
Feel free to declare ‘victory’. Heck anoint yourself Failed Marshal while you’re at it. đ Or is it President for life now. Its all so tiresome and predictable. Maybe Emir-al-Momeen etc etc.
Its a ‘hard knock life’ being an apologist for a zombie kleptocratic dictatorship. You have to constantly chest thump about being an ‘expert at reading’ etc etc. After all, Pakistani certifications are essentially considered fake, even by the ummah brother states of the middle-east are they not?
For what it’s worth, I think COAS appointing himself Field Marshal was quite stupid.
I think those are interesting threads to follow perhaps?
what’s this, something we can actually agree on? đ There’s hope for humanity yet!
It was for domestic compulsions. Otherwise it’s meaningless. Also, he wanted to assert his authority over other army officers.
I would argue that Modiji declaring “Operation Sindoor” is only temporarily paused is also for domestic compulsions. Sorry don’t mean to trigger you.
I do not think its meaningless. Its utterly meaningful when it comes to the long-running PakMil game of thrones soap opera that unfortunately has implications not just for the enslaved Pakistani citizens, but also for India.
Why would I be ‘triggered’ by your theories on Modi. I DGAF about Modi, or domestic political implications of ‘Op Sindoor’. My concern as an Indian is focused on deterring and responding to Pak-sponsored terrorism. Which the Indian Govt did, quite satisfactorily. Especially in marked contrast to a 30 year long historical bloody track record of repeated attacks on innocent civilians all over India, that went unanswered.
Many Indian analysts have pointed out that Pakistan is not “deterred”.
There will be another attack (I don’t want this obviously but it’s going to happen sooner or later) and India will respond beyond what happened in “Operation Sindoor”.
Asim Munir spoke the other day at some graduation or other and said that next time Pakistan’s response to an Indian attack will be qualitatively worse for India. This is not a good cycle to be stuck in.
I actually agree with you (shock!) that both countries need to accept the status quo. India needs to stop claiming Gilgit and Skardu and including it in your domestic weather reports. Pakistan needs to stop obsessing about Indian administered Kashmir.
However, where I disagree with you is that even if Pakistan abandons the Kashmir cause, it doesn’t mean that local Kashmiris will not continue fighting India.
Pravin Sawhney is not ‘many Indian analysts”.
Fact of the matter is that after Pahalgam, direct costs were imposed on PakMil. Whether the deterrence works, and for how long, is for time to tell.
From an Indian perspective, long overdue delivery of consequences were served.
From a more ‘aman ki asha’ perspective, its unfortunate that Pakistanis chose to circle their tribal wagons and double down on their stockholm syndrome with their PakMil feudal overlords. Such is life.
When Indians start to bomb Pakistan, naturally the entire nation will come together. No hostile power is allowed to bomb a sovereign nation.
Iranians didn’t accept being told to evacuate Tehran. Even people who hate the Ayatollahs came together behind the nation.
Pravin Sawhney is not the only analyst who stated that Pakistan has not been deterred.
when Pakistani ‘non-state actors’ repeatedly murder Indians for 3 decades, the entire nation will come together. No hostile neighbor is allowed to repeatedly attack a sovereign nation.
And yet, you gleefully attribute Indian anger over terrorism to “ant-Pakistan” vitriol – “right-wing” slide of India because even the “communists in India supported Op Sindoor”. Duh.
Anger over terrorism is fine.
I don’t think asking for a neutral investigation was so unreasonable but you are free to disagree.
Any Indian attack on Pakistan will be responded to in no uncertain terms. No Pakistani (even those who are not fans of “PakMil”) will disagree with this.
Military success, but I always feel it’s too early to call it a success. I think the country has been left with a queasy feeling that the next terrorist strike can happen any time someone needs some chaos to ascend in.
Personally I feel the “unknown gunmen” program is far more effective, there’s almost zero collateral damage and none of this sending delegations around explaining to a world which doesn’t care.
It’s a travesty of this world that overt action receives far more condemnation than covert.
yes, very true.
You keep editing your comments after I’ve already responded to them. Which is really not fair.
Your point about Pakistani certifications is completely irrelevant since my degrees are from the US and the UK. Are you going to call a SOAS degree “fake”. Laughable.
you can see previous edits of any comment
sorry, but my comments are completely off-the-cuff, and on occasion, I do feel the need to clarify/elaborate. I’d say almost every edit is an add-on to the comment, never a change/delete.
this is a mean spirited comment
Really? We’re going to play the “who started it?” game? Real mature.
in response to one that explicitly tries to insult my ‘intellgence’. Speculates about my profession? asks me to “go write some code”.
I mean, if Kabir feels entitled enough to assert revanchist extreme Pakistani perspectives, please tell me why I cannot respond with facts about the Pakistani state? Its an eminently valid argument that I’m tabling. And when I do so, he chooses to take “offense” and responds with personal attacks. This is a pattern that has repeatedly occurred on these comment threads.
I am not asking for Kabir’s “patriotic” perspective to be censored. But if I am responding with a counter perspective, without getting personal, sticking to actual facts, then why is the ‘policing’ indulging in an unfair ‘both-sides-ism’, instead of correctly calling out the consistent pattern of initiation.
I really have no issues with your “facts” (though there are no objective facts in these things only narratives). I do have an issue with your tone which is persistently obnoxious.
And you realize that in one of your comments you implied that I was a Nazi. I hope you will apologize.
I most definitely did not imply that you’re a Nazi. That’s a construct all your own, and an attempt to ‘cancel’ me. I’d advise you to read it again.
and as far as “apologies” are concerned. you haven’t even bothered to apologize to me. After comically sad attempts to insult my ‘intelligence’. You apologized to XTM – because you don’t want to run afoul of his perceived authority.
I apologized to xperia (who by the way has no authority here). I apologize to you for calling you an IT worker.
Why throw around words like “Nazi” then? Don’t attempt to insult my reading skills. I was an English major.
You’re walking back your claim because you realize it puts you on the wrong side of XTM.
Anyway, not going to belabor this point.
I am not walking anything back.
And I reject your apology. Its in bad faith and insincere. You didn’t just call me an “IT worker” – as if working for a wage is somehow ‘lowclass’ or something to be ashamed of. Reeks of zamindari entitlement. You tried to insult my English proficiency, you attempted to belittle my intelligence.
You clearly have strong negative feelings towards me, because I am vocal in arguing a perspective that challenges yours. Its ok. Some folks are unable to separate the man from the debate. I don’t harbor any expectations.
You clearly have strong negative feelings toward me. Goes both ways. For example, you keep harping about “so-called Centre-left”. If I say, I’m centre-left, I’m centre-left. I don’t vote in Pakistan but in America I have voted Democrat in every single election since the age of 18.
If you can’t see how your comments reek of anti-Pakistan vitriol, I can’t really help you.
what exactly do find “anti-Pakistan” in my comments? Are you able to contest any of the facts I use in supporting my assertions?
Your tone towards the entire country is nasty.
Introspect a bit, I’d say.
There are no facts in these kind of discussions. There’s an Indian narrative and a Pakistani narrative.
more generalizations. Care to be specific? What instances or assertions do you find “nasty”? Is there anything that I have asserted that is factually false?
Your double standards are on full display again. You feel entitled to exaggerate and fixate on Indian ‘issues’ but get overly defensive when similar actual issues are pointed out east of the Radcliffe line.
It is not a question of “narrative” – that’s a particularly Pakistani slant on things. This fixation with bayaaaniya Some facts are just that – facts. Like the fact the Pakistani nation-state is not a democracy. Its citizens are not free. And it is governed by a kleptocratic institution that seeks to perpetuate its kingship over the awaam at the expense of their future or well-being. And this kleptocratic institution continues to deploy murderous violence – both institutional and “non-state” against its own citizens as well its neighbors, for this primary purpose. Do you dispute any of this?
This is not physical science where there are objective facts. This is the humanities. What we discuss on BP is history, politics, etc. There are only narratives. You are entitled to your narrative but nothing you have written has convinced me of anything.
The lack of civilian supremacy is a serious problem in Pakistan. I’m no fan of hybrid regimes (either the Imran Khan one or the current one though the current one is far better because at least that horrible man is in jail). But I’m not inclined to discuss civilian supremacy with you. So I’ll bow out.
thats fine. You can ‘bow out’. After failing to substantiate your accusations of “nasty” or “anti-Pakistan’ tone with any specifics.
Defenders and apologists of totalitarian kleptocracies cannot be taken seriously in their ‘advice’ on how secularism ought to be implemented by India. That’s the point.
Kabir if a comment is offensive void but don’t respond in kind?
I don’t think I have the ability to void comments on your posts.
Really? This again? are you mocking people’s english and trying to imply some sort of educational or vocational superiority?
I mean you were so offended when Honey Singh did this to you and yet you turn around and execute the very same offence.
Your education and privilege counts for nought if you cannot extend to others the basic courtesies that you expect yourself.
I got carried away. I apologize.
Did you not notice how hard Daves was trolling me?
Must have been nice to find sensible voices willing to engage. It’s unfortunate that those spaces in Pakistan are dominated by the illiberal ones, for like XTM pointed out, a few concessions is all it would really take to smoothen the path ahead.
I read a very interesting bit on why the term moderate Muslim is a bit of a misnomer. One would expect a higher level of education and exposure to correlate negatively with adherence to religious dogma, but apparently that is not true. I have met enough folks across nationalities that validated this premise. (The only ones that didn’t are from Iran). Mostly these individuals are situationally liberal but not necessarily in a global sense.
yes I was driving through East London today; it was incredible the amount of Hijabs on display
“Moderate Muslim” is actually an offensive term. It implies that Muslims by definition aren’t moderate.
Think about why you don’t hear terms like “Moderate Christian” and “Moderate Jew”.
Practising Muslims do tend to be fairly inflexible as a rule of thumb?
That’s a generalization. There are varying degrees of practice. All the way from maybe going to the mosque twice a year at Eid to being a fundamentalist.
Why does “Moderate Hindu” not exist as a term? When we want to specify that someone is an extremist we have to say “Hindutvadi”. “Hindu” just implies a normal human being who happens to practice Hinduism.
Just off the top of my head you have found Moderate Muslim, Islamist, Islamofacist, your Kashmiriness, some guy saying “mowing the lawn” offensive.
Good manners demands that we respect your wishes and not offend but when they are imposed upon so severely the temptation is just to abandon all sensitivity and just ignore the subliminal thought policing.
I’m not the only one on earth who believes “moderate Muslim” is offensive (again, we don’t go around saying “moderate Jew” or “moderate Christian”). “Islamofascist” is definitely offensive. The Wikipedia article on the term clearly lays out why the term is both conceptually meaningless and problematic.
If “Hindutvadi” is offensive than “Islamist” and “Islamofascist” are certainly offensive.
I don’t want to make this post all about me so I’ll stop now.
that’s a bingo.
one never knows the extent of espoused liberalism. But then again thats an unfair yardstick. Aren’t we all guilty of being ‘situationally liberal’?
Chronologically too. It’s a bit of a shock to find that suddenly you are left standing on a completely different side of the liberal scale with time.
Yeah, although that is…slightly rarer. Then again, its all relative. I look up to ‘Dr saab’ as a shining example of liberalism, but his perspective on gender may and (probably does) get him accused of being the opposite!
Ah yes! You like Dr. Omar Ali because he has a bit of a soft corner for the Hindu right and reserves his ire for what he calls “PakNationalists”.
BP has always been a pro-Hindu Right safe space and it was Omar and Razib that made that possible.
I thought he was talking about Dr. Manmohan Singh. Though who knows what his stance on gender was.
I think he was referring to Omar (one of the BP founders)
Yes, thank you, I figured, I was just slapping my metaphorical forehead. Anyway it’s a good example of perspectives of liberalism. I suspect most of the people you have interacted with over the past few months are (like me) non-religious Indians consider themselves centre or close to center on the liberal scale, with under a standard deviation from the mean.
Trust me, if you were around for earlier incarnations of BP, there were some hardcore Hindu Right people here.
I was referring to Dr Omar Ali.
I went to college with his niece. Lahore is truly a small world.
Dont you get the same with Hindus and their caste issues. Not wishing to eat where pork and beef is cooked.
Not too bad with most SL Hindus and to some extent South Indians (non Brahmins) too. It is the North Indians who are rigid
what does that Dharmic soul mean though exactly?
Annie Besant was one of the European/American Theosophists who revived Hinduism (in India) and Buddhism in SL.
They were idealists,
Read The White Woman’s Other Burden 1st Edition by Kumari Jayawardena for a view of the various Ruro/US women in South Asia
many well-known women, including Katherine Mayo, Helena Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Madeleine Slade, and Mirra Richard and highlights the stories of dozens of women whose names have been forgotten today. In the course of this telling, Jayawardena raises the issues of race, class, and gender which are part of current debates among feminists throughout the world.
https://www.amazon.com/White-Womans-Other-Burden-Western/dp/0415911052
She revived Hinduism?
Annie Besant started her own spin off mini religion called the Theosophical society. It was one of those super elite ‘spiritual’ cults.
It’s all very recent history and deeply entwined with the freedom struggle. The cult itself was some sort of Hindu/Indian base build your own spirituality with astral planes and the search for the ‘teacher’ (discovered as Krishnamurti, in a quasi Buddhist mimicry). It never reached the masses.
Vivekananda revived Hinduism. He is revered across the country for doing so. Higlighting the philosophy and de emphasizing the hidebound caste practices and superstition.
Annie Besant started her own spin off mini religion called the Theosophical society. It was one of those super elite âspiritualâ cults
I think you need to read a little more and wider knowledge
a worldwide body dedicated to the promotion of Theosophy, an esoteric spiritual movement founded in 1875 in New York City. It was established by Helena Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, and William Quan Judge.
The Parliament of the World’s Religions opened on 11 September 1893 at the Art Institute of Chicago, as part of the World’s Columbian Exposition. On this day, Vivekananda gave a brief speech representing India and Hinduism
the Congress sought to gather all the religions of the world, with the aim of showing “the substantial unity of many religions in the good deeds of the religious life.” The Brahmo Samaj and the Theosophical Society were invited as representative of Hinduism.
Vivekananda submitted an application introducing himself as a monk “of the oldest order of sannyÄsis … founded by Sankara”.[100] The application was supported by the Brahmo Samaj representative Protapchandra Mozoombar, who was also a member of the Parliament’s selection committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_Society
I Sri Lanka, The Theosophical society was responsible for making Buddhism acceptable to the Elite. The new form of Buddhism is called Protestant Buddhism.
Many elite Buddhist schools were established. eg Ananda College, Nalanda College,
Almost throughout the 19 th Century the British Colonial administration and Christian missions were in collusion to keep the Buddhists down through discriminatory laws and regulations. Jayasekera points out that, unlike in India, Christian goals were part and parcel of the policy of British Colonial governance in Ceylon
Article by PK Balachandran
https://www.dailymirror.lk/print/opinion/Role-of-Theosophists-in-Buddhist-revival/231-226370
Theosophical Society
Arundale came into contact with the family of Nilakanta Sastri, a fellow Theosophist, and fell in love with his daughter, Rukmini.
Not withstanding these considerations and the uproar raised by Rukmini’s family, they were married in 1920, when Rukmini turned sixteen and he was forty-two. Arundale mentored Rukmini and encouraged her to develop her interest in classical dance. Rukmini went on to being instrumental in rejuvenating the Bharatanatyam style of classical dance. Accordingly, it is as the husband of Rukmini Devi Arundale that George Arundale is best known in India today.
Devadasis, Bharatnatyam and The Theosophical Society
https://sbarrkum.blogspot.com/2018/09/devadasis-bharatnatyam-and-theosophical.html
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_Society_Adyar
how droll last summer I was going to Adyar on a daily basis for Wellness
Also read. We in Sri Lanka are grateful to the Theosophical Society for revival of Buddhism and making the message “modern”
Some theosophists like Helena Blavatsky, Helena Roerich and Henry Steel Olcott also became Buddhists. Henry Steel Olcott helped shape the design of the Buddhist flag.
Thus began the great Buddhist revival in Ceylon. Olcott also represented the Buddhist cause to the British government, and found redress for the restrictions imposed against Buddhists, such as the prohibition of processions, Buddhist schools, the improved financial administration of temple properties, and so on.
Olcott “united the sects of Ceylon in the Buddhist Section of the Theosophical Society (1880); the 12 sects of Japan into a Joint Committee for the promotion of Buddhism (1889); Burma, Siam, and Ceylon into a Convention of Southern Buddhists (1891); and finally Northern and Southern Buddhism through joint signatures to his Fourteen Propositions of Buddhism (1891).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Theosophy
[…] above comment by Dave praises a “liberal” Shia couple from Baltistan for educating their daughters […]
Thank you btw
Is it accurate to frame India as a Hindu homeland? I don’t see that as the mainstream outlook. Homelands are intuitively about “home” a place that accepts the immutable part of you. Some over-index this principle to race and others to religion, but the middle path is usually speech, one of the most persistent dimensions of culture. Don’t feel im just stating my personal bias, but intuitively indians view the republic as a composite of many ethnic homelands. If a Kannadiga or a Tamil denounces their faith, they are still tied to their ethnic homeland. The “muslim problem” is that it constructs identity in non-ethnic terms and then collides with ethno-linguistic frameworks, which for much of the world are more stable. You see exceptions all around, say in malayalam solidarity or assamese multi-faith solidarity at times against outsiders (even co-religionists). Islam is a destabilizer because its a lot easy to change religion than ethnicity, and if the consequences of changing religious demographics is political instability, then people will resist. Christians are much more tied to their ethnic identities in India than muslims.
Its not Hindus vs Muslims, its non-Muslims vs Muslims for the most part.
It was Savarkar who said that Muslims (and Christians) could not be first class citizens of India because their holy lands are not located in India.
Indian Muslims are ethnically Indian. Their faith doesn’t make them some alien species.
Heck, even many Pakistanis (like myself) are ethnically Indian. We happen to be citizens of a different political entity but that doesn’t change our ethnicity.
the quiet assuredness of a country finally and willingly at peace with itâs inherently Dharmic soul will manifest in entirety.
I dont see that, just a mad rat race to acquire more things and impose more power