Why the notion of ‘Hindu Nation’ alone is chosen for criticism?

If the critics only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe.

I sometimes wonder who influences whom: the Indian mainstream journalists influence the foreign correspondents or the other way round, as they always hold the same view. Or is there even a directive from the top of the media houses about who must be protected and who can be abused?

Obviously, Hindus can be abused. I was shocked when I recently checked articles in major newspapers like the New York Times on the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a ‘Hindu nation’ where minorities have no place. The articles peddled untruths and drew unacceptable conclusions. The Swiss NZZ for example wrote that it is hardly possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.

A Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called ‘liberal’ media. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh blasphemy laws. Why are these ok, and a Hindu nation is not ok? They don’t explain; they just insinuate that minorities (read Muslims and Christians) will suffer in a Hindu nation.

Maybe they came to this conclusion because minorities like Jews or Hindus suffer in certain Christian or Muslim nations though the media hardly pulls those countries up for it. However, even otherwise, this conclusion is wrong, as Hindus have a different mind-set. They are open towards other views, unlike ‘good’ Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.

Hindus cannot be put into one single box. There are too many different ways to reach the goal of life. As it were, there are many minorities within Hinduism. But they all are based on the Vedic insight that everything, including our persons, is permeated by the same divine essence which is called by many names but is ultimately ONE. Our human consciousness (Atman) is one with the cosmic consciousness (Brahman) and to realize this, is the goal and fulfillment of life. “Satyam vada, Dharmam chara” the Veda exhorts – speak the truth and do what is right under the given circumstances. And find out who you really are: you are not a separate entity but in the depths of your being one with all.

From this follows that ‘good’ Hindus are those rare human beings whose dharma makes them regard all others as brothers and sisters. Their dharma makes them further respect nature and not harm unnecessarily any living being.

Hindus do not, unlike Christians and Muslims, divide humanity into those who are chosen by God and those who are eternally damned. Hindu children are not taught to look down on those who are not Hindus, unlike children of the dogmatic religions who are taught that their God does not love those others unless they join their ‘true’ religions.

Hindus are also comparatively kinder to animals. The great bulk of vegetarians worldwide are Hindus.

Hindus never fought crusades or jihads to establish their dharma in foreign lands. In fact, they didn’t need to, because they convinced most of Asia merely by solid arguments.  Yet, for the past thousand years Hindus were at the receiving end of jihads and conversion campaigns and millions of Hindus were killed in cold blood because they were Hindus.

It has to be held in favour of Hindus that they held on to their tradition and did not succumb to the pressure and even violence brought on them to adopt blind belief that only one particular person has revealed the full truth. Instead, they continued trusting their sages who never asked for blind belief, but asked to verify their insights through experience.

So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a possible ‘Hindu nation’. What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.

The concept of Divinity is also different. For Hindus the best description for the absolute truth is sat-chit-ananda (it is true, aware and blissful). The many personal gods help the devotee to realize the Absolute. Christians and Muslims perceive Divinity in its highest form as a personal, superhuman entity who is jealous of other gods. The first commandment in Christianity and a very important issue in Islam is the claim that nobody must worship other gods except the ‘one true god’, which both religions claim is only with them.

In all likelihood the Hindu view comes closer to truth. When the first translations of Vedic texts appeared in the west, the greatest minds in Europe were greatly impressed by Indian thought. It did spread among scientists, too, who used it to push the frontiers of science further. It is no coincidence that modern science discovered that all is one energy after Vedanta became known in the west. It is also no coincidence that the Church lost much of its power in Europe when some of India’s wisdom filtered down to the masses

Why then are the media worldwide so worried about a nation where the Hindu roots are fostered? Where Sanskrit is taught, which is the most perfect, dignified, powerful language on earth? Where yoga is practised in schools, which is an ideal means for all-round development and which, on a deeper level, helps to find fulfilment in life? Where Vedic philosophy is studied, which inspired the new scientific discoveries for example in nuclear physics? Where the amazing wisdom of Mahabharata and Ramayana becomes common knowledge, which is already taught in business seminars abroad? Where children chant “Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu” (let all be happy) instead of Humpey dumpey, which happens already in certain schools in the west?

Yet as soon as Hindus make suggestions for India to keep its Hindu character or rather, to gain back its Hindu character, as even after Independence, the youth was encouraged to abandon it, there is an outcry by the media that “Hindu fundamentalists” want to make India a Hindu nation and exclude religious minorities. Ironically, ‘Hindu’ is a geographical term, with the same root as Indian – people who lived beyond the Sindu or between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean.

So why would Indians who rather recently converted to Islam or Christianity not be proud of the achievements of their ancestors? India was the cradle of civilization, a knowledge hub and the richest country on earth. It was known for its wisdom. Greeks, including Pythagoras, are said to have come to India for knowledge and today everybody knows his name, but not the name of the Indian mathematician (Baudhayana) who originally discovered the Pythagoras theorem. Surely Christians and Muslims cannot have any objection that students are taught this fact or the fact that the Rishis of the Rig Veda (10.22.14) knew many thousand years before Copernicus that the earth goes around the sun. Surely they also cannot have any objection that students chant “May all be happy” in Sanskrit, the language of their forefathers. If someone calls such teaching communal, it is malicious. If someone objects to this teaching, should not he be shouted at by the media instead of those who want to revive their ancient culture? Is not he the one who tries to divide society and not those who say “vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (all is one family) due to their philosophical outlook?

Hindus are the exemplary role model for ‘how not to exclude others’? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to realize this fact.

Why then are Hindus of all people accused of excluding others?

The reason may be this: neither the west nor Muslim countries want a strong India.  India was the cradle of civilisation and over most of the known history economically very powerful. They may fear that based on her ancient culture, India may rise again to the top. Is it the media’s job to put Hindus perpetually on the defensive by spreading this bogey of Hindu fundamentalism and prevent a better education policy which would give India an edge?

“Imagine, India would become a Hindu nation!” the media shout infuriated. The problem, however, is that they don’t imagine it and don’t ask basic questions. If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe.

One day, when people have become tired of blindly believing strange things, and when nobody is threatened any longer with dire consequences if he stops believing in those strange things, the world may be grateful to Bharat Mata that she has conceived and preserved over millennia those eternal, precious insights for the benefit of humanity.

Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.

  • Rama

    Great article. Sorry upfront. One small whinge and this mistranslation pops up everywhere, hence my comment. Sat Chit Anand, here Anand does not mean bliss. Bliss is sensation of the mind and Atman is beyond mind, body and senses. Swamy Dayanada Saraswathi Ji had written quite a bit on this mistranslation of Ananda.( He used to joke on this”You can have ice cream bliss after eating ice cream!) It is same Ananda, limitless. Satyam, Jnanyam, ANATHAM, brahma! It is “whole”

  • Ian Henderson Gemmell

    I am not sure that I understand this view point. Indian society has been divided for many years even before partition. Liberal intellectuals are hostile to religion but Muslims and Christians are likely to get some sympathy as the underdogs. But I believe Hindus and Sikhs generally get a very good press in the liberal West. It is the Muslims here that face hostility. They are even being blamed for letting off the Diwali firecrackers.

    • Akaara

      What is the basis for your statements? You are mad. You haven’t even attempted to understand the above article.

      • Ian Henderson Gemmell

        I think mad is a bit strong. India clearly is a very divided nation maybe since the days the Muslims arrived.. I just believe Hindus in India can be a little over sensitive but that doesn’t deny the merits of the religion. I feel all religions in India should be treated equally and respected as in UK. India is predominantly a Hindu nation in which should be respected. I believe it is right that India is a secular nation in which all religions should be respected and valued and there should be absolutely no shame in its Hindu heritage..

        • guest

          Secularism came about due to Christianity, read up on it. Christians and Muslims did not know how to live with other religions. so there separation of church and state. But Churches have subsidies or get tax relief, and other religions don’t then sorry, UK is not a secular. And you are wrong that all religions are treated equally. UK is going through major change, you will start to see issues very soon. It was all well because Christianity was the dominant religion and many Brits did not follow any religion. But as you see the demography changing, all the issues with religions will come up. Just wait and watch.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            There are always religious divisions. Politicians in the UK generally are not interested in promoting the Christian faith and often are nore accepting of other faiths but many Governments around the world feel threatened by strong religions. The Muslim faith in some places is accepted but there is great concern about Sharia law and aspects of Muslim culture. The fact that religious discord exists makes me feel that Governments should not be dominated by any religion. I am very concerned by the treatment of minorities in Muslim countries but Muslims are not the only people who have a tendency to bigotry.

          • guest

            Well, Muslims are for sure, the most proud about it.

        • Akaara

          Well, does it not then devolve on us to counteract the divisive forces and not be quiescent?

          The very forces that stormed into India with their divisive strategies are still very much ‘in their element’, and it would be naive on our part to respect them unless they learn and relinquish those strategies.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            I say live and let live. Respect all. This means all should live by this belief. Not one rule for one and another for someone else who ever they be.

          • Akaara

            In you own statements lies the crux of the matter.

            Both of the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, have certain inviolable elementary canons which are in a direct, head-on conflict with the ‘live and let live’ policy. Both Christianity and Islam, and their followers, say:

            a. Ours is the only true religion and faith and that alone is correct.

            b. Every human soul can be saved only and only if it relinquishes every other religion, and converts to our own.

            c. It is the sacred ordainment of our Lord (Jesus the Christ or Allah, as the case may apply) that we make it our inviolable duty to see to it that every single soul be saved by converting it to our own faith. (“My God is a jealous God”!!)

            d. Carrying out the ordainment of our Lord invariably, obviously and evidently means bringing annihilation to other religions by all means.

            d. Use any and all means, like war (as in the case of the Crusades or the vandalising armies of the Islamic conquerors) , threat (extra taxes, inquisitions etc.), allurement and what not, to carry out our ordained duty.

            e. If met with resistance, employ any means – political or military or economic or diplomatic – to crush the dissenters.

            f. By doing so we are pleasing our Lord and saving our own souls and those of the converts; by eradicating the disagreeing ones, we are saving them from the sin of following heathen religions, and the invariable destiny of ending up in eternal Hell.

            g. The more zealously we carry out our duty, the more is the Lord pleased with us. He casts his saving glance on us on the Judgement Day, and secures us our places in Heaven!

            Thus, from the day of their inception to this very moment, these have been the divine duties in which they have been engaged.

            They shall never ever ever falter from their duties, because it goes against the commandments of the Lord, and the Word of His son or prophet. It no doubt follows that they shall continue to do so incessantly until the Doomsday arrives.

            This website and other similar ones are replete with irrefutable evidence – even statistical evidence – of all the above mentioned tenets and how they all are being diligently carried out.

            Now, coming to your point of ‘live and let live’, we see that both the faiths are pitched against it. It has always been, ‘We alone shall live; convert and continue to live, or perish’.

            They won’t allow us and our religion to live, and what you cognise as ‘Hindu intolerance’ is the reaction of Hindus against these forces.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            I cannot see you other post to reply to that one but the reasons you give objecting to Christianity and Islam are exactly the reasons why I renounced Christianity at a young age and became a Radha Soami studying the teachings of the great gurus. I am happy to question Christians and Muslims about their beliefs but I don’t argue as I have never known anyone to change their beliefs as a result of an argument.

    • guest

      The point is not the religion of the people. But how a nation defines itself. When there can be muslim and christian and even Buddhist and Jew nations, why can’t there be a Hindu nation?

      • Ian Henderson Gemmell

        It is true that there are Muslim nations and a Jewish nation but I do not believe in religious government because minorities are generally persecuted and discriminated against. I am not sure there are any Christian states now and in many ‘Christian’ Countries they feel as many Hindus feel in India. You can have a Hindu nation though when there is a Khalistan.

        • guest

          You really do not understand—there is no Khalistan. Not all Sikhs want that. Only a small portion, most of who live outside of India, and it is not viable. Yes, there are Christian nations. Where Churches get money from the govt and taxes. Religious minorities in India are not persecuted and they never were. Yes there are few riots here and there. And Hindus die there as well. Btw, Hindus are the best people to respect minorities. Hindu government is not religious govt. Hinduism rests on dharma. Dharma respects all. Hindu Rashtra has best for all.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            No doubt it a small proportion of vocal Sikhs who want Khalistan though if attacked many Sikhs will come to defend their faith. But then then I am sure not all Hindus want a Hindu nation. I think it is extremists that are pushing for it. Christian churches may get favourable treatment but I think politically they are losing ground. I have great respect for the Hindu faith and the Vedas are second to none. But it is the teaching of Guru Nanak and the other great Gurus of India that interest me. To me this a personal thing. If government is based on these values then that is a good thing but I wouldn’t want to see only Hindu temples and customs supported. I am not really interested in Muslim and Christian faiths but I respect their rights.

          • guest

            See, the Hindus who do not want a hindu nations, are Hindus in name only and have either never really engaged in a serious debate. I myself am a person who having understood, and read a bit about the world promote that. You cannot take away Christian and Muslim nations or Jewish nations. They are not going away. There are only two nations that are hindu majority. Both are secular. But the fact is that Hinduism by definition is secular. It allows you any form of worship. And neither Christianity nor Islam do. So, a hindu nation, actually, not just for India for the rest of the world is a better way of life.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            Its not I think that they don’t want it. The important thing is that they feel free to practice their religion their which I am sure they do although some may be irked if they cannot burst fire crackers at Diwali though I don’t this is a religious issue. To all intents and purposes they live in a Hindu nation I think. If India was a Hindu state what exactly would change and would there be agreement about what exactly it should be. I am a lacto vegetarian and avoid alcohol but would all be happy if meat eating especially beef was banned or alcohol was forbidden. I was born into a Christian culture and attended church but I abandoned this to study Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh religions. No one has prevented me. Though if I was born a Muslim I think it would be more of a problem.

          • guest

            Beef eating was introduced by the british. Muslims in India were happy not eating beef, as a respect to Hindus. Also, whether or not they acknowledge all muslims of India are converts from Hinduism, so they did not eat beef automatically. Why would you say ‘especially beef?’ When it is a well known fact that Beef industry is hazardous to environment? If i tis not a religious issue, then let us ban beef, and let us ban all SUVs and let us put restrictions on how many plane travels are allowed per person. And talk about equality, will then we consider everyone equal? So, remember this, Hinduism is ‘wisdom’, it is beyond religion, religion and much more. Islam and Christianity are babies in comparison and probably will remain so.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            Yes. Many issues. Let’s find the solutions.

          • guest

            Solutions, learn more about dharmic faiths and how faiths emerging from one book forcibly removed any idea of diversity in worship and life. then bring back systems that allow diversity.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            So far as a Hindu State is concerned I ask two questions…. Are Hindus in broad agreement about what living as a Hindu is and would there be agreement among Hindu politicians (also non Hindu politicians involved in governing the state. The other is how easily can such a state accommodate non Hindus without discord. I would also include athiests in this.

            Many problems have a scientific basis and require an acknowledgement of the scientific concern and science based solutions. An approach that follows Vedic scentific principles would seem beneficial to me.

          • guest

            So, first, drop the ‘western lens’. There is NO way to be a Hindu. There are some guidelines, and they wary. There are some givens. But there is no blasphemy and then there is karma. Meaning, not a thought goes without having an effect. So, do not measure it by Islam and Christian definitions.

            Hindu politicians, if you check out the history of India, have been nicer and kinder to minorities than Hindus. Did you know that Muslims get a subsidy for Haj? Hindus nil. They are just starting something and people are already screaming. But until now, Hindus got no prevlidges. Did you know that in Jammu and Kashmir, I as an Indian cannot purchase land…

            So, rest assured minorities are better taken care of there, than anywhere else. I mean if you are in the UK, then do you have a day off for ID, Diwali, Gurupurab? We have them. The state gives these days off. Not just hindu holidays.

            And check out the atheist strain in hinduism. a whole kind of philosophy. So, unlike the rigid ones, we can be hindus and atheists.

            Aint that great?

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            I am not sure if I have a western lens or not. I have been in India several times and have seen India on the street and I have read the English language papers. I know Indian politics is turbulent with contest between Congress, BJP and AAP as well as regional parties. I can see that the arrival of the Mughals was a catastrophe for Hindu India in much the same way as the Norman conquest saw the demise of Anglo Saxon England. Some would say that it is progress but I am far from convinced that that is the case in either situation. But the clock cannot be turned back and we need to consider the future rather than the past. I believe for example that to focus on the Hindu temples destroyed by the Muslims and perhaps to believe that Mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples should be demolished would be backward looking and divisive. In a very divided society these sorts of beliefs can be very important to people and can lead to communal violence. The other thing I am wondering is the position of castes especially Dalits in the Hindu community. Politics in Indian society can very complicated with things like caste reservations. I agree that Indian society cannot be likened to Western Society and I hesitate to say how these different elements of society can be accommodated. I feel measures that encourage communal harmony are to be encouraged. Then there are other issues such as the position of women in modern society but I am sure that a Hindu based approach is more than capable of solving these problems.

          • guest

            Agreed with the train of your thought until ‘ I believe for example that to focus on the Hindu temples destroyed by the Muslims and perhaps to believe that Mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples should be demolished would be backward looking and divisive.’

            It is important (have recently changed my views about this). Why because —1. temples are not just a place to pray, they house deities. Mosques on the other end are mere places to bow towards kaba.

            2. Only India and Nepal are hindu dominated countries.

            3. The intent of the muslims was to erase the previous history. And Brits did the same. The fact is that India is a civilisation and a very advanced one at that. So, it was impossible to do. But these structures are very important.

            4. These structures were great pieces of art. There are several world heritage sites from the Mughal era, which were actually built after destroying temples.

            5. there is an inherent problem with Islam, it demands loyalty to the religion and not region or country. The only region it demands loyalty to is saudi–mecca.

            6. IN that light temples become important. Read up a bit on this….the Babri masjid thing could have been solved very easily. In fact even many muslims agreed with making it a temple, but it was many of the scholars and a few muslims who created the issue. India has a history of solving debates peacefully. But internvetions from outside and now from Saudi make it all a mess.

            7. Now to other points. The favourite ones that people bring up.

            Dalits!!

            Please tell me which society does not have divisions? UK and US are still racist. Christians for all their equality turned Jesus into a white man and did not allow Blacks to enter their churches, which was the reason many blacks embraced Islam.

            technically there should be no reservations. They have gone on for 7 decades, now it should be on merit basis.

            And the comment ‘I agree that Indian society cannot be likened to Western Society and I hesitate to say how these different elements of society can be accommodated.’

            This is exactly what I meant by a western lens. You think it is not possible.

            So, how long have you had muslims living in US or UK? ever come up with a common God or a common festival? We have several shrines in India where both Hindus and Muslims pray. Judeo Christian religions are different and it has to be acknowledge. They are detrimental not just to India but all the world. So, it is important that the country’s character be Hindu. It has to be known by those principles. and yet hindus are most accommodating. So, how many western countries have allowed four wives for muslims? well, India has!!

            you point here: ‘I feel measures that encourage communal harmony are to be encouraged.’

            examples given above already.

            and agree with this, ‘ Then there are other issues such as the position of women in modern society but I am sure that a Hindu based approach is more than capable of solving these problems.’

            I personally think that women in the west are treated very badly, they have not recognised it. I mean women thought they were not working at home but now they can single mothers, work outside and at home. sad situation.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            I don’t hold the West up as an example to follow and many of us here grapple with the challenges of changing society here for the better. I apply the same values to situations everywhere but what might work in one place may not work in another. I am also aware that the West grew rich from exploiting other parts of the world especially England in its plunder of India. I regard this appetite for conquest to be the Norman legacy in that the power in this country is still in the hands of those Norman families. I believe that if India can overcome its internal divisions it could be the greatest nation in the world again. You are right that the treatment of black people in America is shameful and is and was institutional racism. We are not so openly racist here.

            I have been to a shrine in the Punjab visited by both Muslims and Hindus. I believe these Saints transcended the religions from which they came much like Guru Nanak.

            I cannot disagree with you that the Hindu approach is the best thing for India though a Sikh approach might be better.

          • guest

            So, for this, ‘its internal divisions it could be the greatest nation in the world again.’ They are not divisions. We consider it diversity. As the Nobel laureate calls us, ‘the argumentative nation’.

            With hundreds of sects within Hinduism, we never had religious wars. Compare that to Christianity or Islam, two diff ways Catholic and Lutherans, and they could not live together.

            As for Sikh approach—Hindu approach is not different. Remember Sikhism is a ‘path’ not a complete system. They base it all on dharma and karma as well. Once again, Hinduism is the universe, and others only a small portion of it.

            As for Hindu system working everywhere. It is difficult for one reason, that these countries, under Chrislam—have forgotten that way of thinking. You know, that wide way of thinking. And, not just for you, even for us to come out of ‘western’ way of thinking is very hard. Much of the problems in India today are due to that ‘lens’ that we were forced to see through.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            Lots of ideas and energy is good but when energy is wasted through attacking personalities. BJP attacking Rahul Gandhi as well as Nehru who is long dead. Congress etc denying Modi his achievements. Established parties attacking AAP . Progress is slowed. You may have got that from us I grant you. Add to that the corruption to buy votes and the merit of the system is lost.

            What I admire about the Sikhs is there is their sense of community and charity. Their devotion to their religion and the service they do in the name of it. They have a lot of energy and conviction. Having said that there is still infighting and turbulence in Panjabi politics but if that energy is harnessed to a common cause they are very powerful.

          • guest

            Nice to know that you are keeping up with the current events, but you have to understand much before some of your confusions can be cleared.

            so, BJP attacking Rahul Gandhi as well as Nehru who is long dead. Congress etc denying Modi his achievements. Established parties attacking AAP .

            Please tell me what is not to criticise about RG? What are his merits*? About time we question dynasty politics!!

            Nehru—well, his being dead does not help, if his idealogy is alive and he is hailed despite his many flaws, from being more western than asian, to keeping the country poverty deliberately to rule over people. not v. different from several communist leaders, who are also criticised when communism fell.
            Well progressed is slowed is sure….but it only shows diversity of opinions. better than having only few opinions and dying in a short period of time due to lack of vitality in the culture.

            agree with this. ‘What I admire about the Sikhs is there is their sense of community and charity.’

            Hindus do have it, but not as consolidated because it is a much larger community and different sects do it differently, so it is not evident.

            Infighting exists everywhere—all large organisations crumble at some point. and hence the larger concept of time in hinduism.

          • guest

            PS: Hindu State’ is not the right term. Dharmic Rashtra is the term. And they are not the same as you have understood state.

          • Leela

            How do atheists and other religious and group minorities live in Christian majority countries where most Christians are not practising Christians and Christianity itself considers non-believers as destined for hell?

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            People in the UK are free to hold whatever beliefs they like providing they don’t break any civil law such as racial or gender discrimination. Atheists can be very hostile to believers and scientists as well who say religious beliefs are not scientific. The government being secular is not generally influenced by religion but if a minister says he has made a decision based on religious belief or talks about their religious beliefs they can be given a very hard time if it is suspected they may discriminate against others on sensitive issues. Devout Christians who believe sinners will go to hell are ignored as crackpots. There is no religious violence in this country except to those few who claim to be acting in the name of their religion but are really e just terrorists and more political than religious. In America the Christian Right are more powerful politically and some Christian majority countries are more conservative but it nothing like Muslim ruled countries. Blasphemy does exist as a legal term but society is generally opposed to protecting religion in this way unless it is considered very offensive. Christianity is quite out of fashion here and display of Christian symbols can be more frowned upon than Muslim ones. The main concern with Muslim symbols here is female head and body covering.

          • guest

            PS: by their books neither Islam nor Christianity respect the rights of Hindus and pagans to workship their Gods. Check it out historically, these people were killed for believing differently. Bottom line, do not think Hinduism is the same as Islam and Christianity. There is much openness in the former, and the latter two religions of one book each, are not that open.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            In former times in former times if I professed to be a Christian I would have been labelled a heretic. If I didn’t I would have been a heathen. It wouldn’t have been good for me. In the modern age I am happy to challenge Christians on their views and understanding of other religions. With Muslims I would say live and let live. What you say about the Hindu religion is true. But extremists or to borrow a phrase zealots can be motivated to do anything.

          • guest

            Zealots and extremists if you find in Hinduism is a reaction to the faiths of ‘one book’. Namely Judeo-Christian. India is possible the only country where Jews have never been persecuted. Where both Shia and Sunni muslims have lived together. Cannot be said of muslim countries or Christian countries that by definition think that polytheism is evil. Hinduism is the universe. Other faiths, and I mean all other faiths, a small part of it.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            All true.

          • guest

            thanks for a civil conversation.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            You are welcome. We are civilised people.

          • guest

            Guru Nanak lives in the hearts of the HIndus. We go to Gurudwaras just as often as temples. ‘Only hindu temples supported??’ You ought to be kidding, please read up, and see how many Hindu temples were destroyed by the Muslims. And how many pagan temples destroyed by the Christians, Rome is a living example….ruins still standing there. So, just by that religions of the books are a cancer.

          • Ian Henderson Gemmell

            I have been to the Panjab several times and see Sikhs. Hindus, Ravidassias, and Radha Soamis living peacefully together often in the same family. I am talking about the modern age. Temple destruction or even mosque destruction is I am sure now illegal and there is redress in law. In a Hindu state if public money was given to support religious activities would all religions be supported.

          • guest

            Do you know that as now there has been an attack only on Hindu customs? read up on it. Despite Hindu majority just look at the number of mosques that were created in India. Read up on how many temples were destroyed in India. And how most of them have been eradicated in Pakistan (should be enough proof of what you asked. I am surprised, after knowing about the Vedas and >Hinduism you think that there is even a question) https://tribune.com.pk/story/686952/95-of-worship-places-put-to-commercial-use-survey/

  • Ravi Ponappa

    It is the converted christians and muslims and those of dubious birth, who fear their separate identity, given by their godfather the Brits, is getting merged with the people of this land. They must know that they are only accepted here, as no whiteman will accept them in their society, even if they are tagged with similar names. They must shed their plural-thinking and align with the ethos of this Nation. After all, their DNA is the same as the rest in the country.

  • RajuCharles

    Holy Hamburger Parivar
    Caste Hindus are the biggest threat to Hindustan! Parivar care for cow Caste!

    • abhishek jaatav

      Trump supporting racist deserves a reply,
      Evangelical fundamentalism must be eradicated, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq nobody wants evangelical terrorists

    • citizenspeaks

      Caste was there for a reason..mostly employability and to preserve local skills which were passed over to the next generations. What needs a solution is the caste discrimination which got to its peak when the British brought in a twisted version of manusmrithi as civil code for Hindus. It has been eradicated in many parts but still needs a lot of work. Sangh has been doing a lot of work to get this out. Other bigger fact that its stuck to us is because of the reservation policy. Beneficiary of reservation who has made a good status would not go back to help out his caste. and thats the reason even after so many years we see not much progress in many scheduled castes and tribes. A sense of equality and dignity has to be brought to all human lives. Which other religion can do this but hinduism.

    • abhishek jaatav

      The child raping cross army is running with tails between their legs from afghanistan, the porn industry christians begging us for help, and ur boasting ur chest like moses lays an egg

  • Satish N

    & Hindu Nation is where valuable rationale articles like these gets Mainstream narrative while fiberal LW narrative wrongly cited today as Mainstream gets its due ie, fringe space!
    Maria Wirth, thanks a ton.

    Having said it, Hinduism has all the good on platter, it respects non Hindus but within, Jati system was misinterpreted, mislead and so as religion is imploding. Lack of strong religious Leaders who command respect, wield certain authority across India, like erstwhile RajGurus, who can influence ruling Secular Govt.

  • Megh

    Thank you for this piece, Maria Wirth!

    A small snippet of very recent evidence (2017 Apr 16 to be specific, source link included at the end) to back one of Maria Wirth’s observations:

    “Theresa May has urged Britain to draw on her Christian values to come together after Brexit . In her Easter video message, the Prime Minister says ethics she learned as a vicar’s daughter should “bring us together” as we “face the opportunities” of leaving the EU. She adds Brits should be “confident about the role Christianity has to play” in their lives and do more to stand up for persecuted religious people worldwide.”

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-says-britain-should-draw-10235658

    Also, “HinduOdium: A conversation with Satish Sharma on Caste in UK” (https://www.pgurus.com/hinduodium-conversation-satish-sharma-caste-uk/) may be of interest, for those who have not read it already. Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkybwLF0sMM

  • Audit Uscirf

    “Hindu nation” boogeyman is a trap to perpetuate “anti-Hindu nation”

    At present, India’s polity(i.e, Constitution, Law, Policies, Schemes, Judiciary etc) is anti-Hindu. Anti-Hindu establishment is using “Hindu nation” boogeyman to perpetuate “anti-Hindu nation”. Unfortunately, Hindus have fallen in this trap. Instead of focusing on ending Anti-Hinduism, Hindus are rebutting boogeyman propaganda.

    Anti-Hindus frame the debate topic,terminology, and decide what intolerant Hindus want. The repeated usage of word “Hindu nation”, by Hindus & anti-Hindus, helps everyone’s confirmation bias. Today, Hindu masses are not aware of damage done by “anti-Hindu nation” because Hindus did not change topic from “Hindu nation” to “End of Anti-Hindu nation”. Sincerely hope that all who believe in equality will change topic to “End of Anti-Hindu nation”.

    • prashants5 .

      >> At present, India’s polity(i.e, Constitution, Law, Policies, Schemes, Judiciary etc) is anti-Hindu

      Well said! The Modern india ( along with it’s constitution ) has inherited the totalatarian power from british, and continuing the same colonial apparatus, laws, constitution that was used for subjugating the core India. It has destroyed the traditional autonomous administrative systems of the traditional India, thus paralysing and impoverishing them.

      Can anyone prove this wrong?