Mr. Rahul Gandhi said that UP had all the place for statues but none for development and power. Mr. Gandhi is right. Only he somehow sees a difference between what Congress is doing in the whole country and what Mayawati is doing in UP. All new projects, roads, parks, colonies, airports, institutions etc. get only the Gandhi family names. I see no difference. Both Gandhi dynasty and Ms. Mayawati are busy sith self aggrandisement at the cost of the nation and the taxpayer. Mayaji has less time so she has to do it faster and more aggressively. The sycophancy and narcissism are two big gifts to the nation from Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. What is the wonder then if every neta wants something in his or her name at the cost of national exchequer?What Gandhi is missing is that Ms. Mayawati's expenditure is not on just 'Statues' She is building Bauddha Vihars and is promoting a particular religion with Government funds. Maybe he can't see that because his sister is a staunch Budhist as well. So much for secularism! How brazenly public funds are being channelised for promotion of Buddhism is appalling. And, where are the people? What about RSS, VHP, BJP and the so called Sangh parivar? And the Shankaracharyas?
No PILs? No comments in the papers. Nothing on the electronic media?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Indian 'Pseudo Secularist's' Convenient Hindu Ambiguity
Comment sent to TOI (Unlikely to be printed being politically incorrect) on July 13, 2009 on news item that Salman Khurshid thinks in the absence of a legal framework to force the private sector to give jobs to minorities, they should come forward to do so on their own.
The Government should declare the real figures of the number of Muslim, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Parsis and Buddhists.
I estimate that the Buddhists are not less than 12% of the population. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that were estimated at 10,000,000 in 1975 should now be around 3 crores by way of natural growth and multiplication. Most unfortunately, lately the Jains have begun to claim that they are not 'Hindus' and this has been recognised by the law. The same applies to 'Sikhs'. So who are the Hindus that are claimed to be 80% of the population? The numbers just don't add up and the non-Muslims, non-Christians and non-Sikhs, Atheists and Agnostics are not the only non-Hindus. If Hindus mean 'Vedists' inclusive of all their sects, sub-sects and affiliations only, they may not be more than 40% of the population. That means they may at best be the largest single religious group but are certainly not a 'majority'. And in any country population groups of say 20 to 25% such as the Muslims and the Jains can't be construed as really a 'Minority'.
On the other hand, the truth is that 'Hindu' is a word that was coined by the people west of the Indus which was 'Sindhu' at that time. As many races from the Middle East pronounced 'Sa' as 'Ha', Sindhu became Hindu. So all people on this land mass were Hindus to the marauding Iranians, Afghans, Turks etc. Actually Hindu is a signifier of a culture that existed then in the northern part of the subcontinent. So it actually is a cultural Umbrella that covered all religious sects in the region. This is further borne out by the great cultural synthesis and consequent similarities amongst all communities from before the invaders, mostly Muslim began to visit here for plunder. It is therefore sad that all the religionists such as Jains, Sikhs etc. are distancing themselves from 'Hindu' whereas they probably only want to differentiate themselves religiously from the Vedists or Sanatan Dharmis or Arya Samajis, rather than to pretend to belong to some alien cultures. This chasm however is set only to grow wider in the future, given the leadership of various clergy and socio-political vested interests of different groups. So be it. But that is then an urgent reason to clarify that all these people are different and are definitely not Hindus. That is mainly because they do not any more wish to identify themselves in this wider cultural manner but in narrower religios groupings, even refusing to accept a common root.
I believe therefore that it is time we lift the shroud of convenient ambiguity from the definition of 'Hindu' before the nation discusses the Hindu and minority issues any further.
The Government should declare the real figures of the number of Muslim, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Parsis and Buddhists.
I estimate that the Buddhists are not less than 12% of the population. The illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that were estimated at 10,000,000 in 1975 should now be around 3 crores by way of natural growth and multiplication. Most unfortunately, lately the Jains have begun to claim that they are not 'Hindus' and this has been recognised by the law. The same applies to 'Sikhs'. So who are the Hindus that are claimed to be 80% of the population? The numbers just don't add up and the non-Muslims, non-Christians and non-Sikhs, Atheists and Agnostics are not the only non-Hindus. If Hindus mean 'Vedists' inclusive of all their sects, sub-sects and affiliations only, they may not be more than 40% of the population. That means they may at best be the largest single religious group but are certainly not a 'majority'. And in any country population groups of say 20 to 25% such as the Muslims and the Jains can't be construed as really a 'Minority'.
On the other hand, the truth is that 'Hindu' is a word that was coined by the people west of the Indus which was 'Sindhu' at that time. As many races from the Middle East pronounced 'Sa' as 'Ha', Sindhu became Hindu. So all people on this land mass were Hindus to the marauding Iranians, Afghans, Turks etc. Actually Hindu is a signifier of a culture that existed then in the northern part of the subcontinent. So it actually is a cultural Umbrella that covered all religious sects in the region. This is further borne out by the great cultural synthesis and consequent similarities amongst all communities from before the invaders, mostly Muslim began to visit here for plunder. It is therefore sad that all the religionists such as Jains, Sikhs etc. are distancing themselves from 'Hindu' whereas they probably only want to differentiate themselves religiously from the Vedists or Sanatan Dharmis or Arya Samajis, rather than to pretend to belong to some alien cultures. This chasm however is set only to grow wider in the future, given the leadership of various clergy and socio-political vested interests of different groups. So be it. But that is then an urgent reason to clarify that all these people are different and are definitely not Hindus. That is mainly because they do not any more wish to identify themselves in this wider cultural manner but in narrower religios groupings, even refusing to accept a common root.
I believe therefore that it is time we lift the shroud of convenient ambiguity from the definition of 'Hindu' before the nation discusses the Hindu and minority issues any further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
