Should India become a Hindu Rashtra?

[Canford Cliffs]

Yes, I think India should be a Hindu Rastra.

After Independence, India was divided into present-day India and Pakistan on the basis of religious difference. Areas with Muslim majority went with Pakistan and Pakistan became an Islamic country then why not India?

There are many Christian and Islamic countries but not a single Hindu country. Where will Hindu go if mistreated in their own country India?

Though there is not much difference between Secular country & Hindu Rastra but we need India to become Hindu country for below reasons:

1) Today, Hindus are mistreated in their own country because of lack of unity in them.It has become fashion for so called Seculars (in fact Pseudo-Seculars) to mock Hinduism & Hindu deities as they know that Hindus are tolerant & divided (by different caste, cultures, regions and languages) so Hindus will never respond or oppose.

2)Hindus are ignored/discriminated by almost all political parties because Hindus are not Vote-Bank for them as Hindus have lack of unity. So all so called secular politicians have became anti-hindu while appeasing united minorities to get votes.

3) Most media houses of India are owned by Hindu-haters brigade of pseudo-secular politicians so they cover only those news which support their anti-hindu propaganda. Hence Media houses are biased in doing journalism. They are “selective” in criticising the person or political parties or religious organisations.

Because Hindus are secular by default, even though India becomes officially a Hindu country, minorities can still thrive here.

Discuss - Should India become an official 'Hindu Repulic of India'?

 

[Varun]

Nope.

I don't want any morons in orange dictating terms.

Maintain the status-quo.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Good to see another Indian member finally come out of their closet and join CricketCartoons in telling it like it is. Two voices are more powerful than one, and when others find theirs we will have a movement.

From an outsider's viewpoint, it is telling that despite all the promises of the BJP, there is still no Hindu temple constructed in Ayodhya. even though the Babri Masjid was demolished for supposedly standing on grounds of a former Hindu temple. The Hindu Rashtra seems like a pipe dream more suited to tv dramas than reality.

 

[Shandarchowka]

Isn't India already a Hindu state by its deeds? Just having mere title of 'secular' doesn't make India secular. Actions speak louder than words!

 

[Greenstorm]

Yes it should. This whole secular concept cannot work in sub continent.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

Isn't India already a Hindu state by its deeds? Just having mere title of 'secular' doesn't make India secular. Actions speak louder than words!

Far from it. In India, the reality is hindus always being treated as 2nd class citizens. Kashmiri Pandits will always remind modern India the plight of hindus in its own country. Only in last 5 years under the current regime, hindus have somewhat found their lost voice but BJP wont be there always. So just that hindus dont get treated unfairly again when new govt/Congress comes into power, its imperative for India to become Hindu nation.

 

[Syed1]

Yeah go ahead.... but don't be surprised if Jinnah 2.0 emerges.

 

[CricketCartoons]

nice topic for discussion, but we will get our hindu rashtra only when we are ready to sacrifice for it. modi or no modi, we will get what is rightfully and morally ours.

 

[enkidu_]

Yes, even Nepal, the only other Hindu majority country in the world, took off the "Hindu Kingdom" tag in 2007 (even if it never was the "state religion"), if India doesn't become a Hindu rashtra it'd basically mean that after 1000 years of foreign Islamic and European domination, and despite the so called "independence", Hindus still haven't established a national sovereignty on any land, or, in other words, Hindus haven't still become a qaum (nation), which basically mean Hinduism can't express itself purely.

More importantly from a Pak side it'll vindicate Jinnah's vision and all the liberals at home and the "Madani variety" of "pro Indian Islamic nationalism" meme in India will be automatically sidelined by the circumstances.

 

[Swashbuckler]

No. People from all religions have contributed towards making India what it is currently, people from all religions fought side by side in our freedom struggle. And that is some serious persecution complex you are carrying OP, things are nowhere as bad as you are portraying it to be. The Hindus are doing very well in India, in fact the people have elected right wing Hindutva elements to power in centre and many states. The culture in India aligns more closely with Hinduism than any other religion. The politics, economy, bureaucracy, military, judiciary etc which are vital organs of the republic are dominated by Hindus. I don't want to get into this Hindu-non Hindu argument but you are forcing matters.

Rather than indulging in victim mentality, Hindus should work to remove caste barriers and empower Dalits. Muslims, Christians or so called pseudo secularists haven't mistreated Dalits for centuries, only Hindus are responsible for that. Dalits are getting more rights and freedom under this secular constitution than what they will get in a hypothetical Hindu Rashtra. So this idea will be opposed by large segments of Hindu population itself. Read what the father of Indian Constitution, the great Ambedkar had to say about Hindu Rashtra.

Perhaps if Hindutva elements had fought for our independence instead of collaborating with the enemy, they could have set in stone a different future in the region, a Hindu Rashtra might have become reality. But we all know how the cowards deserted and sabotaged our freedom struggle, leaving Congress and leftists to make sacrifices. I would trust the wise judgement of our founding fathers over ramblings of spawn and supporters of traitors. Indian Muslims, Parsis and Christians have shed more blood for India than the Hindutva followers, latter have no right to change our constitution. Majority Indians will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

 

[amax]

yes for sure, every Indian is Hindu by race , culture and genetics. Hindutva is the future,

 

[amax]

Yeah go ahead.... but don't be surprised if Jinnah 2.0 emerges.

Pakistan was not created in space , there was a geographical cushion in the North West of South asia post Durrani empire. There is no such thing in current India, no need to scare people off from this noble cause of Hindu Rashtra by using Jinnah.

 

[Shandarchowka]

Far from it. In India, the reality is hindus always being treated as 2nd class citizens. Kashmiri Pandits will always remind modern India the plight of hindus in its own country. Only in last 5 years under the current regime, hindus have somewhat found their lost voice but BJP wont be there always. So just that hindus dont get treated unfairly again when new govt/Congress comes into power, its imperative for India to become Hindu nation.

So what do you mean by Hindu Nation? How different will that be compared to what you have today? Will you take off minority rights? Impose special taxes on other religious groups? Can you explain more in detail?

 

[Rafa]

Pakistan was not created in space , there was a geographical cushion in the North West of South asia post Durrani empire. There is no such thing in current India, no need to scare people off from this noble cause of Hindu Rashtra by using Jinnah.

Agree with that..... Will the 13% Muslims in India who are scattered all over the country relocate to a common region and form a Muslim majority Country? Not possible.

Only Kashmiris have a realistic chance of seceding from Indian Union due to proximity with Muslim Majority Pakistan.

 

[enkidu_]

Pakistan was not created in space , there was a geographical cushion in the North West of South asia post Durrani empire. There is no such thing in current India, no need to scare people off from this noble cause of Hindu Rashtra by using Jinnah.

IMO it predates the Durrani empire by centuries, see medieval Arab/Persian chroniclers differentiating between "al Sind" and "al Hind", the first corresponding to Pakistan (André Wink), so Islam indeed cut off Akhand Bharat, and when Jinnah said bin Qasim laid the foundations of PK in 711 he was barely into an hyperbole.

But new Jinnah's are a possibilities. Jinnah was a middle class secular, the youngest lawyer of the British Raj at 16, the blue eyed boy of Tilak, himself the originator of the concept of swaraj used by Gandhi later on, "the ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity" as Sarojini Naidu, herself an important independence leader, described in a biographical work on him, etc basically if Jinnah can't turn against Akhand Bharat literally 99% of Hindustan's Mulsims can, in the sense that they surely aren't as "secular" as he ever was (and deep inside Hindu nationalists know it, even if Indian nationalists somehow try to sugarcoat it and present Muslims of Hindustan as somehow of a different galaxy as compared to those elsewhere).

 

[JaDed]

Good you have finally shown your true colors ,and Hindus second class citizens lol,how do people feel being victimized being majority in their own country ask BJP lovers.

India will always be secular,so yeah keep trying the whole of South and also Sikhs are not going to support you.

I have never felt as a second class citizen,stop sprouting nonsense,the only ones I can imagine who feel that way are poor people who are being exploited.

Also I think it's Rashtra not Rastra..

 

[JaDed]

Nope.

I don't want any morons in orange dictating terms.

Maintain the status-quo.

Yeah that too ,I can't imagine Shankaracharya telling me how to live my.life, scary knowing Yogi is already CM of UP.

 

[Varun]

Yeah that too ,I can't imagine Shankaracharya telling me how to live my.life, scary knowing Yogi is already CM of UP.

For the first and last time, hopefully.

At least Modi had a track record of development and progress in Gujara - from where did this Yogi Bear appear overnight?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Good you have finally shown your true colors ,and Hindus second class citizens lol,how do people feel being victimized being majority in their own country ask BJP lovers.

India will always be secular,so yeah keep trying the whole of South and also Sikhs are not going to support you.

I have never felt as a second class citizen,stop sprouting nonsense,the only ones I can imagine who feel that way are poor people who are being exploited.

Also I think it's Rashtra not Rastra..

While i agree secularism is the way.

He isnt wrong that laws are loaded againist hindus. Latest is Sabarimala. Then the clownery going on in the suprene court regarding ayodhya and how the sickular parties have so much time for Gujarat and cow lynching but not a word for Kashmiri Pandits.

Hindu temples being taken over by govt.

Minorities can set up their educational institutes and give reservation to their religion and not follow the Right to education act.

Muslims can follow their personal law and their leaders can openly say that we dont care what law says we will follow our islamic laws, when court bans triple talaq. Imagine if a hindu leader says that hindus will follow only their scriptures and not the constitution,liberals sickulars will start saying intolerance saffron terror etc etc.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

So what do you mean by Hindu Nation? How different will that be compared to what you have today? Will you take off minority rights? Impose special taxes on other religious groups? Can you explain more in detail?

What I want in Hindu Rastra? Below are few:

1) Changes in education system. You teach about Mughals history, fine with me. But also educate people with Vedic knowledge.

2) Minorities can live peacefully but there should be no 'No Go Zone' for hindus.

3) Only a hindu can be PM/President of the country.

4) No more caste system/quota.

5) Public holidays only for Hindu festivals.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The first and major hurdle are the elite and the convent educated munafiq hindus, those who have drunk the mutra of secularism and have been conditioned to dilute, deflect and distract our cause. the holy struggle should be on the streets not on online forums.

 

[troodon]

Heck no!!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

While i agree secularism is the way.

He isnt wrong that laws are loaded againist hindus. Latest is Sabarimala. Then the clownery going on in the suprene court regarding ayodhya and how the sickular parties have so much time for Gujarat and cow lynching but not a word for Kashmiri Pandits.

Hindu temples being taken over by govt.

Minorities can set up their educational institutes and give reservation to their religion and not follow the Right to education act.

Muslims can follow their personal law and their leaders can openly say that we dont care what law says we will follow our islamic laws, when court bans triple talaq. Imagine if a hindu leader says that hindus will follow only their scriptures and not the constitution,liberals sickulars will start saying intolerance saffron terror etc etc.

One of the biggest hurdles to the Hindu Rashtra is that Hindus themselves seem unclear as to what it means to be Hindu. Your post is a testament to it if you don't mind me saying it. Everything is measured against what minorities say or do. Muslims have their own personal laws, minorities have their own churches, educational systems and blah, blah etc.

Bhai they have those things because they hold their faiths and customs dear to their hearts. If Hindus did the same, they wouldn't need to look at anyone else to wonder where they are going wrong.

 

[ILcricket]

Yes, I think India should be a Hindu Rastra.

After Independence, India was divided into present-day India and Pakistan on the basis of religious difference. Areas with Muslim majority went with Pakistan and Pakistan became an Islamic country then why not India?

There are many Christian and Islamic countries but not a single Hindu country. Where will Hindu go if mistreated in their own country India?

Though there is not much difference between Secular country & Hindu Rastra but we need India to become Hindu country for below reasons:

1) Today, Hindus are mistreated in their own country because of lack of unity in them.It has become fashion for so called Seculars (in fact Pseudo-Seculars) to mock Hinduism & Hindu deities as they know that Hindus are tolerant & divided (by different caste, cultures, regions and languages) so Hindus will never respond or oppose.

2)Hindus are ignored/discriminated by almost all political parties because Hindus are not Vote-Bank for them as Hindus have lack of unity. So all so called secular politicians have became anti-hindu while appeasing united minorities to get votes.

3) Most media houses of India are owned by Hindu-haters brigade of pseudo-secular politicians so they cover only those news which support their anti-hindu propaganda. Hence Media houses are biased in doing journalism. They are “selective” in criticising the person or political parties or religious organisations.

Because Hindus are secular by default, even though India becomes officially a Hindu country, minorities can still thrive here.

Discuss - Should India become an official 'Hindu Repulic of India'?

Why after 72 years has this radical thought crossed your mind ?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Problem is in a nation where of over 1 billion , many Hindus want to be secular, liberal like westerners. It’s not as cool dressing your kids in RSS shorts & yourself like Modi , eating only vegetables.

 

[JaDed]

While i agree secularism is the way.

He isnt wrong that laws are loaded againist hindus. Latest is Sabarimala. Then the clownery going on in the suprene court regarding ayodhya and how the sickular parties have so much time for Gujarat and cow lynching but not a word for Kashmiri Pandits.

Hindu temples being taken over by govt.

Minorities can set up their educational institutes and give reservation to their religion and not follow the Right to education act.

Muslims can follow their personal law and their leaders can openly say that we dont care what law says we will follow our islamic laws, when court bans triple talaq. Imagine if a hindu leader says that hindus will follow only their scriptures and not the constitution,liberals sickulars will start saying intolerance saffron terror etc etc.

I have no issues with uniform law, but then beef cannot be banned.

 

[Justcrazy]

What I want in Hindu Rastra? Below are few:

1) Changes in education system. You teach about Mughals history, fine with me. But also educate people with Vedic knowledge.

2) Minorities can live peacefully but there should be no 'No Go Zone' for hindus.

3) Only a hindu can be PM/President of the country.

4) No more caste system/quota.

5) Public holidays only for Hindu festivals.

Hindu rashtra means the laws the govern the country would be vedic laws , not man made legislations. Do you think it will be implemented ?

 

[Swashbuckler]

We need UCC first and foremost, many perceived problems will disappear.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Hindu rashtra means the laws the govern the country would be vedic laws , not man made legislations. Do you think it will be implemented ?

It is our duty towards the Almighty to overthrow the man made laws and have the land governed by divine laws. Till then we deserve the ridicule from the hindu haters.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

I don't mind. Have a go at it and i'll just grab my popcorn.

 

[zizour]

Yes, I think India should be a Hindu Rastra.

After Independence, India was divided into present-day India and Pakistan on the basis of religious difference. Areas with Muslim majority went with Pakistan and Pakistan became an Islamic country then why not India?

There are many Christian and Islamic countries but not a single Hindu country. Where will Hindu go if mistreated in their own country India?

Though there is not much difference between Secular country & Hindu Rastra but we need India to become Hindu country for below reasons:

1) Today, Hindus are mistreated in their own country because of lack of unity in them.It has become fashion for so called Seculars (in fact Pseudo-Seculars) to mock Hinduism & Hindu deities as they know that Hindus are tolerant & divided (by different caste, cultures, regions and languages) so Hindus will never respond or oppose.

2)Hindus are ignored/discriminated by almost all political parties because Hindus are not Vote-Bank for them as Hindus have lack of unity. So all so called secular politicians have became anti-hindu while appeasing united minorities to get votes.

3) Most media houses of India are owned by Hindu-haters brigade of pseudo-secular politicians so they cover only those news which support their anti-hindu propaganda. Hence Media houses are biased in doing journalism. They are “selective” in criticising the person or political parties or religious organisations.

Because Hindus are secular by default, even though India becomes officially a Hindu country, minorities can still thrive here.

Discuss - Should India become an official 'Hindu Repulic of India'?

The only ingredient of fascism- victimhood (so elaborately described here)

 

[cricketjoshila]

I have no issues with uniform law, but then beef cannot be banned.

Let first there be uniform laws with no special laws for any minority. Beef is not banned, cow slaughter is.

Cow slaughter should be govt regulated as its a sensitive thing. Not banned. But all this only if UCC come.

 

[JaDed]

Let first there be uniform laws with no special laws for any minority. Beef is not banned, cow slaughter is.

Cow slaughter should be govt regulated as its a sensitive thing. Not banned. But all this only if UCC come.

Yup..but BJP wants UCC and keep beef law as it is..

 

[cricketjoshila]

We need UCC first and foremost, many perceived problems will disappear.

Just see the reaction of muslim politicians to Triple Talaq ban. That creates more issues.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yup..but BJP wants UCC and keep beef law as it is..

The rest want no UCC and also slaughter cows as well. Also the rest of the laws. How long you think this will go on?

 

[Canford Cliffs]

I have no issues with uniform law, but then beef cannot be banned.

Beef or any food should not be banned. Please don't equate Hindu Rastra with facism. People can eat/drink/wear whatever they want. Hindu Rastra must not have any such restriction and anyone opposing people's freedom should be jailed.

By Hindu rastra, I meant Hindus first. The rights of hindus will be given 1st priority and there will no 'No go zone' for hindus. India should be truely Hindustan, not by name only but in every sense - socially, culturally and politically. But it does not mean minorities will be ill treated...far from it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just see the reaction of muslim politicians to Triple Talaq ban. That creates more issues.

joshila bhai, even though you are ignoring my posts I would suggest you don't, otherwise you would have seen the advice not to worry about what other minorities or Muslims are doing. The religion of Hindustan surely doesn't need to be defined by minority religions?

 

[enkidu_]

What I want in Hindu Rastra? Below are few:

1) Changes in education system. You teach about Mughals history, fine with me. But also educate people with Vedic knowledge.

2) Minorities can live peacefully but there should be no 'No Go Zone' for hindus.

3) Only a hindu can be PM/President of the country.

4) No more caste system/quota.

5) Public holidays only for Hindu festivals.

You're against the varna system, which founds its expressions in the very first holy text of Vedism/Hinduism, the Rg-Veda ? You think Brahmins and Dalits have the same worth ?

 

[PakLFC]

I would need to know what an Hindu Rashtra is before commenting.

 

[junoon]

Beef or any food should not be banned. Please don't equate Hindu Rastra with facism. People can eat/drink/wear whatever they want. Hindu Rastra must not have any such restriction and anyone opposing people's freedom should be jailed.

By Hindu rastra, I meant Hindus first. The rights of hindus will be given 1st priority and there will no 'No go zone' for hindus. India should be truely Hindustan, not by name only but in every sense - socially, culturally and politically. But it does not mean minorities will be ill treated...far from it.

Are there any 'No go zone' for hindus in india?
Where in india are they?

 

[mustang]

Yes, I think India should be a Hindu Rastra.

After Independence, India was divided into present-day India and Pakistan on the basis of religious difference. Areas with Muslim majority went with Pakistan and Pakistan became an Islamic country then why not India?

There are many Christian and Islamic countries but not a single Hindu country. Where will Hindu go if mistreated in their own country India?

Though there is not much difference between Secular country & Hindu Rastra but we need India to become Hindu country for below reasons:

1) Today, Hindus are mistreated in their own country because of lack of unity in them.It has become fashion for so called Seculars (in fact Pseudo-Seculars) to mock Hinduism & Hindu deities as they know that Hindus are tolerant & divided (by different caste, cultures, regions and languages) so Hindus will never respond or oppose.

2)Hindus are ignored/discriminated by almost all political parties because Hindus are not Vote-Bank for them as Hindus have lack of unity. So all so called secular politicians have became anti-hindu while appeasing united minorities to get votes.

3) Most media houses of India are owned by Hindu-haters brigade of pseudo-secular politicians so they cover only those news which support their anti-hindu propaganda. Hence Media houses are biased in doing journalism. They are “selective” in criticising the person or political parties or religious organisations.

Because Hindus are secular by default, even though India becomes officially a Hindu country, minorities can still thrive here.

Discuss - Should India become an official 'Hindu Repulic of India'?

Overall I hope this does not happen (not that I could have an equal opinion as a non-Indian). One of the good things about India is the "equality on paper", which refers to equality through legal framework. Of course, equality in practice could be a different practice. Making India a Hindu nation abrogates even this paper equality.

I do see quite a few Pakistan based members showing support for this - would this be because it validates the two nation theory (that led to partition) and thus possibly further validating creation of Pakistan?

All of the above being said, it is sadly also true that OP's points #1 and #2 (bolded in my quote) are accurate. I observed this as well during my short tenure in India. I feel this is because preachers of secularism in India are largely doing it for vote banks (and hence politics) so it is not genuine. Given their ulterior motives, it makes perfect sense to preach secularism by only attacking the majority religion (Hinduism).

 

[CricketCartoons]

You're against the varna system, which founds its expressions in the very first holy text of Vedism/Hinduism, the Rg-Veda ? You think Brahmins and Dalits have the same worth ?

Please share the verse from Rig Veda.

 

[Stewie]

Beef or any food should not be banned. Please don't equate Hindu Rastra with facism. People can eat/drink/wear whatever they want. Hindu Rastra must not have any such restriction and anyone opposing people's freedom should be jailed.

By Hindu rastra, I meant Hindus first. The rights of hindus will be given 1st priority and there will no 'No go zone' for hindus. India should be truely Hindustan, not by name only but in every sense - socially, culturally and politically. But it does not mean minorities will be ill treated...far from it.

You cannot have it both ways. You want hindus first policy and then you say rights of minorities.. how do you consolidate the two?

You cannot even do that in india in its current state, which is not very far from a hindu state. You hold cow as a god, Muslims and Christians like to eat it. So whose rights will be preserved in tbis case?


The Abrahamic faiths have the leg up in this regard because all three have very clear and concise interpretation of religious laws into civil laws and have been the basis for governments for centuries. Hinduism might be older but hasnt had any such setup in place. I dont even know if there is a book of hindu jurisprudence that talks about laws and such. I always thought hinduism is more of a way of life loosely based on certain beliefs open to a wide interpretation. It doesnt have the structure and cohesion of Abhrahamic faiths, which is why devout jews, christians and muslims are rigid and hindus are somewhat liberal.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You cannot have it both ways. You want hindus first policy and then you say rights of minorities.. how do you consolidate the two?

You cannot even do that in india in its current state, which is not very far from a hindu state. You hold cow as a god, Muslims and Christians like to eat it. So whose rights will be preserved in tbis case?

The majority religion's right should be preserved. Maximising the happiness of the majority while causing least inconvenience (as is practically possible) to the minority.

 

[Sachin136]

Problem is in a nation where of over 1 billion , many Hindus want to be secular, liberal like westerners. It’s not as cool dressing your kids in RSS shorts & yourself like Modi , eating only vegetables.

Have you ever lived in India? You seem to know a lot about what Hindus want, do, think, etc.

 

[Sidilicious]

Nope.

I don't want any morons in orange dictating terms.

Maintain the status-quo.

IF anything, I would want us to go a little extreme.

No separate laws for different religions. UCC.

No beef or pork ban

And ideally, ban religious symbolism in schools and govt offices. Like what France have done. The is the extreme version, but boy it would be fun seeing all the religious fundos getting owned.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Beef or any food should not be banned. Please don't equate Hindu Rastra with facism.

Western influenced Liberals like you are the reason why Hindus can never unite. So protecting mother Cow is fascism? How can you allow beef to be consumed in Hindu rashtra? Once we have our Hindu rashtra, I will want to kick people like you out first

 

[CricketCartoons]

IF anything, I would want us to go a little extreme.

No separate laws for different religions. UCC.

No beef or pork ban

And ideally, ban religious symbolism in schools and govt offices. Like what France have done. The is the extreme version, but boy it would be fun seeing all the religious fundos getting owned.

not going to happen. india is a deeply religious country. the cocktail sipping anti hindu english speaking elite may think otherwise, but we will burn down india if push comes to shove.

 

[Shandarchowka]

What I want in Hindu Rastra? Below are few:

1) Changes in education system. You teach about Mughals history, fine with me. But also educate people with Vedic knowledge.

2) Minorities can live peacefully but there should be no 'No Go Zone' for hindus.

3) Only a hindu can be PM/President of the country.

4) No more caste system/quota.

5) Public holidays only for Hindu festivals.

1. Fine, teach all you want, but why make India a Hindu Rastra for that? Include optionals for students and if they want, they will learn any Hindu things they want to.
2. Which is the 'No Go Zone' for Hindus in India?
3. What will a only Hindu PM/President achieve for you?
4. Caste quota is I think only for Hindus so this is a non issue for minorities
5. LOL. Eid and Christmas are truly global festivals and you want people to work on those days? That's insane.

 

[enkidu_]

Please share the verse from Rig Veda.

the famous hymn 10:90 about the Purusha/cosmic being from which caste-differentiation sprung out is what first rationalized the varna system, placing the Brahmins at the head (lit.) and Dalits at the feet (lit.) of the Vedic/Hindu social system, which will be elaborated/complexified in later Hindu revealed and transmitted (shruti/smriti) texts :

The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm

 

[CricketCartoons]

the famous hymn 10:90 about the Purusha/cosmic being from which caste-differentiation sprung out is what first rationalized the varna system, placing the Brahmins at the head (lit.) and Dalits at the feet (lit.) of the Vedic/Hindu social system, which will be elaborated/complexified in later Hindu revealed and transmitted (shruti/smriti) texts :



http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10090.htm

Every part of the divine is worthy of respect. It simply categorizes people based on their functions, just like the feet, the head, the arms have different functions, and none can function without the other. Similarly each caste is defined by the aptitude of the person. The world is again waking up to this idea which was given by the Vedas long time ago, that everyone should be given the task they are best suited for, so that the society functions in the most optimal way.

 

[enkidu_]

Every part of the divine is worthy of respect. It simply categorizes people based on their functions, just like the feet, the head, the arms have different functions, and none can function without the other. Similarly each caste is defined by the aptitude of the person. The world is again waking up to this idea which was given by the Vedas long time ago, that everyone should be given the task they are best suited for, so that the society functions in the most optimal way.

yes but Dalits would love to see Brahmins become the feet and themselves the head in our postmodern times of atomized identities and social mobility, they might feel alienated and produce a Dalit version of Jinnah soon.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

You cannot have it both ways. You want hindus first policy and then you say rights of minorities.. how do you consolidate the two?

You cannot even do that in india in its current state, which is not very far from a hindu state. You hold cow as a god, Muslims and Christians like to eat it. So whose rights will be preserved in tbis case?


The Abrahamic faiths have the leg up in this regard because all three have very clear and concise interpretation of religious laws into civil laws and have been the basis for governments for centuries. Hinduism might be older but hasnt had any such setup in place. I dont even know if there is a book of hindu jurisprudence that talks about laws and such. I always thought hinduism is more of a way of life loosely based on certain beliefs open to a wide interpretation. It doesnt have the structure and cohesion of Abhrahamic faiths, which is why devout jews, christians and muslims are rigid and hindus are somewhat liberal.

What do you mean? Pakistan is an Islamic republic but minorities living there. Or are you implying, there is no right for minoriries in Pakistan?

 

[CricketCartoons]

yes but Dalits would love to see Brahmins become the feet and themselves the head in our postmodern times of atomized identities and social mobility, they might feel alienated and produce a Dalit version of Jinnah soon.

why should it be a zero sum game? dalits can become whatever they want, that was the original caste system. Rig Veda has a verse.."I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn." Brahmin is someone who has knowledge and pursues spirituality and takes and imparts knowledge, not someone who is born to brahmin parents. the caste by birth was an innovation, and hence a biddah. we must go back to the pure caste system, which is the most perfect meritorious and optimal system known to mankind.

 

[enkidu_]

why should it be a zero sum game? dalits can become whatever they want, that was the original caste system. Rig Veda has a verse.."I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's job is to grind the corn." Brahmin is someone who has knowledge and pursues spirituality and takes and imparts knowledge, not someone who is born to brahmin parents. the caste by birth was an innovation, and hence a biddah. we must go back to the pure caste system, which is the most perfect meritorious and optimal system known to mankind.

I know, also remember reading in an Upanishad that the Brahmin is the one who knows Brahma (basically a spiritual function) and not the one born to Brahmin parents, but what you call innovation isn't in Hinduism because even shruti texts have the same acidified vision of the varna system.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I know, also remember reading in an Upanishad that the Brahmin is the one who knows Brahma (basically a spiritual function) and not the one born to Brahmin parents, but what you call innovation isn't in Hinduism because even shruti texts have the same acidified vision of the varna system.

Every subsequent shruti or smriti text should be seen in the light of the vedas. just like hadiths should be seen using the torch of the Quraan.

 

[enkidu_]

Every subsequent shruti or smriti text should be seen in the light of the vedas. just like hadiths should be seen using the torch of the Quraan.

they were read in the light of Vedas, and the transition Vedism to Hinduism is ambiguous anyway (all gods more or less disappearing - Ruda isn't Shiva as it's often suggested - while a minor god, Vishnu, gets all the timelight) but basically Brahmins and Dalits are the same then ? Two heads in the ideal Hindu society ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

One of the biggest hurdles to the Hindu Rashtra is that Hindus themselves seem unclear as to what it means to be Hindu. Your post is a testament to it if you don't mind me saying it. Everything is measured against what minorities say or do. Muslims have their own personal laws, minorities have their own churches, educational systems and blah, blah etc.

Bhai they have those things because they hold their faiths and customs dear to their hearts. If Hindus did the same, they wouldn't need to look at anyone else to wonder where they are going wrong.

Hindus have their own laws as well but in 1950 the constitution codified hindu law and hence hindus have to follow the constitutional law. Muslims on the other hand were given the freedom to follow personal laws.

Hindus are not allowed to create educational institutions in the name of religion and kerp majority of seats reserved for hindus. Muslims and christians can do that. Infact muslims and christians institutions do not need to follow the national reservation policy.

Hindus opted to be secular because they were conned by Nehru and co. to believe that this will be a uniform law for all. Slowly over decades they have realised this. That has resulted in the rise of right wing hindus.

If hindus would not be 1bn. They would have converted to islam like almost every other country that muslims invaded. Or they would have converted to Christianity like the Americas post the european invasion.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. Fine, teach all you want, but why make India a Hindu Rastra for that? Include optionals for students and if they want, they will learn any Hindu things they want to.
2. Which is the 'No Go Zone' for Hindus in India?
3. What will a only Hindu PM/President achieve for you?
4. Caste quota is I think only for Hindus so this is a non issue for minorities
5. LOL. Eid and Christmas are truly global festivals and you want people to work on those days? That's insane.

If muslim majority nations can be a islamic nation why a hindu majority nation cannot be a hindu nation?

 

[Shandarchowka]

If muslim majority nations can be a islamic nation why a hindu majority nation cannot be a hindu nation?

I'm just asking if India isn't already one? And what does India want to accomplish by declaring itself as a Hindu nation? India can rename itself but I'm sure people's lives won't be impacted.

You guys are now realizing why Pakistan was created but it's too late for India now. If anything, there can be other separation movements.

 

[CricketCartoons]

they were read in the light of Vedas, and the transition Vedism to Hinduism is ambiguous anyway (all gods more or less disappearing - Ruda isn't Shiva as it's often suggested - while a minor god, Vishnu, gets all the timelight) but basically Brahmins and Dalits are the same then ? Two heads in the ideal Hindu society ?

You have read weak scriptures, as evidenced by your certainty. Rudra is Shiva ji and Vishnu ji shares the closest characteristics with Abrahamic God, that is why Islam is closest to Vaishnavism, where you focus more on akhirah and not on dunya and the stress is on devotion to the Almighty and sacrificing worldly pleasures.

 

[enkidu_]

You have read weak scriptures, as evidenced by your certainty. Rudra is Shiva ji and Vishnu ji shares the closest characteristics with Abrahamic God, that is why Islam is closest to Vaishnavism, where you focus more on akhirah and not on dunya and the stress is on devotion to the Almighty and sacrificing worldly pleasures.

No I know the trope about Rudra being Shiva is propagated by Hindus but it has been demolished by specialists, in France Bernard Sergent has a whole book on Shiva/Dyonisos where he talks of it and the characteristics don't correspond at all, and the movements you say are close to Islam (bhaktism, etc) are close to Islam because they were a by products of encountering Islam, as many Hindu scholars have themselves said, incl. Dr Radhakrishnan.

Islam is purer and more holistic than Hinduism anyway, but it's not the debate.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No I know the trope about Rudra being Shiva is propagated by Hindus but it has been demolished by specialists, in France Bernard Sergent has a whole book on Shiva/Dyonisos where he talks of it and the characteristics don't correspond at all, and the movements you say are close to Islam (bhaktism, etc) are close to Islam because they were a by products of encountering Islam, as many Hindu scholars have themselves said, incl. Dr Radhakrishnan.

Islam is purer and more holistic than Hinduism anyway, but it's not the debate.

That is poor logic that bhaktism is closer to Islam because it was formed after encountering islam, because an encounter can cause any reaction. Comparison should be based on similarities and differences, and not whether there was an encounter between the two.

Islam is the closest to the Vaishnavism school of Hinduism. Feel free to point out the differences.

 

[enkidu_]

That is poor logic that bhaktism is closer to Islam because it was formed after encountering islam, because an encounter can cause any reaction. Comparison should be based on similarities and differences, and not whether there was an encounter between the two.

Islam is the closest to the Vaishnavism school of Hinduism. Feel free to point out the differences.

Is there jihad in Vaishnavism for a beginning ? It's because Hindus have lost their notion of sacred warfare that they have been ruled over by foreign races and still can't establish a national and spiritual sovereignty on their very own lands.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindus have their own laws as well but in 1950 the constitution codified hindu law and hence hindus have to follow the constitutional law. Muslims on the other hand were given the freedom to follow personal laws.

Hindus are not allowed to create educational institutions in the name of religion and kerp majority of seats reserved for hindus. Muslims and christians can do that. Infact muslims and christians institutions do not need to follow the national reservation policy.

Hindus opted to be secular because they were conned by Nehru and co. to believe that this will be a uniform law for all. Slowly over decades they have realised this. That has resulted in the rise of right wing hindus.

If hindus would not be 1bn. They would have converted to islam like almost every other country that muslims invaded. Or they would have converted to Christianity like the Americas post the european invasion.

Surely the beauty of Hinduism is the flexibility which allowed the followers to dispense with Hindu laws. As Hinduism is all encompassing, it can't really be called a mis-step to adopt secularism either, it was the wish of the Hindus at that time.

By all means you could have your Hindu Rashtra in the future, but first the Hindus themselves need to know what it means. Everyone has a different interpretation, then they watch Bollywood films and become even more confused.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Is there jihad in Vaishnavism for a beginning ? It's because Hindus have lost their notion of sacred warfare that they have been ruled over by foreign races and still can't establish a national and spiritual sovereignty on their very own lands.

Of course there is jihad, which means struggle. Struggle is an important tenet of Vaishnavism. Also, the jihad in the form of holy war, which was given by Lord Vishnu's Avatar Lord Shri Krishna as Dharma Yuddh. One more central similarity between Islam and Vaishnavism.

 

[Stewie]

What do you mean? Pakistan is an Islamic republic but minorities living there. Or are you implying, there is no right for minoriries in Pakistan?

Actually that is my point. Dont you guys bash pakistan for bad minority right record?
For the most part, they have rights as citizens. They can purchase alcohol and eat what they want. Unlike some states in india where you cant even slaughter a cow, they can kill and eat pigs. The one standout right they dont have is they cant be the leader of the nation as far as i know.


So pakistan being a Muslim country doesnt infringe upon their religious freedom. But as things stand, there are certain things in india where despite being a so called secular nation, you read restrictions on minority religious freedoms. Do you think turning into a hindu state will help quell this bad streak?

 

[Stewie]

In pakistan, christians and hindus and sikhs are free to celebrate their religious traditions. They are even in the army on decent posts. They are in politics, judiciary other district management posts, etc.

I have a feeling india is the same way but some sections want more power for hindus. What exactly does that mean is not clear to me.

What exactly do you want when you want a “hindus first” policy?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Actually that is my point. Dont you guys bash pakistan for bad minority right record?
For the most part, they have rights as citizens. They can purchase alcohol and eat what they want. Unlike some states in india where you cant even slaughter a cow, they can kill and eat pigs. The one standout right they dont have is they cant be the leader of the nation as far as i know.


So pakistan being a Muslim country doesnt infringe upon their religious freedom. But as things stand, there are certain things in india where despite being a so called secular nation, you read restrictions on minority religious freedoms. Do you think turning into a hindu state will help quell this bad streak?

banning cow slaughter doesn't infringe upon anyone's religious freedom. which religion has a religious requirement to slaughter cows?

 

[Stewie]

Well Muslims are supposed to sacrifice for Eid, i guess you didnt know. We are supposed to distribute the meat amongst family, friends, the poor, etc. Now a lot of people in thisbworld, including Muslims like a good ol cow steak over mutton or lamb or camel. So denying us this right is infringing upon our religious and personal freedom, isnt it?

 

[Stewie]

Surely the beauty of Hinduism is the flexibility which allowed the followers to dispense with Hindu laws. As Hinduism is all encompassing, it can't really be called a mis-step to adopt secularism either, it was the wish of the Hindus at that time.

By all means you could have your Hindu Rashtra in the future, but first the Hindus themselves need to know what it means. Everyone has a different interpretation, then they watch Bollywood films and become even more confused.

Think you nailed it. But wuite honestly, the OP sounds like a believer in the new wave populism which really is racism/fascism underneath.

You see this is how It all starts. Nazis, and now neo nazis especially in the US. You see all these people claiming we are Christian and America is a Christian country.. then you take a closer look and understand what they are saying is America is a whites only country. Such groups have not a single member of the minority groups. And Christian rights are not under threat. They spread propaganda about no go zones for Christians.. and that muslims want to bring Sharia and other falsehoods.. and then there are people who actually believe that stuff.

This phenomenon is happening all over thw world and is nothing but neo fascism. India has a hindu nationalist PM and still somehow they claim odds are stacked against hindus in the country? How much sense does that make?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Well Muslims are supposed to sacrifice for Eid, i guess you didnt know. We are supposed to distribute the meat amongst family, friends, the poor, etc. Now a lot of people in thisbworld, including Muslims like a good ol cow steak over mutton or lamb or camel. So denying us this right is infringing upon our religious and personal freedom, isnt it?

Why don't you prove that cow slaughter is a religious obligation? Show me the verse.

 

[enkidu_]

Of course there is jihad, which means struggle. Struggle is an important tenet of Vaishnavism. Also, the jihad in the form of holy war, which was given by Lord Vishnu's Avatar Lord Shri Krishna as Dharma Yuddh. One more central similarity between Islam and Vaishnavism.

good then, revive the practice and go fight Salman Khan to at least bring Hindu supremacy in Bollywood if not in the State.

 

[CricketCartoons]

good then, revive the practice and go fight Salman Khan to at least bring Hindu supremacy in Bollywood if not in the State.

That was not the debate. i agree that hindus are not following the divine knowledge and guidance and that is the reason they have been under decline for more than a thousand years.

so you concede that islam and vaishnavism have close similarities.

 

[Stewie]

Why don't you prove that cow slaughter is a religious obligation? Show me the verse.

I am no scholar in Fiqh (islamic law derived from Quran and Sunnah) and neither are you but here is what i found:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/457...-cows-then-sheep-then-to-share-in-a-sacrifice

Regardless, if you are telling me i can sacrifice certain animals and not others, i consider than infringement on my religious as well as right of personal choice.. i am not asking you as a hindu to slaughter the cow for me, nor i am forcing you to consume cow meat. But you are forcing your religious views on me by telling me that i cant sacrifice a cow because its your God.

See my point? We dont tell Christians in Pakistan they cant drink alcohol. We issue them permits so they can purchase alcohol.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I am no scholar in Fiqh (islamic law derived from Quran and Sunnah) and neither are you but here is what i found:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/457...-cows-then-sheep-then-to-share-in-a-sacrifice

Regardless, if you are telling me i can sacrifice certain animals and not others, i consider than infringement on my religious as well as right of personal choice.. i am not asking you as a hindu to slaughter the cow for me, nor i am forcing you to consume cow meat. But you are forcing your religious views on me by telling me that i cant sacrifice a cow because its your God.

See my point? We dont tell Christians in Pakistan they cant drink alcohol. We issue them permits so they can purchase alcohol.

So nothing to prove that cow slaughter is a religious obligation.

It is only an infringement upon ones dietary choices, not religion. So there is nothing religious about it.

 

[Stewie]

So nothing to prove that cow slaughter is a religious obligation.

It is only an infringement upon ones dietary choices, not religion. So there is nothing religious about it.

Did you even read the link?

 

[Stewie]

Praise be to Allaah.
The best sacrifice is a camel, then a cow, then a sheep, then to have a share in a cow. This is the view of Abu Haneefah and al-Shaafa’i, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning Jumu’ah: “Whoever comes at the earliest hour, it is as if he sacrificed a camel. Whoever comes in the second hour, it is as if he sacrificed a cow. Whoever comes in the third hour, it is as if he sacrificed a horned ram. Whoever comes in the fourth hour, it is as if he sacrificed a chicken. Whoever comes in the fifth hour, it is as if he sacrificed an egg.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 881; Muslim, 850.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Praise be to Allaah.
The best sacrifice is a camel, then a cow, then a sheep, then to have a share in a cow. This is the view of Abu Haneefah and al-Shaafa’i, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning Jumu’ah: “Whoever comes at the earliest hour, it is as if he sacrificed a camel. Whoever comes in the second hour, it is as if he sacrificed a cow. Whoever comes in the third hour, it is as if he sacrificed a horned ram. Whoever comes in the fourth hour, it is as if he sacrificed a chicken. Whoever comes in the fifth hour, it is as if he sacrificed an egg.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 881; Muslim, 850.

LOL. this does not prove that cow slaughter is an obligation. It only compares sacrifices of animals/poultry and gives them a rating.

If you are having trouble understanding read it slowly. Where does it say that cow slaughter is a religious obligation?

 

[Stewie]

LOL. this does not prove that cow slaughter is an obligation. It only compares sacrifices of animals/poultry and gives them a rating.

If you are having trouble understanding read it slowly. Where does it say that cow slaughter is a religious obligation?

Well of course thats how authoritarians behave! Telling people what their religion should mean or say!


Just because my choice or preference of cow goes against yours, you will claim i shouldnt kill cow because i dont have to? But i want to! So what now? You will impose your will on me?

There is a term for that you know! Fascism!!