No other living thriving faith sir. I leave it to the historians, sociologists and theologians to dissect those long dead, or practiced by much smaller numbers, academically.
I would be personally very grateful if you would indeed do so, starting as soon as convenient.
Why would you think numbers do not count? Ever person has his or her own belief. And in a democracy like ours, my belief is equal to yours, because you have one vote, and so do I, and so does a rickshaw walla or a bawarchi or a bai. We are the sum total of all these Indians sir. And the sum total of all these Indians decides what they want India to be, who they want India to be ruled by, and where they want India to go.
You have a long way to go, along with others, who may be described as the lumpenproletariat, who believe that legislation is best done by the brute force of numbers.
The premise is that India is the ancestral home of the Hindus and of Hinduism.
No, your premise was that there was no other before it, which was such an obvious fabrication. And your present shifting of your position is equally obnoxious.
To expand on it further, it is also the ancestral home of Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. All dharmic faiths, indigeneous to the soil, the the cultural and social and spiritual DNA of the land and its people.
Oscar Wilde once said, "A gentleman is one who knows how to play the accordion, but chooses not to." It would be delightful if you did not expand this, or any other argument, further, since there is really no doubt in my mind that it will not lead to an edifying discussion. I do not deal well with prejudices presented in the form of evolved thoughts.
Not so Islam or Christianity. They are not from this land. Their followers are.
Than which there can be no more specious, nor self-contradicting argument.
You presumed that I was calling non Hindus "honorary" Hindus. I never did. I corrected you with what I actually called them. That is what I was referring to. One is condescending, implying superiority of still active believer versus ancestral believer, now departed the flock. The other puts aside the belief system and stresses the equality of shared heritage and culture. The RSS and BJP's Hidutva of cultural nationalism.
I presumed nothing of the kind.
It it this kind of shallow playing to the gallery that makes me reluctant to continue any discussion conducted on these lines.
Nobody is stopping a Muslim or a Christian from saying or believing that they are apart from or different to us.
Except the brute force of a majority insisting that they are not, all the time.
Just as nobody should come in the way of us calling them our own.
If this were to be an intellectual position, rather than delivered through mobs, armed with the crudest weapons of intimidation, projected into the living places of minorities, enforced by acts of intermittent and unpunished savagery, it might be worth presenting. As it is, it the thin pig-skin covering a great deal of hot air.
You cannot be a liberal for one set, and a Talib for the other, sir.
I remain, Sir, a liberal at all times, to all sets. It appears that you read my posts with minute care, care to leave out anything that does not conform to your prejudice.
Sir the furore is in the media. Look around you.
Do we not get enough of the Indian media without further fatuous invitations to examine that sickening display further?
@Bang Galore
For the sake of the discussion, can you share some of the salient premises of the book please.
Ancient faiths always had a strong affinity for
bloodlines and purity of lineage, unlike the comparatively newer faiths which sought to grow inorganically. Could possibly be a cyclical thing faiths go through and maybe Hinduism too in its younger days actively converted like Islam or Christianity. I know people always bring in the example of SE Asia when people say that Hindus do not convert. Who knows.
All I know is that Hindus are having a bit of a catharsis under the BJP right now. I do not see any violence. I do not see an bloodshed. So no sense in people getting their chuddies all twisted in knots over it.
Well done,
Bang Galore. It appears that you have acolytes, and may be in imminent danger of re-discovering bloodlines, purity of lineage and whatever else Gobineau and Chamberlain propounded. Never thought to see you in this company, as the actress said to the Bishop.
That was the very reason I had never before referred to that book here. The author herself is very conscious of the fact that her work could be used by the "Hindu Nationalists" to argue their position, something she wrestled with before penning her work. Nuances never do very well here.
So anyway, you can call us fire worshippers, or Shaivites - but in the end the collective identity has remained - 'Dharmic'. So this IMO is a more apt term - 'India was originally Dharmic or home to Indic religions'. I understand the the 'India is Hindu' may not necessarily mean to exclude those not following the Hindu faith, but it helps if we understand the context.
