Is being Anti-Islam the same as Pro-Indian?

[Bang Galore]

I read that news some time ago.

I would interested in knowing how much is the annual revenue of the State Endowments ministry from the various temples.

I can formulate my opinion only after knowing whether the Govt largesse exceeds the collective revenue over the same period.

Kind of irrelevant because the Mutts receiving the funds are primarily of the two main castes, not egalitarian bodies.

 

[KS]

1).Then why we Hindus get 25,000.

2) Why a Christian does not get the same from the Karnataka govt.?

1) Because the money the Hindu gives to the temples goes directly to the Governments

2) The parish properties or church donations stays with the church and does NOT go to the govt.

That is the difference.

Kind of irrelevant because the Mutts receiving the funds are primarily of the two main castes, not egalitarian bodies.

Doesnt matter.

Still one can argue that it is the money of Hindus going to Hindu mutts.

The solution - Govt should stop administering the temple assets and stop giving out any subsidies/grants.

I think that is fair.

 

[doppelganger]

1) Because the money the Hindu gives to the temples goes directly to the Governments

2) The parish properties or church donations stays with the church and does NOT go to the govt.

That is the difference.

There is no relation.

 

[haviZsultan]

This question, of course, is in context of the perception that India enjoys in its immediate neighborhood.

I read a few articles on the recent tensions in Maldives, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In a number of these articles, the two terms "anti-islam" and "pro-indian" were used almost interchangeably.

So is being anti-islam the same as being pro-indian? What do you think?

The RSS and a secular Hindu will have vastly varying opinions on the selected topic as shown in the argument this has sparked.

 

[Dillinger]

1) Because the money the Hindu gives to the temples goes directly to the Governments

2) The parish properties or church donations stays with the church and does NOT go to the govt.

That is the difference.





Doesnt matter.

Still one can argue that it is the money of Hindus going to Hindu mutts.

The solution - Govt should stop administering the temple assets and stop giving out any subsidies/grants.

I think that is fair.

Please clarify, are you stating that the government (whether central or state) should provide absolutely no subsidies and pilgrimage allowances to absolutely any religion- not to Hindus (mutts, aashrams included) and temples, not to mosques and Muslims, not to churches and Christians, not to Sikhs and gurudwaras? IF so, then that's a completely fair point in keeping with our constitution's directives and should not even be subjected to any dissent.

 

[haviZsultan]

It is interesting to note that the majority of Indian members here on this site are RSS supporters or sympathizers. As a result they believe Muslims should have no role in India as they are anti-national.

 

[Bang Galore]

1) Because the money the Hindu gives to the temples goes directly to the Governments

Still not given by the devotee to subsidise someone's jaunts.

Doesnt matter.

Still one can argue that it is the money of Hindus going to Hindu mutts.

Not really, the amount being given away is far more than any collection and in any case, is improper use of the money donated. If the people wanted to give it to those politically connected Mutts, they would have done so (as many do). The government here is guilty of using public money in a manner that is very questionable and inappropriate.

 

[zaxcolix]

You're not completely accurate, Manusmriti may have been just one such religious texts but its the one that stuck around. And it has found its roots even among today's Hindus. Only a blind man would claim that we do not suffer from caste-ism even today. Any corrupt cretin like mayawati or lalu can become the CM based on the caste card (playing on lower castes and higher castes both), ranvir sena operates like a quasi taliban force killing lower caste people, brahmins go and molest dalit women in UP, the naxals find a ready source to exploit in the caste enforced hardships faced by many in the tribal areas. See, a member pointed out earlier that a religion cannot be judged by what it says or what it preaches..the more important criteria of judgment is how it is practiced and while in many cases Hindus are relatively better at following their religion peacefully- we still have groups like Abhinav Bharat which feel the need to pick up arms in some misguided attempt at "safeguarding Hinduism".

Bang Alore sir is correct in stating that NO religion is secular. The meaning of secular is as follows: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis, AND NOT our commonly held idea that to be secular means to be respectful towards all religion or to follow a strategy of appeasement. By that, correct, definition of secularism NO religion can ever be secular and thus neither is Hinduism.

Reasons for the infamy of of Manusmriti is complex........but devolution of hindu society and school of thought due to conditions brought about by a near continuous barbaric invasion for more than a 1000 years would be one of the prime reasons.

Hindus have suffered all kinds of degradation, humiliation, deprivation, ignomity in our long history ....caste is only one in the long list of sufferings. Consolation being its the only one that we brought among ourselves.

Dynamics of current day caste politics (from reservation to molestation) is outside the scope of this discussing but you are free to open a new thread for the same.

Unfortunately Bang Alore is not correct in stating all religions are non secular and you are wrong in thinking he is correct. Hindu class system itself was a exercise in separating religion from state. There is nothing in Hinduims that encouraged Religious figures to rule of masses. That was the exclusively for the Kshatriyas. That is a CLEAR separation of RELIGION and STATE....in short ...secularism.

Please do not use your ignorance of Hinduism to spread falsities.

 

[haviZsultan]

Please clarify, are you stating that the government (whether central or state) should provide absolutely no subsidies and pilgrimage allowances to absolutely any religion- not to Hindus (mutts, aashrams included) and temples, not to mosques and Muslims, not to churches and Christians, not to Sikhs and gurudwaras? IF so, then that's a completely fair point in keeping with our constitution's directives and should not even be subjected to any dissent.

State governments in both Pakistan and India should provide money for Hindu yatrees and Muslim hajj pilgrims respectively. Forget if they do nothing for Muslims (Pakistan) or Hindus (India)-the majority will always be happy. The minority has to be won over.

 

[KS]

The meaning of secular is as follows: Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis, .

sec·u·lar·ism (sky-l-rzm)
n.
1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

By
(1) Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism would be non-secular.
(2) Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism could be argued as secular because they dont try to interfere in the political realm.

I think it depends on which meaning you take..

 

[haviZsultan]

I still have to come to an understanding of how these RSS types believe, Hindus, the majority have suffered in a pre-dominantly Hindu nation.

 

[Dillinger]

It is interesting to note that the majority of Indian members here on this site are RSS supporters or sympathizers. As a result they believe Muslims should have no role in India as they are anti-national.

That is an inaccurate assessment. There are certain posters who seem to be under the misconception that we are a "Hindu state" and have been thus posting with that distinct and clearly misguided attitude. The majority of the posters are advocating a strict implementation of the secular directives of our constitution. Do you find anything wrong in the statement that has emerged from the last 4 or so pages of this thread- that the government should not provide pilgrimage subsidies to ANY religion whatsoever, that the government should not entrench itself in the benefit of either temples or mosques or churches or any other religious institution?

 

[EXPERIMENT]

Not all pro India are anti Islam but all pro hindu are anti Islam.

In a sense true. May I explain.

My name carries the heaviest weight of my externally recognised identity. This basic principal leads to nationalism. Nationalism is of various natures; ethnic, Tribal, Religious, the flag etc.

Nationalism is a disease of the ignorant. How? well its short lived. For example I promoted Hindu power projection to safe guard my sense of identity(My Identifying Hindu name) My insecurity caused me to promote this ideology. Then after some time the powers I promote will undermine the very own interest I set out to ensure for my perceived security.

So on the topic I have no compelling reason to promote a power structure that only safe guards a segment of society. The Idea of India is set out to ensure the security of ALL.

Hence the following statement is absurd: Is being Anti-Islam the same as Pro-Indian

 

[KS]

Still not given by the devotee to subsidise someone's jaunts.

The precise reason why Govt should lay off its hands from the temple revenues. In Kerala the Sabarimala collection is used to fund Haj subsidies. Sure as hell no devotee is putting money in the hundi for that purpose.

Not really, the amount being given away is far more than any collection and in any case, is improper use of the money donated. If the people wanted to give it to those politically connected Mutts, they would have done so (as many do). The government here is guilty of using public money in a manner that is very questionable and inappropriate.

Again, once the Govt appropriates temple money in a discriminatory manner, it is open to all sorts of interpretations. I dont consider this largesse as a laargesse, but just the returning back of what was taken from the Hundis to the Hindus.

So the Govt should stop interfering in the temples and also stop granting subsidies to any mutts.

p.s. I dont think the money given is far more as the news link states that in 2002 itself the annual collection from temples was about 80 crore..On a conservative 10-11% hike we can assume the revenue now would be annually 90cr and that would give the Govt about 450 crore over a period of 5 years.

Please clarify, are you stating that the government (whether central or state) should provide absolutely no subsidies and pilgrimage allowances to absolutely any religion- not to Hindus (mutts, aashrams included) and temples, not to mosques and Muslims, not to churches and Christians, not to Sikhs and gurudwaras?IF so, then that's a completely fair point in keeping with our constitution's directives and should not even be subjected to any dissent.

YES*

*Provided, the govt also does not administer the Hindu temples and they are given back to the temple trusts with no Govt interference

In that case, I fully support stopping all forms of grants, subsidies etc.The govt has no role in the religious affairs of the state.

 

[haviZsultan]

That is an inaccurate assessment. There are certain posters who seem to be under the misconception that we are a "Hindu state" and have been thus posting with that distinct and clearly misguided attitude. The majority of the posters are advocating a strict implementation of the secular directives of our constitution. Do you find anything wrong in the statement that has emerged from the last 4 or so pages of this thread- that the government should not provide pilgrimage subsidies to ANY religion whatsoever, that the government should not entrench itself in the benefit of either temples or mosques or churches or any other religious institution?

I find this statement wrong. I believe "appeasement" (using the term of KS and gang) is necessary to win over a Hindu or Muslim population in a country that is overwhelmingly Muslim or Hindu. There should be extra funds allocated to said communities and government should finance their yatra or pilgrimage. I say this as a solid secularist.

In the subcontinent religion cannot be "deleted"... it will exist. Instead we should have a secular cconstitution and still help minority religious groups move to a better standard. Not only that-finance their temples or mosques as well.