Are Hindus Becoming Less tolerant?

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Is India Becoming Less Tolerant?​

Venkatachala I Sreenivas

​

India, reputed for its toleration, recently is reported as becoming less tolerant. India being a pluralistic society of many languages, customs, and religions, question arises as to who is becoming intolerant of whom and for what reasons. It is reported that the Hindu majority is becoming intolerant of Muslim and Christian minority. There are followers of other religions whose number is much smaller than that of Muslims and Christians. Zoroastrians constitute 0.6%; Buddhists 0.71%; Jains 1.0%; Sikhs 2%; Christians 2.5% and Muslims 12% of the population. Hindu India gave shelter to the religiously persecuted Jews and Zoroastrians for over thousands of years and they have coexisted peacefully without discrimination enjoying all the benefits of Indian citizenship. Then why Muslims and Christians allege discrimination needs careful scrutiny.

Article 29 of the Indian constitution states: Any section of the citizen residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. Article 30 upholds the right of minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 51A concerning the duties states (a) to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and national anthem; (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.

Minority community members have made their mark in politics, business, judiciary, military etc. There are Christian educational institutions, churches, and mosques spread all over the land. While Christians and Muslims have enjoyed the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution, they have fallen short of fulfilling the obligations under article 51A (a) and (f) for promoting harmonious living resulting from their world view of their respective religions.

The Hindu view that the goal [Human salvation or God realization] is one but the paths are many avoids fanatism and promotes freedom of thought and choice. Hindus have coexisted peacefully with other mutually accepting religions. Hinduism has never declared that there is only one correct way to reach the goal. In contrast, for both Islam and Christianity there is only one way, their way and it is their duty, sanctioned by their respective scriptures, to convert the nonbelievers. In a secular country like India, citizens are required to leave their religious beliefs at their home when entering public sphere. Unfortunately, Indian Muslims and Christians not able to or willing to follow this principle and by bringing their religion into public sphere find themselves in inevitable conflict with others violating Article 51A (a) and (f) of Indian constitution.

Hindu view is inclusive. Hinduism teaches that the whole of humanity is one family. Muslims and Christians, in contrast, have divided the world into ‘us’ versus ‘other’. Islam and Christianity by exclusivity has been responsible for genocide, exploitation, slavery, destruction of cultures, civilizations, religions of the ‘other’. Christian ‘pioneers’ in the Americas, Australia and in New Zealand nearly decimated native population destroying their culture and religion. African natives were traded as slaves and treated worse than animals.

The account of Alau-d-din reported by Will Durant, an eminent historian, “Mohamedan rulers collected half of the gross produce of the soil produced by Hindus; native rules had taken one sixth. No Hindu could hold up his head and in their houses no sign of gold or silver was to be seen. Blows, confinement, imprisonment and chains were all employed to enforce payment in addition to intimidation by mass slaughter.” Hindus had to endure ‘jazia’ a tax to be paid for being a Hindu— a coercive measure to convert to Islam. Muslim aversion for coexistence with Hindus resulted in partition of the Indian subcontinent to secular India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan with detrimental consequences. While Muslim population in India is increasing the Hindu population of Pakistan has decreased from 23% to 2% reflecting the plight of ‘others’ in a Muslim country.

Lured by India’s fabulous wealth European Christians came to India as traders and when they became colonizers. They impoverished India by transferring money they collected as taxes, the wealth they plundered and the sumptuous salaries they enjoyed to Britain. John Bright wrote: “The single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has spent a larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public works of every kind throughout the vast domain.” Sir Cotton in 1854 wrote, “Public works have been almost neglected throughout India…The motto hitherto has been: Do nothing, have nothing done, let no body do anything.’ Even in 1936, less than three per cent was spent on agriculture. In addition, the missionaries colluding with the government started harvesting ‘ pagan souls’ for Christianity. The missionaries hated Brahmins who were an obstacle in their proselytizing activity. They maligned Hinduism in general and Brahmins in particular. Historian Basham wrote: “Some of the nineteenth century missionaries armed with passages from Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, often taken out of context, and with tales of famine, disease, and evils of Hindu caste and family system have helped to propagate the wide spread fallacy that India is a land of gloom. Demonizing Hinduism served a useful purpose for raising fund in their native countries for the ‘noble purpose’ of salvaging the pagan, idol worshipping Hindus.” This narrative has continued.

Arabia, Egypt, and Persia overrun by Islam lost their culture, civilization and religion. Native Americans, Australians, and Africans suffered similar fate under Christianity. To the credit of Hindus they preserved their religion and culture despite centuries of onslaught by Islam and Christianity. Dubois, no lover of Hinduism, wrote: “Hindus have often passed beneath the yoke of foreign invaders whose religions, laws, and customs have been very different from their own. Yet all efforts to impose foreign institutions on the people of India have been futile, and foreign occupation has never dealt more than a feeble blow against Indian custom. Above all, and before all it was the caste system that protected them”. It is noteworthy that this was accomplished over a vast area extending from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari without having a central church or a body of men to designate the doctrines to be followed by everyone.

The current events are nothing but a continued struggle and a reaction of non-proselytizing Hindus to retain their culture, civilization and religion against the continued onslaught of Islam and Christian proselytization by coercion, allurement of monetary benefits, misinformation, or blackmail of the vulnerable sections of the society to bring about demographic changes. To avoid fraudulent practices several states have enacted laws against such conversions applicable to all religions. Paradoxically the majority Hindu community is at a disadvantage compared to minority communities. For instance, majority of the Hindu temples are controlled by government and the revenue generated by them is utilized for general purposes at the expense of Hindu community. But churches and mosques are not under government control and are free to use their revenue for the benefit of their respective communities. Paradoxically it is the majority community which is demanding an end to discriminatory practices and the government to become truly secular. Another such demand is about enactment of uniform civil code.

The concept that one religion at the exclusion of all others will ensure peace and prosperity is fallacious. The two World Wars were started by Christian Nations. There is economic discrepancy among Muslim countries and not all Christian nations are equally prosperous. Hindus have demonstrated over ages the benefit of mutual acceptance and harmonious living; Christianity and Islam the harm resulting from diving the world into ‘us’ versus ‘Others’. There is no Hindu intolerance but only Hindu attempt at self-preservation. Plurality which is dear to Hindu culture deserves emulation and support and not vilification.



…………….O…………

 

[prasad1]

People of Indian origin constitute one of the largest diasporas in the world, residing in at least 200 countries. The stock of Indian migrants has almost tripled over the past three decades, from 6.6 million in 1990 to 17.9 million in 2020.

Diasporas, however, have a Janus-face. The acts of migration and living abroad affect identities — ethnic, religious, and those of national origin. One of the largest Indian diasporas — and certainly the wealthiest and most influential — resides in the United States (US). Yet, we know little about how Indian-Americans view India. How do they remain connected to their ancestral homeland? And how do they regard political changes underway in India?

The Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS), a nationally-representative survey of Indian-Americans we conducted in September 2020, found that this population is, by and large, quite connected to its homeland through family and social networks, culture, and politics. However, the nature and intensity of this connection varies substantially. Indian-Americans born outside of the US are much more likely to report a strong connection to India compared to those born in the US (see figure).

Further, IAAS finds that Indian-Americans support more liberal positions in the US and more conservative ones in India on an array of contentious policy questions. This could be a case of “when in Rome do as the Romans do,” or the reality that a group’s attitudes differ according to whether it perceives itself to be part of the majority or a minority community.

IAAS demonstrates that there are also inter-generational and partisan differences on political and social changes underway in India. Indian-Americans are divided on India’s trajectory. While 36% report that India is currently on the right track, 39% believe it is on the wrong track — with those born in the US less optimistic. IAAS respondents are also markedly more pessimistic than the Indian population at large. According to a July 2020 Ipsos survey, 60% of Indians reported that India was on the right track.

Modi enjoys substantial support among Indian-Americans. But views on Modi suggest a modest partisan tint. Republicans give Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) the highest approval, although Democrats also rate them favourably — well above the Congress and Rahul Gandhi. However, the religious divide is striking. Almost seven in 10 Hindus approve of Modi’s performance, while just one in five Muslims do. Indian-American Christians are almost evenly divided. However, Modi’s popularity among the Indian-American community is considerably weaker in the US than in India. While he enjoyed a 19% net favourability in the IAAS survey, a Morning Consult poll conducted in India concurrently with our survey put this number at 55%.

It is evident that the divisions that animate Indian society also manifest within the diaspora. In particular, Hindu Indian-Americans hold very different views on domestic politics and policy in India compared to their non-Hindu counterparts, on average. Moreover, the second generation — those born in the US — are more liberal than their immigrant parents.

These divisions foreshadow a more fractured, less homogeneous Indian-American community. The political polarisation infecting both India and the US appears to be seeping into the diaspora. Furthermore, polarisation among Indian-Americans has troubling implications not only for the community’s role within US politics, but also for its role as the lynchpin of India’s “soft power.”

India will find that the more polarisation grows at home, the more its diaspora will become polarised, and one of the country’s strongest foreign policy assets will be increasingly less so.

On India, a fracture in the diaspora

The Indian-American community is increasingly divided on political, religious, and generational lines. India will find that the more polarisation grows at home, the more its diaspora will become polarised, and one of the country’s strongest foreign policy assets will be increasingly less so.

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[prasad1]

Richard Davis analyses the textual citations in Vivekananda's speech and concludes that both of them are suggestive of inclusivism rather than pluralism, and after enlarging his analysis to include texts of a Saiva sect such as the Saiva Siddhanta, along with the Vaisnava text, the Bhagavadgita, concludes that although, 'Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita and Siva in the Saiva Agamas instruct Hindus to accept all religions as true and valid for those who believe and practice them; but, at the same time, they hold that one religious viewpoint is still truer and more efficacious than the rest.'

In other words, Davis argues that Swami Vivekananda overstates the case for Hindu tolerance.

The almost idealised vision of Hindu tolerance, which Mahatma Gandhi incarnated in his person, received a serious reality check with his assassination on January 30, 1948, which embodies two curious paradoxes.
the introduction of a new word Hindutva, a word coined in 1923 by V D Savarkar, who, contra Gandhi, believed in a more muscular approach to national issues epitomised in the motto 'Hinduise politics and militarise Hindudom.'

This emerged as the more extreme position on the role Hinduism was to play in Independent India, often referred to as Hindu nationalism.

The mainline position was represented by the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.

These two collaborated closely in the non-violent Indian struggle against British rule but had different views on the role of religion in public life.

Gandhi was a religious pluralist, who also felt that religions had a positive role to play in public life.

He was nevertheless committed to secularism in the sense that the State should not be aligned with any one religion and thus believed that India should be a secular state.

So did Nehru, but Nehru was also more inclined to be secular in the European sense of the word, which associates it with a secular rational outlook and looks askance at the role of religion in public life.

During the past few decades, however, the worldview of Hindutva as represented by the Bharatiya Janata Party has made political gains and poses an increasingly serious challenge to the Indian National Congress and its worldview.

This historical perspective is necessary to understand the state of religious tolerance in relation to Hinduism in our times, because it is shaped by the role these three positions came to occupy in Indian politics.

Once again we have here an example of how the virtually unqualified religious tolerance of Hinduism when it had no political power, becomes subject to stresses and strains upon contact with political power.

It is worth noting, however, that none of these three positions compromise Hinduism's soteriological pluralism in the least; nor do the three positions call into question the idea of India as a secular State although they might debate the best understanding of it.

Nevertheless, the rise of Hindu nationalism does complicate the question of religious minorities in India.

This is, however, also accompanied by a sense of being a 'persecuted majority', which sometimes finds violent expression -- as in the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992 in Ayodhya -- much to the consternation of the minorities and moderate Hindus alike.

Hindu tolerance is thus now under challenge with the rise of the Hindu Right in India over the past two decades.

The Hindu Right shares the general Hindu position on soteriological pluralism, but the Hindu quest for political power in terms of a Hindu identity can pose a problem for tolerance, as the alignment of religion with power often does.




Hinduism shares this predicament with Judaism, which like Hinduism remained apolitical for centuries. The formation of Israel, however, provided a new context for its heritage of religious tolerance to negotiate.

The rise of the Hindu Right creates a similar situation in India.

Hindu tolerance is under challenge with the rise of the Hindu Right

'The Hindu quest for political power in terms of a Hindu identity can pose a problem for tolerance, as the alignment of religion with power often does.'

www.rediff.com

 

[prasad1]

It was all captured on a widely circulated video [Warning: Graphic and distressing scenes]. The images show police raining baton blows on him even as he collapsed, taking turns with Bijoy Baniya, a Hindu photographer accompanying the police team. As Hoque’s life ebbs away, Baniya fiendishly jumps and stomps on his motionless body in an “act of performative depravity.”

Baniya is merely the latest face of India’s state-driven Hindu radicalization. In a country where 84% of the population is Hindu, and just 14% Muslim, Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has achieved the astonishing feat of creating a deep sense of Hindu victimhood, stoking the othering of Muslims via disinformation, hate speech, opening old religious wounds, manipulating a servile media, silencing progressive voices, and empowering Hindu supremacist vigilante groups. “Hindu khatre mein hain” (Hindus are in danger) is a right-wing refrain that resonates deeply today.

As a result, many Hindus have now been persuaded to believe that India’s biggest problem is its Muslims. Before Modi took over in 2014, most citizens thought their chief concerns were poverty, insufficient economic growth and corruption. He rode to power on the promise to fix all that. But as the economy has continued to worsen, and unemployment and poverty have risen under him, the BJP has increasingly fallen back on supremacist politics to deflect attention and evade responsibility. To keep winning elections, it needs to keep polarizing Hindu voters against Muslims, and spinning ever more outrageous campaigns to demonize Muslims.

Read More: How Long Will Biden Pretend That Modi Is a Democratic Ally?

Muslims apparently lust after Hindu women, procreating rapidly with the aim of overtaking the Hindu population and establishing an Islamic state, and necessitating new laws against “love jihad.” Similar regulations against religious conversions and the slaughter of cows, which are sacred to Hindus, have encouraged vigilantism. Muslim hawkers and workers have come under increasing attack from Hindu supremacist groups calling for a boycott of Muslim businesses.

Indian social media today is filled with videos of self-appointed protectors of Hinduism calling for the lynching of Muslims—an act so common that it hardly makes news anymore. High-profile Hindu supremacists are seldom booked for hate speech. Muslims routinely face random attacks for such “crimes” as transporting cattle or being in the company of Hindu women. Sometimes, the provocation is simply that somebody is visibly Muslim. As Modi himself has told election rallies, people “creating violence” can be “identified by their clothes.”

But reality is no longer important. It bends to the requirements of the ruling party’s dehumanizing narrative against Muslims. As Jews in Nazi Germany were called “rats” and Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s were called “cockroaches,” so BJP members now refer to Indian Muslims as “termites” eating away at India’s resources, denying Hindus what is due to them in their own land.

Gandhi continues to be killed in a million ways in today’s India. Bijoy Baniya just added a flourish to it.

Column: Is India Headed for an Anti-Muslim Genocide?

To stay in power, the BJP needs to keep polarizing voters—and Muslims are paying the price, says Debasish Roy Chowdhury

time.com

 

[prasad1]

Tensions between India’s Hindus, who make up about 80 percent of the country’s 1.4 billion people, and Muslims, who make up 14 percent, go back hundreds of years and worsened during British colonial rule.

But under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist who took office in 2014, experts say there has been a sharp rise in discrimination and violence against Muslims that is polarizing society and undermining India’s reputation for religious tolerance.

“India had a very good image internationally, as the world’s largest democracy and the country of tolerance,” said Christophe Jaffrelot, the author of the 2021 book “Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy.”

“Now gradually this image is getting eroded in the U.S. and Europe.”

Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, “is a very monolithic and exclusionary political ideology that relies on a vision of Hindu identity as being North Indian, upper caste and patriarchal,” said Nikhil Mandalaparthy, advocacy director of Hindus for Human Rights, a U.S.-based group.

At least 1 million people died and 18 million were uprooted during that period, according to the National Archives of the British government.

That trauma was never fully addressed by Indian leaders, said Thomas Blom Hansen, author of the 1999 book “The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India.”

“Politicians tried to put a lid on all these tensions,” he said. “They wanted to create a multinational, multicultural, multi-religious state that has room for everyone.”

While India is officially a secular state that enshrines the right to religious freedom in its constitution, Hansen said the BJP had created a narrative of Hindu victimhood that taps into a “deep reservoir of stereotypes and myths, anxieties and anger about Muslims that has always been there.”

“They believe Hindus are oppressed in India and they are oppressed by the minorities, but nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.

India has an eroding image of tolerance in the West. A recent cricket loss proves why.

Tensions between India’s Hindus, who make up about 80 percent of the country’s 1.4 billion people, and Muslims, who make up 14 percent, go back hundreds of years.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[a-TB]

Is India Becoming Less Tolerant?​

Venkatachala I Sreenivas

​

India, reputed for its toleration, recently is reported as becoming less tolerant. India being a pluralistic society of many languages, customs, and religions, question arises as to who is becoming intolerant of whom and for what reasons. It is reported that the Hindu majority is becoming intolerant of Muslim and Christian minority. There are followers of other religions whose number is much smaller than that of Muslims and Christians. Zoroastrians constitute 0.6%; Buddhists 0.71%; Jains 1.0%; Sikhs 2%; Christians 2.5% and Muslims 12% of the population. Hindu India gave shelter to the religiously persecuted Jews and Zoroastrians for over thousands of years and they have coexisted peacefully without discrimination enjoying all the benefits of Indian citizenship. Then why Muslims and Christians allege discrimination needs careful scrutiny.

Article 29 of the Indian constitution states: Any section of the citizen residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. Article 30 upholds the right of minority communities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 51A concerning the duties states (a) to abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and national anthem; (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.

Minority community members have made their mark in politics, business, judiciary, military etc. There are Christian educational institutions, churches, and mosques spread all over the land. While Christians and Muslims have enjoyed the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution, they have fallen short of fulfilling the obligations under article 51A (a) and (f) for promoting harmonious living resulting from their world view of their respective religions.

The Hindu view that the goal [Human salvation or God realization] is one but the paths are many avoids fanatism and promotes freedom of thought and choice. Hindus have coexisted peacefully with other mutually accepting religions. Hinduism has never declared that there is only one correct way to reach the goal. In contrast, for both Islam and Christianity there is only one way, their way and it is their duty, sanctioned by their respective scriptures, to convert the nonbelievers. In a secular country like India, citizens are required to leave their religious beliefs at their home when entering public sphere. Unfortunately, Indian Muslims and Christians not able to or willing to follow this principle and by bringing their religion into public sphere find themselves in inevitable conflict with others violating Article 51A (a) and (f) of Indian constitution.

Hindu view is inclusive. Hinduism teaches that the whole of humanity is one family. Muslims and Christians, in contrast, have divided the world into ‘us’ versus ‘other’. Islam and Christianity by exclusivity has been responsible for genocide, exploitation, slavery, destruction of cultures, civilizations, religions of the ‘other’. Christian ‘pioneers’ in the Americas, Australia and in New Zealand nearly decimated native population destroying their culture and religion. African natives were traded as slaves and treated worse than animals.

The account of Alau-d-din reported by Will Durant, an eminent historian, “Mohamedan rulers collected half of the gross produce of the soil produced by Hindus; native rules had taken one sixth. No Hindu could hold up his head and in their houses no sign of gold or silver was to be seen. Blows, confinement, imprisonment and chains were all employed to enforce payment in addition to intimidation by mass slaughter.” Hindus had to endure ‘jazia’ a tax to be paid for being a Hindu— a coercive measure to convert to Islam. Muslim aversion for coexistence with Hindus resulted in partition of the Indian subcontinent to secular India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan with detrimental consequences. While Muslim population in India is increasing the Hindu population of Pakistan has decreased from 23% to 2% reflecting the plight of ‘others’ in a Muslim country.

Lured by India’s fabulous wealth European Christians came to India as traders and when they became colonizers. They impoverished India by transferring money they collected as taxes, the wealth they plundered and the sumptuous salaries they enjoyed to Britain. John Bright wrote: “The single city of Manchester, in the supply of its inhabitants with the single article of water, has spent a larger sum of money than the East India Company has spent in fourteen years from 1834 to 1848 in public works of every kind throughout the vast domain.” Sir Cotton in 1854 wrote, “Public works have been almost neglected throughout India…The motto hitherto has been: Do nothing, have nothing done, let no body do anything.’ Even in 1936, less than three per cent was spent on agriculture. In addition, the missionaries colluding with the government started harvesting ‘ pagan souls’ for Christianity. The missionaries hated Brahmins who were an obstacle in their proselytizing activity. They maligned Hinduism in general and Brahmins in particular. Historian Basham wrote: “Some of the nineteenth century missionaries armed with passages from Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, often taken out of context, and with tales of famine, disease, and evils of Hindu caste and family system have helped to propagate the wide spread fallacy that India is a land of gloom. Demonizing Hinduism served a useful purpose for raising fund in their native countries for the ‘noble purpose’ of salvaging the pagan, idol worshipping Hindus.” This narrative has continued.

Arabia, Egypt, and Persia overrun by Islam lost their culture, civilization and religion. Native Americans, Australians, and Africans suffered similar fate under Christianity. To the credit of Hindus they preserved their religion and culture despite centuries of onslaught by Islam and Christianity. Dubois, no lover of Hinduism, wrote: “Hindus have often passed beneath the yoke of foreign invaders whose religions, laws, and customs have been very different from their own. Yet all efforts to impose foreign institutions on the people of India have been futile, and foreign occupation has never dealt more than a feeble blow against Indian custom. Above all, and before all it was the caste system that protected them”. It is noteworthy that this was accomplished over a vast area extending from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari without having a central church or a body of men to designate the doctrines to be followed by everyone.

The current events are nothing but a continued struggle and a reaction of non-proselytizing Hindus to retain their culture, civilization and religion against the continued onslaught of Islam and Christian proselytization by coercion, allurement of monetary benefits, misinformation, or blackmail of the vulnerable sections of the society to bring about demographic changes. To avoid fraudulent practices several states have enacted laws against such conversions applicable to all religions. Paradoxically the majority Hindu community is at a disadvantage compared to minority communities. For instance, majority of the Hindu temples are controlled by government and the revenue generated by them is utilized for general purposes at the expense of Hindu community. But churches and mosques are not under government control and are free to use their revenue for the benefit of their respective communities. Paradoxically it is the majority community which is demanding an end to discriminatory practices and the government to become truly secular. Another such demand is about enactment of uniform civil code.

The concept that one religion at the exclusion of all others will ensure peace and prosperity is fallacious. The two World Wars were started by Christian Nations. There is economic discrepancy among Muslim countries and not all Christian nations are equally prosperous. Hindus have demonstrated over ages the benefit of mutual acceptance and harmonious living; Christianity and Islam the harm resulting from diving the world into ‘us’ versus ‘Others’. There is no Hindu intolerance but only Hindu attempt at self-preservation. Plurality which is dear to Hindu culture deserves emulation and support and not vilification.



…………….O…………

Not sure what Hindus do these days since much of the practices are rooted in supersitions. Still there is deep rooted spirituality in India in certain matters.

Hinduism teaches not just tolerance but acceptance of others. But this acceptance is supposed to come from courage. The two religions Islam and Christianity requires conversion and expansion. To them end justifies any means.

Swami Dayanada Saraswathi called acts of conversion as major violence even worse than physical violence (I am paraphrasing).

Hindus have learned to co-exist with others. The best way to deal with conversion oriented religions is for two things to happen.

A. People have to be more educated on what Hinduism teaches. Today we have lots of misinformation. To go beyond misinformation requires courage.

B. The caste hierarchy should be abolished. Government should not track such details. In prayer all are equal. This requires courage,

Without courage it is hard to be accepting of others. What is a concern is that if the conversion rates are not reversed by above means, India will be dominated by these two religions in 200 years or so and then there will be no peace in the region

 

[prasad1]

Religious switching, or conversion, appears to be rare in India. In the Center’s recent survey of nearly 30,000 Indian adults, very few said they had switched religions since childhood. In fact, 99% of adults who were raised Hindu are still Hindu. Among those raised as Muslims, 97% are still Muslim as adults, and 94% of people raised Christian still identify as Christians. Furthermore, people who do switch religions tend to cancel each other out. For example, among all Indian adults, 0.7% were raised Hindu but no longer identify as such, and 0.8% were raised outside of the religion and are now Hindu.

Religious pluralism has long been a core value in India, which has a large majority of Hindus and smaller shares of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other groups. In recent years, the size of these communities and their future growth have been topics of great interest to the Indian public.


A new Pew Research Center report shows that India’s religious composition has been fairly stable since the 1947 partition that divided the Indian subcontinent into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. This study – the second in the Center’s series about religion in India – covers the six decades between 1951, when the first post-Partition census was conducted, and 2011, the date of the nation’s most recent census. Here are some of the report’s key findings:

How we did this

India’s overall population more than tripled between 1951 and 2011, though growth rates have slowed since the 1990s. The total number of Indians grew to 1.2 billion in the 2011 census from 361 million in the 1951 census. The number of Hindus grew to 966 million (from 304 million in 1951), Muslims to 172 million (from 35 million), Christians to 28 million (from 8 million), Sikhs to 20.8 million (from 6.8 million), Buddhists to 8.4 million (from 2.7 million) and Jains to 4.5 million (from 1.7 million). India’s Parsis, a small minority, are unusual as their population shrank by almost half, to 60,000 in 2011. Deaths among Parsis have outnumbered births, due to the group’s relatively high median age and low fertility rate.

India’s overall population growth has slowed considerably, especially since the 1990s. After adding the equivalent of nearly a quarter of its population every decade in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the country’s growth rate dropped to 22% in the 1990s and to 18% in the most recent census decade. Growth among Hindus slowed from a high of around 24% to about 17% in the 2000s, while Muslim growth slowed to around 25% and the rate among Christians dropped to 16%.

Key findings about the religious composition of India

Religious pluralism has long been a core value in India. A new report shows that India’s religious composition has been fairly stable since 1951.

www.pewresearch.org

When you say this, please prove it.
What is a concern is that if the conversion rates are not reversed by above means, India will be dominated by these two religions in 200 years or so and then there will be no peace in the region. Is an ignorant and false and mischievous statement.

When the majority falsely believes that they are victims then there is no room for the minority.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

The title of this thread is really offensive.

If someone were to write a thread titled "Are Muslims becoming more radical?" Will you allow it? If not, then you should not allow this as well.

Also, posts 3 through 5, though they are usual cut and paste items, are political in nature. They are not supposed to be in general discussions. Why were these posts not deleted or moved to political thread?

Maybe the moderators should provide an explanation.

 

[prasad1]

Battle Of Religious Identities Has Turned Into Hijab Vs Saffron Scarf In A Karnataka College.

Days after a group of Muslim students were allegedly denied entry into class by the management a College in Karnataka has turned into a battleground for religious identities.

This after, a group of Hindu students who had earlier opposed the Muslim students wearing hijabs started wearing saffron scarfs and shawls given out by the BJP to the college.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

OPINION | Islam and Intolerance: The Daylight Murder of Kishan Bharwad

OPINION | Islam and Intolerance: The Daylight Murder of Kishan Bharwad - News18

Wonder if Kishan Bharwad will receive justice, or will this case, like so many others under the benevolent eyes of our 'secular' country, fizzle out and be thrown under the rug?

www.news18.com

 

[கால பைரவன்]

The liberals keep silent over murder of Kamalesh Tiwari or Kishan Bharwad or Ramalingam or many other Hindus at the hands of islamist radicals because it is inconvenient to their myopic views and then they wonder why likes of Yati Narasinghanand are becoming popular. Indian Liberals are hand in glove with Islamic radicals and Jihadis. That problem should be addressed if one were to tackle backlash from Hindus.

 

[tbs]

hi

all religions are tolrent or intolrent.....time and nature of govt rule ....if congress is ruled for another 100 yrs

like they did in last 60 yrs so....minority or majority ...just vote bank.....in a democracy....language/caste/

skin color/religion all are vote banks of political parties to survive and govern in any where in the world..

 

[kamu]

It was all captured on a widely circulated video [Warning: Graphic and distressing scenes]. The images show police raining baton blows on him even as he collapsed, taking turns with Bijoy Baniya, a Hindu photographer accompanying the police team. As Hoque’s life ebbs away, Baniya fiendishly jumps and stomps on his motionless body in an “act of performative depravity.”

Baniya is merely the latest face of India’s state-driven Hindu radicalization. In a country where 84% of the population is Hindu, and just 14% Muslim, Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has achieved the astonishing feat of creating a deep sense of Hindu victimhood, stoking the othering of Muslims via disinformation, hate speech, opening old religious wounds, manipulating a servile media, silencing progressive voices, and empowering Hindu supremacist vigilante groups. “Hindu khatre mein hain” (Hindus are in danger) is a right-wing refrain that resonates deeply today.

As a result, many Hindus have now been persuaded to believe that India’s biggest problem is its Muslims. Before Modi took over in 2014, most citizens thought their chief concerns were poverty, insufficient economic growth and corruption. He rode to power on the promise to fix all that. But as the economy has continued to worsen, and unemployment and poverty have risen under him, the BJP has increasingly fallen back on supremacist politics to deflect attention and evade responsibility. To keep winning elections, it needs to keep polarizing Hindu voters against Muslims, and spinning ever more outrageous campaigns to demonize Muslims.

Read More: How Long Will Biden Pretend That Modi Is a Democratic Ally?

Muslims apparently lust after Hindu women, procreating rapidly with the aim of overtaking the Hindu population and establishing an Islamic state, and necessitating new laws against “love jihad.” Similar regulations against religious conversions and the slaughter of cows, which are sacred to Hindus, have encouraged vigilantism. Muslim hawkers and workers have come under increasing attack from Hindu supremacist groups calling for a boycott of Muslim businesses.

Indian social media today is filled with videos of self-appointed protectors of Hinduism calling for the lynching of Muslims—an act so common that it hardly makes news anymore. High-profile Hindu supremacists are seldom booked for hate speech. Muslims routinely face random attacks for such “crimes” as transporting cattle or being in the company of Hindu women. Sometimes, the provocation is simply that somebody is visibly Muslim. As Modi himself has told election rallies, people “creating violence” can be “identified by their clothes.”

But reality is no longer important. It bends to the requirements of the ruling party’s dehumanizing narrative against Muslims. As Jews in Nazi Germany were called “rats” and Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s were called “cockroaches,” so BJP members now refer to Indian Muslims as “termites” eating away at India’s resources, denying Hindus what is due to them in their own land.

Gandhi continues to be killed in a million ways in today’s India. Bijoy Baniya just added a flourish to it.

Column: Is India Headed for an Anti-Muslim Genocide?

To stay in power, the BJP needs to keep polarizing voters—and Muslims are paying the price, says Debasish Roy Chowdhury

time.com

I beg to differ with you on quite a few points - 1] Muslims apparently lust after hindu women..... : this is apparent even in the smaller towns of TN, where all religious sects co-existed peacefully with no or very little rancour until a couple of decades ago; the number of " love- jihad" episodes is just not funny .
Mullahs openly preach that muslims take more wives and therefore more children that they may make demographic changes in the places they inhabit; the fact the famly planning has been successfully implemented among the Hindu communities , makes it all the more easierf or the muslims.
2] : I am not and never have been a " fanatic Hindu ", or an extreme right winger, but what is happening now in the south, is cause for alarm. In the Malappuram district of Kerala, which, of course was formed for the muslims, as they were a majority, you can't get a glass of tea in the daytime during Ramzan - just like in the Arabic countries .
3] : you say that the muslim population in India is just 14% muslim - please dont forget that the 14% is from 2% ,60 years ago, and this rise is from 2000 !!
Muslim shopkeepers, especially, food vendors and hoteliers, spitting on the food, before it's served / sold has been seen and reported visually enough number of times - there was even a video of an upmarket hairdresser spitting on his hands and rubbing the spit on the lady's hair, and his following remarks that "his spit is holier than her hair " went viral ; for those of you who are unaware of this phenomenon, a sect of muslims sincerely believe that their spit is holier than the "kafir" and they do this just to purify everything that's around them !
I am not in the habit of calling anybody any names, but refuse to and will not accomodate anything which is abhorrent to commonsense and hygiene. So I try to avoid and mostly succeed in not buying anything from muslim owned shops .

 

[Mohan Parasuram]

It is strange that one discuss tolerance in the case of hinduism. Take a look around who are more tolerant. There are vested interest supported and financed from outside the country who want hindus subjudigsted and these groups controls the media and carrupt political class whose main interest is show hinduism in the bad light. The hapless hindus fall for this. It is high time the hindus see thru this and assert their identity. No body has to preach hindus what is tolerance. Let those practice secularism