Quite possibly.
But I try to present an objective view.
And I know how to spell.
You call Hinduisim a progressive religon then how do you explain the burning of MF. Hussins house and artwork because he painted the Hindu goddesses nude?
Progress consists of two steps forward, one step back
I explain the attempted arson on M.F. Hussein's house, and the vandalism of some of his paintings, by the fact that stupidity and stupid people is and are universal. When judging a tradition on the said stupid people, you have to see whether or not it condones or condemns their behaviour. If it does not sanction it, then it is above reproach.
We have to ask: do the
Shankaracharyas support this? Do other prominent
dharmacharyas support this? Do the
smritis and
dharmashastras, and the contemporary law-givers, support this? Does wider Hindu society support this? And the answer is an unequivocal "NO!"
Or perhaps how various state governments have greatly hindered the process of conversion from Hinduisim to other religons.
What you fail to mention is those same laws make it equally difficult to convert from other religions to Hinduism, too.
The law in such cases mandates that people converting between religion "families" have to notify the state of their conversion one month in advance. That's it. So conversions between Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism are instantaneous. So are conversions between the different Islamic sects, and the different Christian denominations. It is when, for instance, a Muslim wants to become a Christian that he must notify the state one month in advance that he intends to do so.
The purpose of such laws is to make sure that people who may have been converted by force or fraud have a chance to retract if they so choose.
Or the attacks against churches and missionaries by Hinduvata people.
Please do not bring Hindutva into this, and do not talk about things of which you probably know nothing. Have you read Savarkar's text on the subject, which founded the Hindutva ideology? Or any other supplemental text which provides a concise definition of Hindutva? ANYTHING other than what you come across in the English language media?
Just today in the papers two preists were attacked, and a Hindu Nationalist political party Shiv Sena has thrown its support behind the attackers.
Again, you show that you don't know the context.
The Shiv Sena started out as a Marathi chauvinist party. That platform stopped paying dividends, so, like any cynical political party, they shifted to the broader appeal of Hindutva. They appeal to the fringe of the political spectrum. They are not considered real Hindutvawadis by the core of the movement.
Also, Hindus are not "nationalist" in the sense you know it.
Or how can Hinduisim be progressive when the great moral police attempt to arrest Richard Gere for kissing that annoying woman?
THERE IS NO MORAL POLICE!!!! It was an arrest mandated by the independent, secular judicial system!
Let me explain in more detail how such a silly thing can happen.
The person who filed this lawsuit is famous for this sort of frivolous litigation. There exists an old anti-obscenity law, unchanged since British times, which makes the behaviour of Richard Gere illegal. It's one of those silly laws which stays on the books because nobody cares and it's never enforced, only this time, somebody tried to use it, and the judiciary had to obey the law, silly and outdated as it may be, and enforce it. The law is fine in its place, except for the fact that the definition of obscenity needs to be re-defined (from a peck on the cheek to making out in public, for instance).
This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Hinduism. It has everything to do with old and obsolete laws, and just plain silliness.
You are merely looking at the Hindu texts, why not look at the actions of its followers?
I am looking at not just the texts, but at three things:
a) Wider Hindu society
b) The living tradition
c) The texts
I do not judge a religion on only the basis of what its followers do, because you can make any claim about any sizeable religious group and have it stick, by that criterion. Instead, I see how the opinion of the society that religion has fostered, of the tradition it has, and of its texts (or rather, accepted authority). If the society, tradition, and authority, all support a certain assertion, only then do I take it to be absolutely true for that religion. If the tradition and authority support it, but not the wider society, then I take it to be overwhelmingly true. If the society and tradition do not support it, but the authority does, then I take it to be mostly true.
Your perspective on your religon and your own society is biased, you are a Hindu nationalists and have repeatedely stated how you wish to see Hindusim restored to its past glory.
My perspective being biased is no refutation of my arguments and reasoning, is it? If I say that the sky is blue, or appears blue, then that is not in any way affected by who or what I am.
I am not a Hindu nationalist, for I do not believe that simply being a Hindu qualifies you to be a co-nationalist. Nor do I believe in the existence of a Hindu "nation". So your assertion falls flat.
I wish to see a few things:
a) The restoration of India's historic borders
b) The restoration of Indic cultural influence within those borders
c) The rise of that new Indic nation as the world's foremost power in all spheres of human endeavour
d) The formation of an India state/nation which is unshakeably stable and peaceful
e) The creation of a
welfare society which ensures the non-coercive welfare of the people which is independent of the state
f) The restoration of Indic institutions, in a new form is necessary, which serve the same purpose as the old ones did
This is ultimately a vision born of compassion for my fellow Indians and a pride in my culture and traditions and heritage.
You may have more expirence regarding Indian society however that expierence is tempered by the fact you were born into that society.
My experience is not "tempered" by my being born in this society, is is enriched by it, as I have always, since my early childhood, been an observer, an outsider who can objectively see and analyse what he sees. I can shift effortlessly between the roles of outside observer and inside participant, which you find it impossible to do. I have the benefit of both perspectives. I also have bothered to go the root, to the original sources of culture and tradition.
I don't know when this idea started gaining currency that someone from a given society is incapable of analysing it objectively. I'm probably far more objective than you are on most issues.
Your perspective isn't nessecarily the true one, and just because I am an NRI doesn't mean that my perspective on Indian society cannot also be valid.
Your view is most probably the correct one given your context and experience (affluent NRI educated in a private boarding school for rich NRIs, isolated from normal Indian society, in a major metropolitan city with no strong cultural pressure). My point is that my range of experience is much wider and richer.
Your view of Indian society is shaped by three things:
a) The American view
b) The English-language media of India
c) Your NRI peers, themselves no insiders
d) The extremely limited interaction you have with a very small segment of real India you come in contact with
You are also handicapped by not being well-read in any Indian language.
. The Romanization of any non latin language, I admit, does help me in trying to read the word(s) if I am unfamiliar with the text itself in the beguinning.
