Yeah, western countries are known for having about 50% of their population relegated to an untouchable status without any chance of social mobility or partaking in the benefits and rituals of the other 50% - and not only in this life, it's for eternity.

Untouchable status is flat-out illegal in India, and the Indian government has gone to huge lengths to help former pariahs/untouchables (now properly called Dalit) improve their education and social status. To the point where the formerly privileged non-Dalit are now complaining that they don't get anywhere like the same attention from government and are at risk of being left by the wayside. These complaints might be overblown for sure, but the underlying efforts to redress these wrongs cannot be denied.

This was not to say that those things were left unattended or no effort has been made, it was in the context of the parent comment - dharmic definitions, and ideas, are fallible as everything else and can be corrupted and lead to the same or worse outcomes and they can mingle good ideas (Vegetarianism) with bad ideas (Casts).

Untouchability was never a dharmic definition or idea. The Vedic texts talk about there being four proper "callings" in life but make no mention of any social outcaste status, and the elaborate system of caste was a result of unrelated developments, similar to the ones which created the rigid social systems of the West in the Middle-Ages.

> Untouchable status is flat-out illegal in India,

How many municipal workers cleaning streets and toilets are from higher castes ?

The class system or castas was very much part of Europe.

The monopoly of the church on God and crown was precisely why it was imported into India by the British to consolidate their power.

"Caste" is often used to white wash the Islamic and Christian colonization of India that lasted for a 1000 years, that reduced the richest nation to one of the poorest.

This poverty creation machine that the British colonization is not merely an effect of exploitation or greed, it was very much driven by the same racist and Christian supremacy that drove the nazis.

The "dalits" are very much the biggest victims of colonization.

> that reduced the richest nation to one of the poorest.

Very good point, BTW. You're not going to find a rigid social stratification system in a rich society. Stratification takes over as an outcome of societal collapse, as people are reduced to fighting over scraps of their former wealth and will cling to any form of seeming stability, however damaging in the long term. This is exactly what occurred in the West of late antiquity and the dark ages, culminating in the early middle ages.

This seems to not have any resemblance to the historical decline of the "Vedic Culture" way before any "colonising" by the "west".

If the guys writing the history didn't mess it up, wasn't buddha himself against the caste system? That seems way before there was even a Church in the West to begin with.

The Mongolic ("Islamic") invasions from Central Asia starting in the late middle ages were quite comparable in their violence. And they still count as "west" from an Indian POV since Central Asia is directly west of the Indian subcontinent. (Note that these Mongolic invaders were, by and large, merely converts to Islam, and that a very comparable dynamic also caused the end of the Golden Age of Islam, around that same time.)

Gautama Buddha was against any rigid interpretation of the varnas, but he was not unusual in that - this was close to Hindu orthodoxy even at the time.

A lot of myths have been built around Buddha or Ashoka, in the recent years to fit politics.

Buddha considered himself very much a Hindu.

As for the new narrative being heavily pushed these days that the caste system is a remnant of British colonial times, a few words from an Untouchable girl can correct it - written in the year 1855. From the essay:

Earlier, Gokhale, Apate, Trimkaji, Andhala, Pansara, Kale, Behre, etc [all Brahman surnames], who showed their bravery by killing rats in their homes, persecuted us, not sparing even pregnant women, without any rhyme or reason. This has stopped now. Harassment and torture of Mahars and Mangs, common during the rule of Peshwas in Pune, have stopped. Now, human sacrifice for the foundation of forts and mansions has stopped – now, nobody buries us alive. Now, our population is growing in numbers. Earlier, if any Mahar or Mang wore fine clothes, they would say that only Brahmans should wear such clothes. Seen in fine clothes, we were earlier accused of stealing such clothes. Their religion was in danger of being polluted when Untouchables put clothes around their bodies; they would tie them to a tree and punish them. But, under British rule, anybody with money can buy and wear clothes. Earlier, punishment for any wrongdoing against the upper castes was to behead the guilty Untouchable— now, it has stopped. Excessive and exploitative tax has stopped. The practice of untouchability has stopped in some places. Killing has stopped on the playground. Now, we can even visit the marketplace.

Source: https://www.forwardpress.in/2020/02/165-years-ago-first-fema...

Atrocity literate was quite convenient both for the colonizers as well as for the church.

We have a cottage industry even today that churns out fake attacks on Christians to justify interference or bullying by western countries.

Imagine having a mind that is so saturated with hatred and propaganda that a young girl's cry of despair from 1855, protesting against centuries upon centuries of oppression and brutality, is blithely discarded as 'atrocity literature'. For all the warbling about 'dharmic' culture, basic humanity and a desire to develop an inner yardstick for truth is utterly missing from your absurd screeds.

Was the book "written" by the girl or is it the church/colonizers that had authored the book.

And did the girl live for centuries just so she can experience the white savior?

I am out of the thread. Not interested in engaging anymore with silly, trollish bile that is regurgitated from a reservoir of rancor and insecurity.

But it's quite clear that the essay managed to rattle your threadbare, befuddled convictions.

No it just exposed you as a member of atrocity literature cottage industry.

Perhaps connected to a church or left organisation

What an absolutely shocking misrepresentation of the Buddha !

The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas entirely and this infuriated the Brahmins of that time. He had both philosophical and pragmatic objections to the theistic stance of Brahminical groups, along with a total rejection of their focus on mass animal slaughter in the name of rituals.

From the original Pali canon, this discourse captures the Buddha's position:

https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato

And, Adi Sankara wrote an entire polemic trashing the Buddha as an insignificant man who should be shunned by everybody. Here is a passage straight from the Vedanta Sutras written by Sankara:

Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.--So that--and this the Sutra means to indicate--Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.

Source: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34208.htm

The neo-Hindu view of the Buddha is indeed misrepresentation. Buddha couldn’t have been a Hindu because “Hinduism” as they understand it simply didn’t exist at that time. But your view isn’t any better.

1. There is no reason to believe the Pali Tripitaka represents the authentic words or teachings of the Buddha. He would have spoken Magadhi as his mother tongue. Pali was a Western Prakrit and moreover a trade and literary language not a popular one. Also the Pali Tripitaka was composed and edited by the Hinayanists several centuries after the Buddha’s life and expresses doctrinal developments that would be anachronistic in that era.

2. There is no particular reason to believe that Buddha and early Buddhism was against caste except in the general sense that they are against worldly behaviors of any type. You won’t find anything about it in the Aryan eightfold path (Aryashtangamarga) for instance. (Aryan is usually translated as “noble” in this case. Did you ever wonder why?). The ten major disciples of the Buddha were all either Brahmanas or his royal relatives. The first major historical Buddhist ruler Ashoka in his rock edicts exhorts his subjects to respect both “Brahmanas and Shramanas”. The Ashokavadana, the earliest Buddhist hagiography (and canonical in Theravada) states that a Buddha can only be born in a Brahmana or Kshatriya womb.

3. Buddhism is against karma and holds that liberation is from Jnana only. Animal sacrifices are mentioned a lot because they are particularly vivid examples of the negative consequences of karma but the Buddhist critique applies just as readily to lighting a ghee lamp for worldly reasons. The Jains were more consistently for non-violence than the Buddhists. (No predominantly Buddhist culture is predominantly vegetarian). Jnana only is the position of Advaita Vedanta too. The difference is Smarta Hinduism developed a modus vivendi where karma was acceptable for householders. There was no lay Buddhism during its Indian phase only the sangha so the question could be put aside.

4. Yes Astika philosophers and saints contended against Buddhist counterparts (and each other) but it is anachronistic to bring those disputes back to the time of the Buddha himself. By the time of Shankaracharya there were several mutually antagonistic Buddhist sects. (Actually three is generous. Traditionally there are said to be eighteen.). That is what he is referring to. They can’t all be “the true teaching of the Buddha” unless he was incoherent.

The Pali Canon contains the kernel of the Buddha's Teaching. It is not difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and arrive at the essence of what the Buddha taught. A guide on how to approach the discourses:

https://suttacentral.net/general-guide-sujato

Sujato addresses several claims in his essay, and has some helpful hints on the historical placement of the Buddhadhamma.

The Buddha was not a social reformer - his teaching was about total renunciation of the world. But there are plenty of discourses that reject the birth-based caste system and instead establishes that deeds and actions are the sole criteria for judging a person.

An example: https://suttacentral.net/mn98/en/sujato

You are mistaken about Karma (Pali: Kamma). Kamma is a central pillar in the Buddha's Teaching. It is, arguably, one of the most important aspects, since Nibbana is described as the cessation of kamma.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html

Adi Sankara's rejection of the Buddha's Teaching was not a simplicistic dismissal based on sectarian divisions. His rejection was based on philosophical differences - the Vedanta Sutras make that very clear.

In any case, my main point was that it is nonsensical to call the Buddha as a Hindu.

The Pali canon contains one sects idea of the kernel of Buddha’s teaching. It so happens that sect has survived to this day while many of its competitors did not. That does not make its claims any more valid. The site you quote itself says that it began to be redacted around 300+ years after Buddhas demise. By contrast the books of the New Testament were composed 40-100 years after Jesus’s death and even then scholars hotly contest how much were his actual words. All the prominent figures in late stage Indian Buddhism were Mahayanists of various stripes. They would certainly disagree that Pali texts were the kernel of the Buddhas teaching.

I am mystified as to what you think I’ve got wrong about karma. As you say Nirvana involves the cessation of karma. Jnana alone is its cause. This is the same as Advaita Vedanta (and several other darshanas.). The point of difference is what pragmatic concessions are to be given to those who cannot become monks. To be a Buddhist in ancient India was to be a monk. There were lay people who donated to the monks but they otherwise carried on their ancestral traditions. There was no specifically Buddhist way to be a layman until after the religion left India. In Smartism, to learn Advaita Vedanta and give up karma and become a monk is the highest goal but if you can’t, rituals and worldly life still have some positive worth. Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Tantra were even more this-world oriented and in actual practice more egalitarian and accessible than Buddhism nevermind whatever rhetoric was put forth.

I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make between sectarian division and philosophical difference. A philosophical difference is what makes a sect a sect no?

We agree that Buddha was not a Hindu. For exactly the same reasons we must say Buddha was not not a Hindu. The whole question anachronistically projects latter day concerns and concepts too far into the past. But was Buddhism (or is or could it be) Hinduism? That’s the real bone of contention anyway and its a much more ambiguous question. We could mention how Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu or Yoga borrows concepts from Mahayana or the wholesale adoption of Shaiva tantric concepts in Vajrayana. I personally like to compare with Jainism. It is just as old as Buddhism, heretical to Astikas for exactly the same reasons as Buddhism and yet thoroughly integrated into social structures, modes of worship, and literary traditions to the extent that the man in the street is not even aware that Jainism is anything more than another Hindu sect. I think that would have been the fate of Buddhism if it had survived to this day. And that’s the key. It went extinct a long time ago. So the correct answer to my question is: “we don’t know.”

Liberation in Advaita Vedanta is attaining the realization that one's individual self is identical with Brahman, posited as Higher Self. This is diametrically at odds with the anatta (not-self) doctrine of the Buddha. There is simply no common ground here - I am sorry, but you are washing away key doctrinal differences with a sweep. When Adi Sankara himself condemned Buddhadhamma as incomprehensible heresy, and yet you claim that Advaita Vedanta is the same as Buddhadhamma - I doubt that there can be any further discussion.

It is troubling to see how the current wave of jingoism coupled with religious fervor is trying to reduce the Buddha to a mere pawn in an imaginary, all-encompassing Hindu pantheon. Maybe you are not deliberately trying to do this, but the muddled and confused efforts of numerous foot-soldiers expose the sad trend all the same.

> Liberation in Advaita Vedanta is attaining the realization that one's individual self is identical with Brahman, posited as Higher Self. This is diametrically at odds with the anatta (not-self) doctrine of the Buddha.

This is not true, there's no conflict. The Buddha was not interested in abstract doctrines but only in what was most pragmatically useful for attaining stream entry, enlightenment and liberation from craving and desire. People who are actually pursuing these goals, even in modern times (with very compelling results, though obviously any claims to arhat status will always be viewed skeptically by most) have clarified how anatta is entirely compatible with a Higher Self as with Brahman.

Your assertion that there is no doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is ludicrous and downright silly. Even Wikipedia clarifies this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

From the second para:

He also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self".

I didn't say that no doctrinal difference exists, only that Anatta is highly compatible with the truth of a Higher Atman. You only mentioned Higher Atman in your previous comment, not common, individualistic meaning of Atman.

For that matter, even Shankara's description of the Atman is entirely in the negative, stating what the Atman is not. So even while accepting the existence of the Atman, he's clearly tending towards a universalist description that, again, is quite compatible with a practical understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of not-Atman.

They are the same in the sense that both privilege jnana over karma for liberation that is all. They are different in that Advaita Vedanta gives some scope to karma (Indian) Buddhism gave none.

Buddhists themselves reduced the historical Shakyamuni to one member of a pantheon long ago. This was a clear trend in Mahayana and Vajrayana before Allauddin Khilji came and settled the issue once and for all.

You clearly do not understand what Hinduism is.

Brahmins are a small subset, who at different regions and times might have been corrupt. Just like the church.

But unlike the church, Hinduism is experiential and no one has a monopoly, which is precisely why Buddhism is one of many 1000s of movements.

There is no singular holy book and no need even in communities where it existed.

This obsession with trying to somehow make the Buddha and his teaching as a branch of Hinduism falls flat on its face when you look at his teaching even cursorily. The central tenet of the Buddha's position was his exposition of anatta (not-self), which is directly opposed to all Hindu doctrines which preach that finding one's 'true self' is the goal of existence. Instead, the Buddha taught that the search for a 'true self' (including God, Brahman etc.) is futile and pointless. This is an irreconcilable cleavage between Buddhism and Hinduism.

You really need to look into the Buddha's teaching properly before trying to appropriate it to fit your agenda.

For me Hinduism is an ecosystem as is for millions of Hindus.

A Hindu will feel very comfortable in a Buddhist temple and practice and vice versa. Hindus themselves have extremely diverse traditions.

I see where we have diverging views. My Swedish landlords who happens to be a Christian once asked we where is your holy book.

In her mind not having a one-one equivalent with Christianity delegitimises the religion.

In trying to intellectualise the debate, you have taken the limited view of a Christian.

The vast majority of the Hindus are open to the ideas of Buddhism as well as 1000s of tribal/rural/regional gods and rituals. Not only is there no conflict, there is perhaps no clear boundaries.

This is completely alien to xtianity/Islam.

You define Hinduism as an ecosystem of ideas, with no clear boundaries, sometimes adopting ideas from Buddhism as well as other tribal rituals.

In another comment you said that casteism was brought by the West to India. (I do not agree with this but lets go with for now). So it clearly follows that Hindus (Hinduism) adopted casteism from somewhere externally. This is not for debate because we have seen and continue to see Hindus practicing casteism for whatever reason.

Hinduism can be simultaneously extolled for adopting "good" ideas from Buddhism but is also beyond criticism for adopting casteism from the west?

You arbitrarily laid the boundary for Hinduism at "caste" arguing that it was brought externally and hence not an inherent Hindu feature, yet somehow you take pride in Hinduism being a religion that does adopt external ideas. Which one is it?

@ir123

If you have been under Islamic and xtian occupation for a 1000 years, there isn't a lot of options.

Some communities are driven to extreme poverty and it becomes a dog eat dog world.

Considering Islam in Perssia completely wiped out the culture in 50 years.

And it took only 150 years for xtianity to wipe out pagan culture in Europe or the Americas.

Caste as a system was clearly used by the British to separate communities at different levels of destitution coopting some as native informants.

Even in current day USA people are divided on their political, regional, occupational lines. Dems and Reps each consider themselves superior and the other one dumb. Inspite of public schools there is a big impact of family background even in politics.

> and not only in this life, it's for eternity.

Kind of hard to make that argument and simultaneously argue that the soul transfers to a new body at death and is confined to Earth (or worse) until the soul reaches a stage of enlightenment sufficient to move to heaven. Its arguable whether caste applies even in this life - and definitely does not between lifetimes as even the highest type of body on this planet (human) is not assured.

This post is an example of the wild fantasies indulged by the followers of hindutva where India is forever on the precipice of taking over the world intellectually and to an extent territorially. In this future liberalism will be consigned to the garbage can and ethno nationalism and fascism centered on Hinduism will reign supreme.

The popularity of yoga is hilariously touted as a precursor of things to come. The prime minister has created an "international" yoga day. They assume this will be followed by international adoption of ayurveda, cow "science", cow worship, renaming of several mathematical and scientific discoveries after Indian gurus who supposedly discovered everything originally in the veda.

The don't seem to be aware that modern yoga practised in the west is a modern invention by an Indian fitness instructor who was attempting to capture a portion of the American fitness market jumpstarted by eugen sandow. Most of the so called asanas have been incorporated into yoga from modern gymnastics.

> ethno nationalism and fascism centered on Hinduism will reign supreme.

Hey, if nationalism and fascism (ethnic or otherwise) are going to reign supreme anyway in this "Brave New World" of Fake News Media and Fake Social Media, I'll gladly root for the Hindu version over others. I'd rather worship actual cows than the newfangled "sacred cows" that are being pushed by some parts of the West.

It's like you erected two straw men and are trying to convince us one of them is bronze.

This was in response to the OP about western values.

Are you not sick and tired of a colonial propaganda of attributing everything to the west.

I pity people who actually believe Renaissance or Industrial revolution was something that happened overnight.

Even as the "liberal" elite and evangelists try to force their agenda on the rest of the world, their own homesteads are turning more dharmic.

Isn't being "dharmic" a reference to performing your caste duties irrespective of whether you will be rewarded in this life. The reward comes next time in the form of a caste upgrade.

They are verses that specify that one must perform ones caste duties ("dharma") no matter what even if you are better at other things. Why on earth would United states turn dharmic?

That seems to be colonial/Christian interpretation of dharma.

You should perhaps watch some videos of what actual Hindu gurus say.

> watch some videos of what actual Hindu gurus say.

I am watching videos of what actual hindu gurus are saying and quoting hindu texts

https://twitter.com/DalitChef/status/1283967349691826184?s=1...

Right from the horses mouth. Quoting prabhupada.

https://twitter.com/Devendrakumar_/status/128447931018772890...

More knowledge from Prabhupada. Click on the video to hear him explain clearly.

"The word dharma is used. Dharma means occupational duty. Dharma does not mean some religious sentiment. No. Natural division and the occupational duty."

Mixing of varna is deleterious to society.

https://vaniquotes.org/wiki/The_Vedic_civilization_is_varnas...

How about a contemporary guru like Sadhguru?

Your obsession with dead people and their lies, does not apply to a living tradition like Hinduism.

Aside from his criminal activities, sadhguru is not a guru of Hinduism. I will be surprised if he even understands sanskrit. With Logan paul, he claimed no connection with religion. In India, he hints in a different direction. Why would you want Hinduism to be connected with a charlatan?

Btw, 2 of the gurus I cited are alive.

"duties according to his or her own nature"

Where do you find a fault in this?

The greatest sages and kings are famouly NOT born into families of priests or nobility.

From the link

"The shudras are the only section of society allowed to accept another’s employment"

As I am an employee now, as are many of my brahmin friends, are we shudras now? If I start teaching the holy books, do I become a brahmin?

What the hell does duties according to ones nature mean? Who decides ones "nature"? A single person can be an employee, warrior, priest or businessman. What is the point of forcing people into categories?

What does it mean to perform your caste duties and nothing else, even if I am better at something else? How does that jive with "duties according to ines nature". If I am an employee, can't I have a side business.

Why is there so much worry about marriage across caste lines? Why fret about varna sankara? It is obvious that you get your caste by birth, not by your acts. If you perform your caste duties without asking questions you get an upgrade to a higher caste in the next birth. Ultimately, becoming a brahman. You can cross check with any guru in a temple you like, instead of arguing with me.

Examples of shudras becoming brahmins are pre-bhagavata gita. After the gita, such a caste transition is only possible via the cycle of death and rebirth.

> As I am an employee now, as are many of my brahmin friends, are we shudras now? If I start teaching the holy books, do I become a brahmin?

Yes that is right, if you become a teacher, lawyer, guru or advisor, you become a brahmin as intended. You need to be guided by the guidelines meant for a brahmin, do not be driven by wealth or power or accumulation of land.

Birth based assignment of varna has always been debated as wrong interpretation most famously in the Mahabaratha.

Unfortunately, it is human nature to assign birth based privileges. Most famously by projecting Rahul Gandhi as the only viable opposition leader, by birth privileges.

Ironic considering Modi the son of a tea seller is demonised.

I'm also very troubled by the misuse of the term dharmic in this thread.

Westerners misusing Indian terms to suit their own desires should be pushed back on. It sometimes seems like a deliberate strategy to confuse and therefore hide the philosophy conveyed by those terms even though much of that philosophy is universal and nonsecular.

Also, in reading threads on this forum over the years, it is quite clear that many fall into the classic trap of confusing ethnicity with religion. Leaders that call for extremist measures are usually promoting the interests of some subset of their community - not promoting the ideals called for by their religion - but many of their followers don't understand religion well enough to realize that. This is just as applicable to the west as it is to other places.

This is an old trope that has been recycled forever. Huxley noted it in 1945

https://m.imgur.com/i1JVHn0

Nothing springs up overnight, it requires transfer of knowledge and industry from a more sophisticated society.

And a breakthrough or political condition that favors a change.

You are seeing that today with China and the US.

I pity people who think renaissance was a thing.

It comes from Christianity for sure but a Western youth culture interpretation of it, heavily influenced by foreign actors from the USSR (see the Mitrokhin papers proving their psyop influence campaigns on Western academia) and Maoist China (via the Gang of Four campaign to "Destroy the Four Olds" of China's traditional heritage, which was hugely influential in Western youth culture). The West used to be acknowledged as a promoter of freedom before the 1960s and 1970s. We should expect that "dharmic" traditions will be twisted in a similar way by future radical movements, such as the "Pure Land" buddhist movement of Japan.

> a promoter of freedom before the 1960s and 1970s

That would be ironic considering that they had not completely freed many of their colonies yet.

Sure, we've often failed to live up to our values.

One of the baddest-ass diplomatic moments in modern history was in the 50s when India's UN ambassador read the US Declaration of Independence in protest of its support for colonial regimes in the name of anti-Communism.

But the hypocrisy of the west in applying those values doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile or worth fighting for.

Which is precisely the argument.

Exporting and enforcing values that you do not yourself follow.

Do as I say not what I do.

The west is about to write the book on how to deal with the deterioration of democratic values.

Did you see any atheist kill someone because he was religious? Or even attack some believer for the sake of attacking?

This is way to much strawman for me . And I did believe what you said in another post on Modi as governor, now i guess I'll have to check myself.

There were in fact many such incidents of persecution and even outright massacres, including in post-revolutionary France, early-20th-century Mexico, and still later in North Korea, Albania and Khmer-Rouge Cambodia. Contrary to common misconceptions, atheism is not inherently more rational or freedom-oriented than any other religious stances.

From his comment history, search for Pakistan. It's a flagged post. He is openly racist and hates Muslims. "Muslims have always been the perpetrators of unwarranted violence," This is why he votes for modi.

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=naruvimama

Development of gujarat under modi is a fig leaf for the underlying reason for voting for modi. The motivations are right wing religious ethno fascism. The others in this case are muslims, with Christians and Sikhs being discriminated on a more opportunistic basis. Their vote for modi is in the hopes of building a hindu religious ethno state along Nazi principles with the muslims playing the role of German Jews. This idea is being heavily propagandize through social media, primarily WhatsApps encrypted channels.

The religious frenzy being built up in the country is absolutely unreal. Well educated software engineers have also been completely absorbed into this fold, as you can observe from the comments.

I like how you have stated your beliefs simply and clearly. Let's not pretend that your vote for modi is based on some car factory.

Also, for your future reference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular...

I don't agree with any of the posters in this thread advocating that India become a Hindu state.

But your viewpoint is also troubling for me. Do you not think there is an undercurrent of theocracy in Islam? Do you think that there is nothing wrong with the countries in that list? India is still far more diverse, liberal, accepting than any of those countries. You can't simultaneously think that India is horrible for minorities but these muslim majority countries are not.

Of course Islamic countries can be fairly theocratic. India was liberal pre-2014. Now all parties feel compelled to sport some form of Hindutva-lite.

But you are fooling yourself if you think India is liberal or secular today. How many Muslim majority countries will you find where lynching is commonplace and a terror accused is specially picked as a candidate, because the act of terror was a blast in a mosque. Outside Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia this will be a hard sell.

The concerns around Modi or Erdogan is the change from a secular state to a. theocratic state.

Stoning to death is pretty common in Islamic countries.

You actually believe life in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria or Iraq is safer?

India is always meant to be a Hindu state. The word secular was introduced by Indira Gandhi in her brief dictatorship.

Only 3 European countries do not have a state religion. All 56 or so Muslim majority countries clearly back a specific denomination.

Recently you have had a rally of 5 million Sunnis calling for the death Shias in Pakistan.

Stop making the false claim that India is dangerous for Muslims, it is the Muslims who are dangerous for India as you would never know when they are going to stab you in the back.

We have seen this many times over since independence, 2.4 million Hindus killed in Bangladesh in 1971.

Half a million Kashmiri Hindus ethnically cleansed from their ancestorsal homeland.

You have been spouting easily refuted fake news all over this thread. I am not going to fall into the trap of refuting false statement you make.

Only 3 European countries lack a state religion! Great going! The number of muslim kashmiris killed by state forces is several orders of magnitude higher than the Hindus killed - a couple of hundred in 1989-90. I will stop here, because you will simply respond with a barrage of lies.

You are just a brainwashed islamist cherry picking facts.

Pakistan exports terrorism to Afghanistan, Iran and India. Security forces kill terrorists.

Ethnic cleansing is about driving out people.

Bangladesh claims the 2.4 million Hindus killed.

You do not need a research report to prove the ethnic cleansing I Islamic dominated regiins, Pakistan as well as Kashmir has 99% muslim population. Please explain.

Funny you say that, most of them are namesake secular.

Filter out countries that have had large scale ethnic cleansing or genocide in the last 70 years.

Filter out those countries which have 99% muslims.

Filter out those which do not have some form of sharia imposed.

Even though both muslims and Hindus in India want a better future for themselves and their children.

Muslims have shown their willingness to engage in arson, destruction of public property and stopping economic activity or progress to push their own Islamic politics at every opportunity.

You must be really blind to not have observed this.

BJP is pushing for a Hindu ethno-fascist state. Are you citing Islamic states as a form of what-aboutism or as a template for inspiration?

Also, for your laundry list of objections that you created with zero research - here is Albania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Albania#Debates_...

There are more, but I will let you do the research. Maybe you will find an example in a secular muslim majority state where the prime minister hand picks a terrorist under trial (whose phone and vehicle were used to bomb a church/temple) as a candidate for election.

> BJP is pushing for a Hindu ethno-fascist state

The relevant word there is obviously "Hindu", but the Permit Raj system in India is more than 70 years old. Is there really a national alternative to the BJP that's less authoritarian/corporatist/fascist and more freedom oriented, in a way that would meaningfully benefit the average Indian?

Virtually any party would be less authoritarian and fascist. Manmohan Singh was the last prime minister. The average Indian would benefit from a better economy, employment opportunities, fearlessness from cow and other vigilantes, sedition charges for expressing political opinions. Muslims in kashmir, lakshwadeep and Sikhs would feel safer.

BJP losing would boost national pride. Right now Indians are considered a joke. I have been personally asked to go drink cow piss on various forums. Plastering cow dung all over the body and ridiculous statements about gold in cow milk will be stripped from text books. Money invested in ayush ministry and central vista will be used in health spending.

https://www.reddit.com/r/shitbjpsays/

> fearlessness from cow and other vigilantes ... Muslims in kashmir, lakshwadeep and Sikhs would feel safer.

This is perhaps your most compelling point. It's also cherrypicked however since radicalism and violence are coming from both the Hindu and Muslim sides. Picking one side over the other is just not what good government is about, this goes for Hindus obviously but also Muslims.

Every muslim majority state is a facist state.

India's diversity is safe as long as it is a Hindu state. I would like India to become a Hindu Rashta.

With the creation of Pakistan, it is only fair for India to become a Hindu state.

The history of Islam & Christianity clearly show the genocide that they have carried out across the world. We would like to preserve what we are.

You are just being an Islamic apologist.

I like your confidence.

Are you citing Islamic states as a form of what-aboutism or as a template for inspiration?

If India is not declared a Hindu state, there is a good chance that it becomes an Islamic state.

Like Pakistan, one denomination will start killing another, it will become a hellhole, like much of west Asia.

India has been a secular state for 70 years, and it is not becoming Islamic. We can stay secular or become a Hindu theocratic state. Becoming an Islamic theocratic state is not at all a possibility.

If you really think there's a chance, i am willing to bet on it. Free money for me.

That must be exactly what the people of Sindh and Kashmir must have thought when they first gave refugee to Muslims.

Did not turn out very well for them.

The root issue is that there are entities that profit (mostly in retaining their relevance/power) when two group of people are pitched against one another. Because such entities can proclaim themselves to be the protectors of the group that is the majority from the other group that could be a minority group.

So you have to understand that once all Muslims are driven out, such entities will pitch two classes within Hindus itself. And in all probability, this could be what happening in places with Muslim majority.

So the real solution is not to drive a group of people away, or declare a "Hindu Rashtra" but to recognise such entities that are profiting from these conflicts, and render that tactic toothless. You will magically see the killings stop.

We do not have conflicts with other groups.

I am not so convinced that there is no fault with Islam considering history as well as the neighborhood.

It takes a lot of self loath and stupidity to buy into this argument mostly made by young or ignorant leftists.

> We do not have conflicts with other groups.

Well, there's that whole bovine liberation moo'vement, that has sometimes turned violent.

In India where a cow is not safe a Hindu is not safe.

Wonder how that came about.

Attack does not mean physically.

The only identity of a western atheist is that they are against believers.