Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Two Hindus' Criticisms Of Christianity


ficino

Recommended Posts

On quora, several people replied to a question about Hindu theological arguments against Christianity.  The general take is that there aren't theological arguments as such because Hindus believe that one can come closer to God through any religious tradition.  But here are two answers that I thought gave good summary of reasons why Hindus would not agree with Christianity's dogmas as they are literally expressed.

 

 

http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-hindu-theological-arguments-against-christianity

 

I thought these two were good:

 

-9dd03eeb11527463.pngVinay Kumar, Please Support Rory Young's ef... (more)
There are no Hindu theological arguments against Christianity as christianity can be seen as a special case (subset) of Hindu belief systems.

The only thing that could be seen as a sign is immaturity is its exclusivity:

In fact underlying it all there are only three ideas that are different:

1. We are chosen / special / saved over others
2. Our way is the only right way
3. Everybody should be like us

Where ever these ideas flourish (including even in India), misery and suffering happen.
  
 
main-thumb-20102758-100-iXozKxenolL93UBaPradip Gangopadhyay, Ph.D, atomic and space Physics
6 upvotes by Quora User, Amitabh Adhikari, Eva Maria Snyder, (more)
Hindu Dharma rejects the following claims by Christianity:
 
(1) Christianity's claim to be the only true faith;
(2) Christianity's claim that  belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. Take a look at the document Dominus Jesus of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is one of the milder Churches but DOMINUS JESUS dogmatically asserts that Jesus is the only way.;
(3) Christianity's claim that people who do not believe in Jesus Christ end up eternally in hell;
(4) Christianity's claim that all people of the world need to be converted to Christianity. The late Pope John Paul II predicted a rich harvest for his Church in India in the coming millennium.;
(5) Christianity's claim that there will be a second coming of Jesus Christ.
(6) Christianity's claim that God judges people. Hindus claim that Ishvara only distributes the fruits of Karma to people;
(7) Christianity's claim that sin is an offense against God. Paapa according to Hindu Dharma is an offense against one self.
 
One striking difference between Christianity and Hindu Dharma is that a Christian does not have to be morally perfect to enter heaven. All he needs to do is to believe in Jesus Christ. Hindu Dharma says that chittasuddhi (cleansing of mind) is the minimum requirement for moksha.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Ficino.  Thanks.

.

.

.

I'd be further interested to see Bhim's response to this and (perhaps) a little clarification from him on just what Hinduism would count as a valid 'religious tradition'.  Specifically, does Hinduism's recognition of valid paths/ways to God embrace ALL historical and current religious traditions - or are there limits?

 

Please note Bhim that no offense is meant here.

I'm not levelling any particular criticism against the Hindu religion.  My question is strictly exploratory.  As a diehard skeptic I'm just taking the concept of "all religious traditions are ways to God" and testing it to destruction... like this. 

 

Does Hinduism consider the religious beliefs of ISIS (Jihad) to be a valid pathway to God?  If not, why not?

Does Hinduism consider the Heaven's Gate Cult belief in suicide as a valid pathway to God?  If not, why not?

Does Hinduism consider the Aztec belief in repeated human sacrifice to be a valid pathway to God?  If not, why not?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, you oughtta ask Dr. Gangopadhyay if he has views on the multiverse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA.. if one considers reincarnation… and the necessity for multiple lives to cleanse oneself of Karma - then I would think that yes, any faith would be valid. Depending on one's present state.

 

But that's an outsider's view.  :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ficino.  First I want to thank you for posting on a very interesting topic.  On a sidenote, I've never heard of this Quora place.  Seems like a non-computer version of Stack Overflow.  I'll need to peruse this sometime.

 

Also BAA, thanks for raising this point about Hinduism and cultural relativism.  Of course I wouldn't be offended even if you did mean to disparage Hinduism (although I know you do not).  One of the perks, I suppose, of being more of a cultural Hindu.  Having said that, I do read Hindu Scriptures and stay reasonably up to date on the Hindu blogosphere, so maybe I can speak somewhat intelligently here.

 

Jews have a phrase "two Jews, three opinions," and perhaps the same can be applied to Hinduism.  What we've seen on Quora is two disagreeing, and indeed mutually-contradictory, views on Hinduism.  It's true that quite a few Hindus believe that all religions can lead to moksha (union with Brahman, after many cycles of birth, death, and rebirth).  My parents even raised me to believe this.  The problem with taking either side of this argument is that Hinduism has very badly-defined "source material."  The religion has an abundance of Scriptures, many times more than the Bible.  However, Hinduism does not rely very strongly on Scriptural authority, rather truth is believed to be obtained in an experiential, almost scientific manner.  This is why there are countless interpretations of Scripture including outright rejection, whereas Hindus are in wide agreement about how to do pujas, homas, weddings, and all other rituals.  Indeed, I would avoid going to a Hindu priest for general counseling, since priestly education is focused almost exclusively on the details and minutiae of how to perform all Hindu rituals and rites.  This is a non-trivial matter and leaves little time for training in other skills that Westerners often associate with the work of clergy.  Having emphasized that Hinduism is a highly ritualistic religion, I will say that there are a few guiding principles that unite the vast majority of Hindus, including belief in the Vedas, as well as in reincarnation/karma.  Within Hinduism there are six codified philosophies or "schools of thought."  One of these schools, known as Samkhya, is actually atheistic.  So disbelief in God is certainly recognized as a legitimate Hindu point of view.  When Hindus talk about tolerance of various and differing philosophies, we minimally are referring to these six schools of thought.  However, there are many who broaden the idea of intellectual tolerance.

 

The view that all religions are equally valid is referred to (mostly by opponents of this philosophy) as "radical universalism."  You'll find that radical universalism has a rather strong and bombastic opposition, among which I would count myself.  On Quora, Mr. Kumar regards Christianity as a special case of Hinduism, implying that everything it does teach is compatible with Hindu beliefs.  However, Dr. Gangopadhyay correctly refers to several areas in which the two belief systems differ, suggesting that Mr. Kumar's subset model is lacking.  Obviously you won't get an unbiased opinion from me.  I am extremely and proudly hateful of Jesus Christ, both as a person and as a concept, due to my negative experience with Christianity in my mid-twenties (this is all described in my extimony).  However, if you look up Dr. Frank Morales you'll find that he has a rather lengthy and cogent article attacking radical universalism.  It can be found at http://www.swamij.com/hinduism-universalism.htm.  One might also be interested in reading the book "Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Agression" by Mr. Sita Ram Goel.  Goel makes the famous statement "Jesus is junk," suggesting that he should not be allowed to florish in India as he did in the West for some time.  Indeed, it's been my personal experience that most Hindus who spend any time at all thinking about their faith come to the conclusion that Christianity is incompatible with Hinduism.  Just as I have my biases, so to do many who believe in radical universalism.  It's important to note that most middle class people in India send their children to Catholic schools, believing them to be of a higher academic caliber.  It is perhaps ironic that while my exposure to Christianity in early adulthood has imparted an extreme antipathy to Jesus, early childhood exposure has precisely the opposite effect.  For example, both my parents went to Catholic schools in India (e.g. my dad's high school even housed a Catholic priest who sexually molested male students in exchange for free textbooks).  This is largely responsible for their comparatively favorable disposition towards Jesus.

 

It would seem that attitudes towards Christianity are changing among Hindus.  Last year the Hindu nationalist BJP party made major political victories in India, winning a majority in the Lok Sabha and electing Gujarati chief minister Narendra Modi as Indian PM.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure I will say that my political views align with the BJP and that I would certainly consider myself a Hindu nationalist; or, since I'm an American citizen I should perhaps temper that and simply say I subscribe to the proposition that India is and ought to be a Hindu nation with very limited tolerance for foreign religions.  However, it would appear that my view, however offensive some might find it, is growing in India.  I followed this election last year, and Hindu nationalism featured somewhat prominently.  A lot of people were disgusted by Christian missionaries and Muslim aggression (since this is an ex-Christian forum and I'm an ex-Christian, I'll focus on the former).  A common practice among missionaries in India is to pay poor Hindus to convert, and this has magnified anti-Christian ire.  Before the election the state of Gujarat saw great economic success under Minister Modi.  This state also has an anti-conversion law which prohibits converting someone to Christianity under the promise of material benefit.  Modi is sometimes criticized by the West for failing to suppress anti-Muslim riots in his state several years ago, but this has likely endeared him to many Hindu nationalists (this despite that Indian courts have cleared him of any wrongdoing).  Given Islamic propensity for violence, I can't really say that I lose any sleep over this either.

 

Since its inception as a free state, India has been a secular state, but has attempted to maintain that secularism by providing disproportionate state benefits to the Christian minority, including tolerance of Christian proselytism.  This toleration of Christians was the party line of the ruling Congress party, which has acted as a sort of political dynasty since the times of modern India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.  The economic failures of India coupled with anger towards Christianity seemed to propel Mr. Modi to the status of a sort of messiah figure; here was an honest and successful Indian politician who wasn't afraid to say that he is a Hindu, and that India ought to be regarded as a Hindu nation.  Perhaps this is what enabled his victory.  Or perhaps it was simply a dissatisfaction with Congress' perceived ineptitude.  Whatever the case, Modi and the BJP handily won last year's elections, and since then Hindu nationalism has been revitalized in India.  In his younger days, Mr. Modi was a worker for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist organization that performs religious and charitable work in India.  RSS is criticized by Christian groups, which in my mind gives them greater credibility.  RSS viewed the BJP election victories as a mandate for Hindu nationalism and have decided to fight Christian missionaries directly, going so far as to perform reconversion campaigns, in which Christians in India are reconverted to Hinduism en masse.

 

So then, this is an illustration that the view of Christianity as incompatible with Hinduism is, while perhaps not the majority view, still a predominant one.  This, then, will help to answer BAA's questions.  No reasonable human in his right mind could condone the doctrines of Islamic State and the Heaven's Gate cult, or the human sacrificial aspects of Aztec religious practice.  Yet the radical universalist would, by consequence of moral relativism, be required to do so in spite of his own conscience.  The Hindu nationalist, on the other hand, believes that while there is room for disagreement within Hinduism, certain philosophies are diametrically opposed to Hinduism and therefore can be classified as false.

 

To summarize this, I would say that almost all Hindus will condemn the three religious beliefs that BAA has mentioned, but that most will have a hard time intellectually justifying said condemnation.  Those who view religious freedom of belief as being constrained to characteristically Hindu philosophies, however, will have a bit more intellectual muscle.  Again, I clearly side with the Hindu nationalists, so one should probably take my bias into account in all these matters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very interesting… I didn't know there was a movement for a Hindu India. Thanks for sharing, Bhim.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this analysis, Bhim.

 

Back when I was in my late teens I was interested in the Vedanta movement.  I remember being told that Ramakrishna experienced enlightenment, or found God as perhaps they expressed this to westerners, within the frameworks of Christianity and Islam (and maybe other religions, too) after he had done so through tantric and other traditions.  After I "was born again" at 19 I thought that Ramakrishna must have been mistaken about Christianity's real content.

 

I don't know how accurate is my memory or how accurate is what I was told.  I think Swami Vivekananda was a major popularizer of Ramakrishna in the Anglo world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much on two counts, Bhim.

 

Firstly, for giving an extensive and in depth reply.

Secondly, for appreciating my neutral and exploratory position and line of questioning.  I must give your response the due time it deserves.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bhim,

 

This is very interesting. This is the first time I am reading an account from an American Born Indian (I hope you know I don't use the term derogatorily) who openly aligning himself with Indian nationalism. Your post piques my interest because in our professions both my husband and I work with many people with Indian origins and most of them were born in India. So, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you a few questions. I hope you don't take the questions as an attack because I am genuinely want to know the answers.

 

The first question is about your belief and political view that is quite aligned with BJP. If I understand Indian political situation correctly, it means that you are on the right side / conservative side of the fence. There are some conservative stances of BJP that sounds like the Christian right wing rhetorics. For example the BJP considers homosexual acts as criminal acts. Also, if I understand correctly it seems that the majority of Indian Hindus quite dislike Muslim refugees from Pakistan. What is your take on this? For me, it sounds like the right wing of Hindu sounds similar to right wing of Christianity in the US.

 

The second question is more about the general observation that I have. The question is related to Indian pride. What I have found so far is most of the Indians I encounter are very proud of their Indian origins to a fault. During the height of the reporting of the Delhi rape case most of Indians that I know either didn't say anything or said there were still good things about India or said the US also had rape cases. On Facebook, I have plenty Indian friends who are outraged about the case in Alabama now but back in December 2012 they didn't say anything at all or dismissed the rape case reporting as nonsense and posted an article written by a tourist about how safe and friendly the Indian people she encountered. Why is it like that? Granted I only know roughly about 50 Indians who are living the US but they all have MS or PhD so I would say they are all well educated. However they failed to impress me on their humanity, it seems that they put the racial pride above anything.

 

Thanks for reading my questions. I hope you can answer them. I am really curious to see what your thoughts are.

 

 

 

Hi Ficino.  First I want to thank you for posting on a very interesting topic.  On a sidenote, I've never heard of this Quora place.  Seems like a non-computer version of Stack Overflow.  I'll need to peruse this sometime.

 

Also BAA, thanks for raising this point about Hinduism and cultural relativism.  Of course I wouldn't be offended even if you did mean to disparage Hinduism (although I know you do not).  One of the perks, I suppose, of being more of a cultural Hindu.  Having said that, I do read Hindu Scriptures and stay reasonably up to date on the Hindu blogosphere, so maybe I can speak somewhat intelligently here.

 

Jews have a phrase "two Jews, three opinions," and perhaps the same can be applied to Hinduism.  What we've seen on Quora is two disagreeing, and indeed mutually-contradictory, views on Hinduism.  It's true that quite a few Hindus believe that all religions can lead to moksha (union with Brahman, after many cycles of birth, death, and rebirth).  My parents even raised me to believe this.  The problem with taking either side of this argument is that Hinduism has very badly-defined "source material."  The religion has an abundance of Scriptures, many times more than the Bible.  However, Hinduism does not rely very strongly on Scriptural authority, rather truth is believed to be obtained in an experiential, almost scientific manner.  This is why there are countless interpretations of Scripture including outright rejection, whereas Hindus are in wide agreement about how to do pujas, homas, weddings, and all other rituals.  Indeed, I would avoid going to a Hindu priest for general counseling, since priestly education is focused almost exclusively on the details and minutiae of how to perform all Hindu rituals and rites.  This is a non-trivial matter and leaves little time for training in other skills that Westerners often associate with the work of clergy.  Having emphasized that Hinduism is a highly ritualistic religion, I will say that there are a few guiding principles that unite the vast majority of Hindus, including belief in the Vedas, as well as in reincarnation/karma.  Within Hinduism there are six codified philosophies or "schools of thought."  One of these schools, known as Samkhya, is actually atheistic.  So disbelief in God is certainly recognized as a legitimate Hindu point of view.  When Hindus talk about tolerance of various and differing philosophies, we minimally are referring to these six schools of thought.  However, there are many who broaden the idea of intellectual tolerance.

 

The view that all religions are equally valid is referred to (mostly by opponents of this philosophy) as "radical universalism."  You'll find that radical universalism has a rather strong and bombastic opposition, among which I would count myself.  On Quora, Mr. Kumar regards Christianity as a special case of Hinduism, implying that everything it does teach is compatible with Hindu beliefs.  However, Dr. Gangopadhyay correctly refers to several areas in which the two belief systems differ, suggesting that Mr. Kumar's subset model is lacking.  Obviously you won't get an unbiased opinion from me.  I am extremely and proudly hateful of Jesus Christ, both as a person and as a concept, due to my negative experience with Christianity in my mid-twenties (this is all described in my extimony).  However, if you look up Dr. Frank Morales you'll find that he has a rather lengthy and cogent article attacking radical universalism.  It can be found at http://www.swamij.com/hinduism-universalism.htm.  One might also be interested in reading the book "Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Agression" by Mr. Sita Ram Goel.  Goel makes the famous statement "Jesus is junk," suggesting that he should not be allowed to florish in India as he did in the West for some time.  Indeed, it's been my personal experience that most Hindus who spend any time at all thinking about their faith come to the conclusion that Christianity is incompatible with Hinduism.  Just as I have my biases, so to do many who believe in radical universalism.  It's important to note that most middle class people in India send their children to Catholic schools, believing them to be of a higher academic caliber.  It is perhaps ironic that while my exposure to Christianity in early adulthood has imparted an extreme antipathy to Jesus, early childhood exposure has precisely the opposite effect.  For example, both my parents went to Catholic schools in India (e.g. my dad's high school even housed a Catholic priest who sexually molested male students in exchange for free textbooks).  This is largely responsible for their comparatively favorable disposition towards Jesus.

 

It would seem that attitudes towards Christianity are changing among Hindus.  Last year the Hindu nationalist BJP party made major political victories in India, winning a majority in the Lok Sabha and electing Gujarati chief minister Narendra Modi as Indian PM.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure I will say that my political views align with the BJP and that I would certainly consider myself a Hindu nationalist; or, since I'm an American citizen I should perhaps temper that and simply say I subscribe to the proposition that India is and ought to be a Hindu nation with very limited tolerance for foreign religions.  However, it would appear that my view, however offensive some might find it, is growing in India.  I followed this election last year, and Hindu nationalism featured somewhat prominently.  A lot of people were disgusted by Christian missionaries and Muslim aggression (since this is an ex-Christian forum and I'm an ex-Christian, I'll focus on the former).  A common practice among missionaries in India is to pay poor Hindus to convert, and this has magnified anti-Christian ire.  Before the election the state of Gujarat saw great economic success under Minister Modi.  This state also has an anti-conversion law which prohibits converting someone to Christianity under the promise of material benefit.  Modi is sometimes criticized by the West for failing to suppress anti-Muslim riots in his state several years ago, but this has likely endeared him to many Hindu nationalists (this despite that Indian courts have cleared him of any wrongdoing).  Given Islamic propensity for violence, I can't really say that I lose any sleep over this either.

 

Since its inception as a free state, India has been a secular state, but has attempted to maintain that secularism by providing disproportionate state benefits to the Christian minority, including tolerance of Christian proselytism.  This toleration of Christians was the party line of the ruling Congress party, which has acted as a sort of political dynasty since the times of modern India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.  The economic failures of India coupled with anger towards Christianity seemed to propel Mr. Modi to the status of a sort of messiah figure; here was an honest and successful Indian politician who wasn't afraid to say that he is a Hindu, and that India ought to be regarded as a Hindu nation.  Perhaps this is what enabled his victory.  Or perhaps it was simply a dissatisfaction with Congress' perceived ineptitude.  Whatever the case, Modi and the BJP handily won last year's elections, and since then Hindu nationalism has been revitalized in India.  In his younger days, Mr. Modi was a worker for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist organization that performs religious and charitable work in India.  RSS is criticized by Christian groups, which in my mind gives them greater credibility.  RSS viewed the BJP election victories as a mandate for Hindu nationalism and have decided to fight Christian missionaries directly, going so far as to perform reconversion campaigns, in which Christians in India are reconverted to Hinduism en masse.

 

So then, this is an illustration that the view of Christianity as incompatible with Hinduism is, while perhaps not the majority view, still a predominant one.  This, then, will help to answer BAA's questions.  No reasonable human in his right mind could condone the doctrines of Islamic State and the Heaven's Gate cult, or the human sacrificial aspects of Aztec religious practice.  Yet the radical universalist would, by consequence of moral relativism, be required to do so in spite of his own conscience.  The Hindu nationalist, on the other hand, believes that while there is room for disagreement within Hinduism, certain philosophies are diametrically opposed to Hinduism and therefore can be classified as false.

 

To summarize this, I would say that almost all Hindus will condemn the three religious beliefs that BAA has mentioned, but that most will have a hard time intellectually justifying said condemnation.  Those who view religious freedom of belief as being constrained to characteristically Hindu philosophies, however, will have a bit more intellectual muscle.  Again, I clearly side with the Hindu nationalists, so one should probably take my bias into account in all these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bhim,

 

This is very interesting. This is the first time I am reading an account from an American Born Indian (I hope you know I don't use the term derogatorily) who openly aligning himself with Indian nationalism. Your post piques my interest because in our professions both my husband and I work with many people with Indian origins and most of them were born in India. So, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you a few questions. I hope you don't take the questions as an attack because I am genuinely want to know the answers.

 

The first question is about your belief and political view that is quite aligned with BJP. If I understand Indian political situation correctly, it means that you are on the right side / conservative side of the fence. There are some conservative stances of BJP that sounds like the Christian right wing rhetorics. For example the BJP considers homosexual acts as criminal acts. Also, if I understand correctly it seems that the majority of Indian Hindus quite dislike Muslim refugees from Pakistan. What is your take on this? For me, it sounds like the right wing of Hindu sounds similar to right wing of Christianity in the US.

 

The second question is more about the general observation that I have. The question is related to Indian pride. What I have found so far is most of the Indians I encounter are very proud of their Indian origins to a fault. During the height of the reporting of the Delhi rape case most of Indians that I know either didn't say anything or said there were still good things about India or said the US also had rape cases. On Facebook, I have plenty Indian friends who are outraged about the case in Alabama now but back in December 2012 they didn't say anything at all or dismissed the rape case reporting as nonsense and posted an article written by a tourist about how safe and friendly the Indian people she encountered. Why is it like that? Granted I only know roughly about 50 Indians who are living the US but they all have MS or PhD so I would say they are all well educated. However they failed to impress me on their humanity, it seems that they put the racial pride above anything.

 

Thanks for reading my questions. I hope you can answer them. I am really curious to see what your thoughts are.

Hi StillLooking, thank you for taking an interest in my post.  It's not often that people here are interested in Hinduism or in my topic of greatest concern: Hindu/Christian interactions.

 

I certainly don't take offense to the term "American Born Indian," though I've observed that for whatever reason, "Indian American" is by far the more frequently-used term.  Anyway, like you and your husband, most of the Indians I know are originally from India.  All of my Indian friends were born in India, as were my parents.  Even my wife was born in India, so it's a very rare happenstance when I meet an Indian who sounds as Midwestern as I do.  I say this just so that you'll know that my responses to your questions may or may not be representative of the Indian American community (I don't know either way, since I have no basis for comparison).

 

Regarding my political views, this is always a difficult question to answer with American political terminology, since Indian political priorities are somewhat misaligned from the American ones.  The same is true of religious priorities.  I would certainly say that there is a "left" and "right" in Indian religion, but the axis itself makes a rather large angle with the American religious spectrum.  A Christian religious conservative cares mostly about converting people to Christianity and preventing married people from having sex.  Related issues include defending the veracity of the Bible and otherwise maintaining the theological and sexual purity of the Christian church.  Likewise, an American political conservative cares primarily about banning abortion and keeping gay marriage illegal.  Secondary issues include public school prayer and public displays that promote evangelical Christianity.  In both cases, "conservative" entails imposing one's standards on others.  Hindu "conservatives" have different priorities.  Most strict Hindus I know care about maintaining vegetarianism in their families, properly observing all Hindu rituals, and making a frequent use of their Indian language (which can get confusing, because there are over 20 Indian languages that are commonly in use).  In all cases, the religious strictness is more internal than external.  Hindus worry about themselves and their families, but are quite unconcerned with what others do.  Intellectual assent to religious doctrine is also not particularly important.  When I was growing up my parents didn't particularly care what I believed as long as I sat respectfully for pujas and recited mantras as required.  So then, to answer your question broadly, I don't know if it's correct to call myself "conservative," since I don't intellectually assent to many Hindu beliefs.  Perhaps it might be more appropriate to say that I hope to create an environment in which Hinduism thrives in India, whilst Christianity is prohibited or at least heavily suppressed.  I'm not the guy who bathes daily in the Ganga and spends several hours a day reciting mantras in front of a Vishnu murthi.  But I want that guy to be able to continue doing this without coming home to find out that missionaries converted his daughter to Christianity.  And I certainly support the guys who hunt down churches, re-convert their members to Hinduism, and turn the building into a temple.  Essentially, I view Christianity as a foreign aggressor that needs to be removed from India.

 

Now, you asked a couple of specific questions about the BJP.  I admit I was somewhat surprised to read your statement that the BJP consideres homosexual acts to be criminal.  To my knowledge Hinduism has never contained particularly anti-homosexual elements.  Hindu Scriptures even recognizes the existence of a "third sex" which many equate with gays.  You may be referring to Section 377 of the Indian penal code, which prohibits homosexual sex.  This strange law was written into the books by the British, and for whatever reason has remained until today.  In 2009 this law was struck down by an Indian court, but in 2013 it was reinstated by the Supreme Court on a technicality.  I'm not sure that this law is representative of Indians, whom I've never known to seek to legislate their morality.  I did some Googling, and I found that there are differing views within the BJP on Section 377.  Arun Jaitley, the current finance minister and senior BJP leader, supports decriminalization.  However, BJP member Rajnath Singh, who is currently the home minister, said he would support Section 377.  I searched the BJP's website and couldn't find any plank on homosexuality, so I don't know that this is a major political issue that anyone in the party is taking a serious stand on.  If you've got any additional information on this, I'd certainly like to know about it though.

 

Regarding Muslim refugees from Pakistan, do you have a specific case in mind?  I've heard of religious minorities seeking refuge in India, including Tibetan Buddhists and Bangladeshi Hindus in modern times, as well as Jews and Zoroastrians in ancient times.  Muslims, however, are a majority in Pakistan so I don't know that a Pakistani Muslim would ever need religious asylum.  Most Hindus, myself included, are generally not very fond of Muslims, because Islam glorifies violence and barbarism.  Every Muslim I know who is a good person is also a bad Muslim, and does not support many of the horrors which are commanded by Islam.

 

It's true that Indians are generally proud of their culture and of the Hindu religion.  I've never been one to derive pride from ethnicity or religion, but I certainly do derive identity from these.  Regardless, it's important to be realistic about comparisons between India and the United States.  I wouldn't deny that there are many problems with the Indian government including widespread corruption and gross incompetence, as well as a generally less sanitary and more chaotic standard of living.  However, I'm not certain that India fares so badly in terms of the personal safety of its citizens.  After the famous Delhi rape case I noticed that many journalists suggested that rape is tolerated in India and occurs at a very high rate.  According to nationmaster.com, the rate of reported rapes in India is 1.8% (i.e. there are 1.8 reported rapes per 100 people), whereas the rate in the United States is 27.3%.  It also says that India is ranked 46 in the world by rape rate, whereas the United States is 9th.  Now of course this doesn't account for unreported rapes, but it's hard for me to comment on data that doesn't exist.  Given the large disparity in the statistics here, I think it might be premature to say that India has a greater problem with personal safety in this matter.

 

From my own experiences in India I can say this.  When walking down the streets of Chennai there are plenty of things I worry about: pickpockets, animal feces in the road, and the inconvenience of a city replete with panhandlers.  Getting physically assaulted outdoors is not something that concerns me.  I'm sure a woman's perspective is somewhat different, but I've seen women walking virtually alone in the early morning hours as well.  However I'll conclude this by saying that if India has problems with personal safety, I would hope the BJP would take the patriotic course of action and fix the problem for its citizens, rather than covering it up in order to produce a feigned national pride.

 

Anyway, I hope this was helpful and I'm very interested to hear your thoughts.

 

PS. As someone with a PhD I can say that six years of grad school drains you of your humanity.  So this may be the true explanation as to why your Indian acquaintances are all robotic bastards. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting to read your take on these questions, Bhim, as always.

 

I think you missed some zeroes in the rape statistics.  Wikipedia says that in 2010, the USA had 27.3 reported cases of rape per 100,000 people, not per 100!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ficino, you're absolutely correct about the typo. Fortunately it was in both figures (which are per 100,000) so I guess the error divides out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhim, thank you for the thoughtful reply. If I understand you correctly, it seems that Hinduism is more like a way of life for most Indians, similar to that of Confucianism or that of the Japanese traditions (tea ceremony, New Year's temple visit, girl's day celebration, boy's day celebration, etc). If that is the case, my main objection of Hinduism is unfounded.


 


About the anti LGBT in India, it is good if it is actually a trivial issue and India in general is not anti LGBT. I took conclusion about the anti homosexual in India from an article in CNN and another one from a UK news outlet about the law that you mentioned in your post. I also learnt about it from three Indian grad students that I encountered. One was a PhD candidate who mentioned a man had to partnered up with a woman during the height of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (I assume he was from a high caste because he got married through matchmaking in order to marry within the same caste). Another was also a PhD candidate who said similar thing. The other said no family members of hers could be gay. I took all that information and I made a correlation with my experience to make a conclusion that the Indian community might have bias towards LGBT. Before you mentioned it, yes I know it is a weak conclusion with the sample size and the correlation. That is why I was asking the question to you.


 


The thing is I also belong to a minority community with strong connection among the members (read: busy body who mind other people businesses), I wasn’t even born in the US. In my community, being gay is definitely a stigma and no one wants to have a gay family member. Although, no sane Chinese American politician will adopt anti LGBT stance and thankfully the younger generation of Chinese Americans are more open minded. The movie Saving Face about a lesbian Chinese American medical doctor captured the stigma very well. In China and Taiwan, even right now people still see gay person as less than that of a heterosexual person. I made a conclusion that the Indian community was similar to that. If this idea of mine is wrong, I stand corrected. I hope it is wrong, so that I know at least one community in the world is more open minded.


 


Regarding the rape case, I am afraid I disagree with you. I am not going to check your statistics because I trust it is correct. My argument is please note that the figure is the reported rape cases. I strongly believe there are many more unreported rape cases. Again, I am taking correlation from the Chinese or Japanese communities. Rape victims have a very bad stigma in close knit societies. Blaming the victims is very common too. The statistics of rape in India is much lower than that of in the US simply because rape is not reported properly in India. Also, I am pretty sure the rape within the marriage is not reported in India. No normal wife would report being raped by a husband because she would risk the good name of her kids and parents, her “face” and of course big chance her parents would brand her as an outcast instead of helping her. This is what frustrates me with the Indian community. Very few would accept this. For the record I am also frustrated with the Japanese government about this, exactly about the same issue. Here is an article discussing the point I am trying to get across:


http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/02/are-women-safer-in-india-or-the-u-s/


 


Regarding the pride about one’s identity, I definitely agree that we should be proud of our origin. My stance is an alteration of the famous quote: right or wrong is my ancestry. I am a proud Chinese American however I am not afraid to admit the shortcoming of Chinese American or Chinese in general. For example I admit the Chinese education system is inferior to that of the US. Yes the Chinese probably has more world record of Math or Physics Olympiads or the Chinese high schoolers has more knowledge of STEM or the entrance to TsingHua is harder compare to get into MIT. However, Chinese in general are better only in copying or following procedures or just using the known algorithms to solve problems. Some Indians that I know (who came here for grad school or work) are very proud of IIT and even mentioned IIT was better than Stanford was. When I mentioned the US education system was better in educating creative thinkers, they quickly mentioned all the inventors who are Indian origin, such as Boson. I just kept quiet because it was not worth to ruin peaceful working condition discussing unrelated matter. Anyway, this is already borderline ranting, so I should stop. :)


For the record, it seems that you are not one of the Indians who think Indians are smarter than the rest of world population because you dared mentioning Indian shortcomings in your previous post.


 


Ps: I agree PhD program in science sucks your humanity away. Although I have to admit I grumbled a lot through all the humanities and ethnic study classes that were required during my undergrad and I sang hallelujah in grad school due to not have to take those classes again. Fortunately, I started to see the benefit of those classes 15 years after I left college.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.