The RSS and other hindutva type organizations are schizophrenic. On the one hand they hate conversions, and on the other hand they want to perform “ghar wapsi”. Is “ghar wapsi” the same as conversion? Well – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
And don’t even start with that crap about “everyone is a Hindu”. If we go down that road, then I submit that we’re all Africans worshiping totems, the weather, or maybe nothing. After all – that’s where mankind originated right? If you’re going to “stick to your roots”, then why not go the whole hog?
The root of the problem is that the RSS, VHP and other Hindu organizations of this type both hate AND love Islam/Christianity. On the one hand, they want to make India a “Hindu Rashtra”, talk about Muslims multiplying, and go into hysterics when the percentage of Muslims increases by a paltry 0.8%.
But they also love Islam and Christianity. They want to emulate Islam’s practices and talk about how Hindus are “weak” in comparison to Muslims. This is why they are so conflicted.
So what does the RSS actually want? How can it claim to be against conversions and then turn around and do ghar wapsi? Of course, I personally have no problems with the RSS converting, re converting, or re re re converting anyone. Unlike what the Hindutva organizations claim, there is no such thing as forced conversions.
I think the truth is just that the RSS, VHP etc are just lazy. They want more members for their Hindu club, but don’t want to put in effort like Christian missionaries. They don’t WANT to go around offering people a better life, a better deal. They resent other religions for presenting a better product. If tomorrow Coke were to suddenly demand a law banning people from switching brands even if Pepsi offers a better product, that would be like the RSS.
Well tough luck. It’s a free market baby. You want club membership, you better entice your clients with a better experience than other clubs. Offer some more benefits, remove caste discrimination, offer free education etc. Otherwise why will people subscribe to your religion? Go compete!
I think you accidentally typed “if it walks looks like…” in the third line of your post… Just FYI…
I completely agree with you regarding conversions. The government has no business regulating religion. I don’t think they should be given tax exemptions either.
In reply to csn
Thanks, changed!
“Well tough luck. It’s a free market baby. You want club membership, you better entice your clients with a better experience than other clubs. Offer some more benefits, remove caste discrimination, offer free education etc. Otherwise why will people subscribe to your religion? Go compete!”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Rs-5cr-to-take-edge-out-of-Ghar-Wapsi/articleshow/46559614.cms
No it isn’t. The secular govt in Kerala will now spend public money to help “integrate converted Christians”. How about that? Now that secular religions are doing public funded conversions, is it still a free market?
In reply to Sumit
I agree, that’s not right. The government cannot get involved. But then as someone pointed out in the article, Hinduism gets the biggest carrot of all from the government – reservations!
Both need to go. Though comparatively, I would guess that reservations is a far, far bigger carrot than 5 cr.
In reply to bhagwad
“I agree, that’s not right. The government cannot get involved. BUT then as someone pointed out in the article, Hinduism …”
I am curious. What is the purpose of the additional sentence with the “BUT”? Is it intended to justify the action of Kerala government that you are already admitting is not right?
Please look at the opening sentence of your post where you condemn the RSS as schizophrenic. That statement was placed on its own, without a “BUT” sentence that discusses whether certain Muslim organizations are schizophrenic as well.
All I said is that its not a free market in religion in India. Incidentally, last week, the govt of Karnataka announced free education in foreign universities only for students belonging to secular religions. I think for an average Indian, a free foreign education is still a HUGE deal. So, let us not get into the game of who has more carrots. Can we agree that its definitely not a free market in religion in India?
I am only curious why that “BUT” sentence was needed.
In reply to Sumit
Why the “but”? It was because you talked about it not being a free market because of government intervention of 5 cr. while missing the already enormous government intervention in terms of reservations. A sort of “elephant in the room thing”.
And yes – it’s not a free market in India with government interventions. But then, we use the term “free market” for industries even when they’re not strictly free. For example, the telephone industry is not a free market, neither is the car market…in fact, going strictly by the definition, perhaps the only “free market” is sweets and candies :D
In reply to bhagwad
“Why the “but”? It was because you talked about it not being a free market because of government intervention of 5 cr. while missing the already enormous government intervention in terms of reservations. A sort of “elephant in the room thing”.”
Okay! BUT didn’t you talk about the “schizophrenia” of the RSS while missing the enormous global monster of terrorism by the “religion of peace”? How could you worry about “schizophrenia” while missing the endless, mindless slaughter happening on an industrial scale by adherents of the religion of peace? Maybe that elephant was so big it didn’t even fit in the room :) ?
In reply to Sumit
I haven’t missed the enormous global monster of terrorism because I’ve written about it dozens of times over the past 8 years! Just recently a few blog posts back in fact. So I’m not ignoring Islam here – at all.
Also, the terrorism of Islam doesn’t affect me in India. The Schizophrenia of the RSS does. That makes sense no?
“Also, the terrorism of Islam doesn’t affect me in India.”
Whaaaaat? The famous examples are too numerous to count, so lets focus on an example from yesterday….
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/mamata-banerjees-officials-stop-womens-football-match-after-maulvis-object-to-players-clothes/
Neways…still think its a free market in religion?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/30-arrested-for-ghar-wapsi-in-Coimbatore/articleshow/46160438.cms
Did you even know about such overt use of state power to crush Hindus? The next time you start talking about freedom, remember that the reality is much much different from what you think it is…..
In reply to Sumit
This is “terrorism”? Since when?
For me, terrorism is bombs and all. What Islamic fundies do to stop football matches because of dress is exactly what RSS goons do. I didn’t talk about RSS terrorism when referring to this, so why should I call it Islamic terrorism?
Besides, this is an article about RSS schizophrenia. I’ve written lots of separate articles on Islamic fundies. I don’t have an obligation to talk about every injustice in the world in an article while I focus on a specific one.
I’m not really sure what you’re objecting to. And yes – despite these little irritations, I still think religion is a free market. Though if I had to guess, I would say that Hinduism gets an unfair advantage due to reservations.
In reply to bhagwad
What? Islamic Maulvis issuing fatwas and the government then coming in to stop a football match for FEAR of that fatwa is not TERRORism?
Surely you understand that the fatwa essentially comes with a threat of violence.
What Tasleema Nasreen or Salman Rushdie face is not terrorism?
In reply to Sumit
No, it’s not terrorism unless there was…you know…actual threats of terror. Did the Maulavis threaten to bomb the stadium? Did they threaten to beat someone up?
If your definition of terror has such a low bar, then we have a lot more terror groups than you think – starting with a whole bunch of hindutva type people who threaten couples on Valentine’s day.
However, I refuse to use the term “terrorism” for things like this. Though to be fair, what the RSS does is much more like terrorism than the examples you’ve given in your links.
In reply to bhagwad
Wow…fatwas are not terrorism now. Because we haven’t heard of what usually goes wrong when fatwas are not obeyed. And you are still neglecting the angle of the state government cancelling the game because of that fatwa…
“Though to be fair, what the RSS does is much more like terrorism than the examples you’ve given in your links.”
However, I totally agree that I am being unduly harsh and totally unfair to Islamic terror. What we should really be picking on in an Indian context is liberal terrorism. Liberal terrorism that dominates the red corridor of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha and parts of MP, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh is way more lethal and organized than Islamic terror.
In reply to Sumit
Depends on the Fatwa. The one on Salman Rushdie specifically called for his assassination. That is terrorism. On the other hand, Fatwas issued by two bit mullahs in all parts of India are regularly ignored without problems. In fact, the SC itself has said that fatwas have no legal backing, but it didn’t ban fatwas – after all, most fatwas are just an opinion. So, choose your words carefully before you blindly call something “terrorism”
And yes – Naxalism is the biggest terror problem in India as I have written about several times in the past, had you chosen to search my articles instead of assuming that I haven’t written about it:
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/do-you-sympathize-with-the-naxals-opinon-poll.html/
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/islamic-terrorism-india-myth.html/
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2011/politics/train-accidents-or-terrorism-which-are-you-more-afraid-of.html/
In reply to bhagwad
Did you see the sequence of events? A Fatwa was issued and then the GOVERNMENT officials sprang into action and banned the football game! If it was a negligible fatwa from a “two bit Maulvi”, why would the govt be so scared? Are you telling me the govt and the players got scared unnecessarily when there was no fear of violence?
This is truly insensitive of you. So now you are essentially mocking the players and the local administration who got scared and telling them there was nothing to worry about! You weren’t there on the ground. You did not live in the villages these women lived in. Surely they could assess the threat of violence accompanying the fatwa better than you? How insensitive is it to turn around and laugh at those poor scared women?
When did I assume you haven’t written about liberal terrorism? Did I say that? Yes, you have written, but essentially you haven’t. Because you have, like most liberal media, tried to conceal the fact that they are liberal extremists. By calling them Naxals, you are pretending that they are separate from liberalism. We speak of “Islamic extremists”, acknowledging the connection of their ideology to Islam. And when you refuse to acknowledge the connection between liberals and Naxals, you are denying the issue.
In reply to Sumit
Because of vote bank politics? Where is the proof that the fatwa threatened physical violence?
I don’t know what is “liberal terrorism”. Liberalism consists of not hurting others, since hurting others removes freedom, and hence liberty. So the word “liberal terrorism” is a misnomer.
In reply to bhagwad
“Where is the proof that the fatwa threatened physical violence?”
How insensitive is this!!! You don’t live in that area, those women do. They ran away because they assessed that there was a threat of violence underlying that fatwa. It is stunningly insensitive for you to laugh at them and demand proof that there was a threat of violence. Imagine a woman walking in a dark alley late in the night, finding lots of drunk men whistling and making lewd gestures at her. The woman gets scared and turns back. Would you mock her and demand proof that those guys actually intended to hurt her?
“Liberalism consists of not hurting others, since hurting others removes freedom, and hence liberty. So the word liberal terrorism is a misnomer.”
Well everyone says that about their own favorite religion. My Allah is the most merciful; terrorists can’t be Muslims, etc. etc….
In reply to Sumit
Umm…I’m pretty sure you don’t live in that area either. So again – what is the basis for your claim that the fatwa threatened violence? I just see vote back politics here. Not terrorism.
And if you think that Muslims can’t be terrorists, good for you. It means you’re not a threat. Though I would have to wonder what book you’re reading. On the other hand, show me a single book on liberalism that advocates the use of violence on innocents.
This is what is known as a false analogy.
In reply to bhagwad
“Umm…I’m pretty sure you don’t live in that area either. So again – what is the basis for your claim that the fatwa threatened violence?”
By observing the reaction!!! The women got scared and had to give up their game. I don’t live there. Neither do you! But what we can both observe is the reaction of the people the fatwa was passed on. If they ran away, don’t you think its evidence that the fatwa was accompanied by a threat? How insensitive is it to laugh at those women and say they got spooked for no reason?
“And if you think that Muslims can’t be terrorists, good for you. It means you’re not a threat. ”
You simply misunderstood what I said. When I said “My Allah is the most merciful; terrorists can’t be Muslims, etc. etc….”, I was merely paraphrasing the whiny apologetics we hear from Muslims after every act of Islamic savagery. Of course I don’t believe that nonsense for a moment. I am mocking it. Your effort to delink liberalism from liberal terrorism is exactly similar. Just like those delusional Muslims need to own up to the reality of their ideology and its link to terrorism, liberals like you need to wake up and acknowledge the links of your ideology to liberal terrorism in the Red corridor.
As for liberal books that advocate violence, I suggest you read the quotes of Chairman Mao. Please don’t make the pointless argument that liberalism is all about freedom and blah blah… Muslims make the exact same argument with some random quotes from the Koran. The bloodsoaked reality of both Islam and liberalism is that they are claiming countless innocent victims today.
In reply to Sumit
Vote bank politics is a better explanation than terror in this case.
I’ve already written about Muslims who talk about no violence. I don’t want to go into that again on this page: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2015/philosophy/true-islam-or-christianity-terror.html/
And wait…Mao, was a liberal? So why did Mao hate liberalism then? Why did he specifically WRITE A BOOK AGAINST LIBERALISM called “Combat Liberalism”? (look it up). Wow…just wow.
You know what? I have the answer. You’re confused between liberalism and socialism.
In reply to bhagwad
“And wait…Mao, was a liberal? So why did Mao hate liberalism then? …. You’re confused between liberalism and socialism.”
We have heard this spiel before. The CPI, the CPIM, the CPIML, CPIML(Liberation), SUCI(C) all claim that each other’s ideology is extremely dangerous and needs to be stopped. Heck, its hard to keep track of the pace at which liberal ideologies churn out splinter groups…
The reason Mao hated “liberals” is because he was a terrorist. And violent terrorists are always ready to hate and kill at the smallest difference of opinion. The ISIS guys think Shia Muslims are the scum of this earth. The ISIS guys think that most Muslim governments and in fact most Muslims around the world are scum and wants to “combat” them. Makes no difference at all to the fact that we still classify ISIS as Islamic terrorists. Its the broad contours that matter. With regard to Islamic terrorism, we have heard similar attempts to tell us that Islamic terrorism needs to be seen separate from Islam and called Wahabism or something. It’s all sophistry and you know it.
You know and I know that every whiny, trendy liberal protest on every college campus around the world is incomplete without the iconic Che Guevara T-shirts. You know why? Because liberals around the world know that Che shared the broad contours of their ideology. They probably don’t agree with Che’s methods. Just like most Muslims share the same religion as Osama bin Laden but probably don’t agree with his methods. That’s exactly what makes Osama a Muslim extremist or Muslim terrorist. That’s how Che was a liberal extremist or liberal terrorist.
In reply to Sumit
Learn to provide references. If you claim that liberalism promotes violence, then please give at least some evidence to back up your claims.
Like when I say that Islam is a violent religion, I actually do my homework, quote the chapters, and debate the specific points.
Without doing your homework, you cannot expect anyone to take your claims seriously. So neither will I. Show that liberalism promotes violence with references. Otherwise, this is a waste of time and I will peacefully ignore you.
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad, I knew the moment would come when you would simply throw your toys out of the pram and declare victory. After I cornered you with the liberal worship of Che Guevara, I knew the time was ripe for an #Adarshliberal to fake some sneering contempt and run away…
In reply to Sumit
Translation: “I have no proof that liberalism encourages violence, and when asked for proof, I simply call foul”.
Whatever.
I ask you once again – show me proof, or don’t ask me to take you seriously.
P.S: Che Guevara was a Marxist. I told you you were getting confused between liberalism and socialism right? I hope this discussion encourages you to educate yourself a bit more…
In reply to bhagwad
” Che Guevara was a Marxist. I told you you were getting confused between liberalism and socialism right?”
No sir, I am not. I am only saying that the distinction has become pointless in practice. You want to wash your liberal hands off Che Guevara by saying he is a Marxist? Ha! Okay…should I blame the Commies for Leftist extremism in India? You know what they will do? The CPI(M) will tell me not to “confuse” them for the CPI and the CPI will tell me not to “confuse” them for the CPI(Maoist) and so on…they will keep passing the blame to smaller and smaller slivers of the ideological block.
Same with Muslims. Talk about Muslims creating violence and the Shias will tell me not to “confuse” them for Sunnis. And the Sunnis will tell me not to “confuse” them for Wahabis…
Don’t pass the buck. In practice today, the Indian political scene has two parts: there is the Hindu right spearheaded by the BJP/RSS and the liberals usually led by Cong. And these Commies and Marxists and socialists from whom you are trying to distance yourself are your great allies and you guys get along excellently. And just like the RSS gets blamed for the actions of random groups like Shri Ram Sene in some pub in Mangalore (even though these people were not part of RSS/BJP), Indian liberals should have the balls to take the blame for Leftie massacres. Don’t be intellectual chicken. Own up to your friends.
In reply to Sumit
You’re answering your own questions. If anything, this should teach you that the world is not as simple as you like to think it is. Just because you don’t want to do the hard work of sifting through people’s nuances, doesn’t mean you can get away with labeling everything together.
Liberalism is VERY different from Marxism, no matter which dictionary you pick up, or which article you read.
India doesn’t have a liberal party. Can you point to any Indian political group and show me how their principles line up with liberalism?
In reply to bhagwad
On the contrary, it is you who is hiding behind nuances to try and escape blame.
“India doesn’t have a liberal party. Can you point to any Indian political group and show me how their principles line up with liberalism?”
Maybe!
The notion of “Hindu right” gets attacked by liberals all the time over the actions of RSS/BJP. I could just as easily nitpick and claim that the RSS/BJP ideals are not exactly in line with my personal definition of “Hindu right”. Will liberals give me a free pass if I say that?
The truth is that liberals can and do vote in India. And they vote for someone, don’t they? . NOTA wasn’t even there few years back and NOTA gets hardly any votes anyway. So, well, there exist parties that approximate the liberal belief system to a high degree of satisfaction of most liberals. Which parties are they? You have written yourself about Naxalism and its sympathizers. Who do you think these sympathizers vote for? The same parties liberals vote for, no?
So, ultimately, whatever the “nuances”, liberals are happy to share their voting preferences with these Naxal sympathizers. Then why run away for the blame for their terrorist activities? Yes, its liberal terrorism!
In reply to Sumit
That’s because nuances are important. It might make the world a simpler place to understand if you ignore them, but that doesn’t make it right.
Next you’ll say that black is the same as white and the difference is “only a nuance”!
You are more than welcome to debate the meaning of “right wing”. Of course, it’s not just your personal interpretation, but what is said in dictionaries, articles, and other accepted sources of information. In fact, I’ve already done this debate years ago in several articles. Nothing new:
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/alternatives-for-calling-someone-right-wing.html/
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/exposing-right-wing-extremism-in-india.html/
Your conclusion that there are parties that approximate the belief of liberals to a high degree of satisfaction cannot be more wrong. When voting, people (including liberals) simply need to choose the lesser of two evils. If I have to choose between ingesting feces and vomit, I will choose vomit. That in no way implies that vomit approximates my tastes to a “high degree of satisfaction” :)
In reply to bhagwad
“That’s because nuances are important. It might make the world a simpler place to understand if you ignore them, but that doesn’t make it right.”
Of course nuances are important. But here, it is liberals who are already choosing to ignore those nuances and vote for certain parties anyway. Post factum, you can’t shirk responsibility by saying you chose the lesser evil. Even if you didn’t feel a “high degree of satisfaction” doing something, you did it and now you have to own up to the consequences of those actions.
And so, when liberals do indeed vote for the parties that are sympathetic to murderous Commies, you own the Commie terror too! And so it is liberal terrorism! Don’t enjoy that terminology? You are welcome to support a different party. Come…support the RSS/BJP :) If you can’t bring yourself to do that because you feel Naxalism is the better choice/lesser evil, well then your vote/support has obviously given a helping hand to Naxals. You should own up to their massacres too!
N.B. Of course I am not referring to “you” specifically. Obviously, I don’t know who you voted for or plan to vote for. I mean Indian liberals in general.
In reply to Sumit
You are most welcome to use any terminology you want, as long as you define it properly. And preferably with reference to existing sources that everyone else uses. Otherwise you’re just making up your own words and are no longer speaking the English that is standardized.
And when have liberals voted for Naxalites? I’m not aware of any government that supports the naxal movement. Which government in its right mind will willingly tolerate a threat to its power? If you’re referring the Congress, then the official stand of the party is that Naxalism is the biggest threat that India faces. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
In reply to bhagwad
“If you’re referring the Congress, then the official stand of the party is that Naxalism is the biggest threat that India faces.”
What a relief! Fortunately, the BJP’s official stand is that Indian secularism is sacrosanct. So, I take it that you wont raise any questions about that again :)
It’s fairly simple sir. Indian politics today has only two relevant camps: BJP and anti-BJP. Commies belong to the anti-BJP camp. And if liberals vote for the anti-BJP camp, then they are with the Naxals too! Have you seen a CPI(M) office in your life? Massive posters of Stalin all over the walls! If you are sharing camp with those guys, they are your allies. You should own up to it.
Even if you think Stalin is merely the “lesser evil” compared to Vajpayee, Advani or Modi, Stalin is still your choice. Own up to it. Why shirk?
In reply to Sumit
When have I ever raised questions about the BJP and secularism? So where does the “again” come from?
I’m getting the feeling that you’re not talking to me, but some imaginary person in your own head who says things I’ve never even hinted at.
And the CPI (or whatever) can say anything they want as long as their policies have no impact on the center. If your claim is that their policies have an effect on the center, please give me an example.