Sunday, September 10, 2006
Quid Pro Quo POVs
Sometimes i get a little miffed when people take a certain point of view because 'others believe it or/not'. I believe that this is a dangerous logical trap. One should be conviced of the intrinstic merit of one's point of view regadless. I agree that sometimes that others believing something can be a strong motivator of being convinced in the first place. But by diffusing responsibility of our beliefs is taking the easy way out and taking an uninformed decision.
So what i am saying is definitely how many people believe is something is one of the factors one considers while forming an opinion. But it is just a factor, nothing more. Your belief in that point if YOURS alone and is not related to others who believe in the same thing. A point-of-view does not become correct right/wrong simply because too many/too few people believe in it.
A espcially poignant example here is that of radicals who say - Other countries are not secular, so we wont be too...A classic fallacy. Other countries, not being secular is no reason to give up on secularism. Some countries (especially in the middle ease) unequivocally declare that they are theological states. Based on religion. Their not respecting the choice of religion is specific to that nation. Its their choice. If it is their state policy to descrate religious symbols of all non-state religions, well it is their call. Good or Bad. Their not being secular should not be a factor in deciding if we should be secular or not. If we secular, it is because we believe it is a good thing and not because others are/are'nt secular. Secularism is not quid pro quo...Nor is any other POV....
So what i am saying is definitely how many people believe is something is one of the factors one considers while forming an opinion. But it is just a factor, nothing more. Your belief in that point if YOURS alone and is not related to others who believe in the same thing. A point-of-view does not become correct right/wrong simply because too many/too few people believe in it.
A espcially poignant example here is that of radicals who say - Other countries are not secular, so we wont be too...A classic fallacy. Other countries, not being secular is no reason to give up on secularism. Some countries (especially in the middle ease) unequivocally declare that they are theological states. Based on religion. Their not respecting the choice of religion is specific to that nation. Its their choice. If it is their state policy to descrate religious symbols of all non-state religions, well it is their call. Good or Bad. Their not being secular should not be a factor in deciding if we should be secular or not. If we secular, it is because we believe it is a good thing and not because others are/are'nt secular. Secularism is not quid pro quo...Nor is any other POV....
Monday, September 04, 2006
"Tolerant" Hindus
Very often i come accross the statement 'Hindus' are 'tolerant'. I have always wondered about this assertion. So i decided to check if there is any rational basis to assert the same. I have come accorss the following justifications to say why are Hindus tolerant (with my comments of course) :-)
1. Hindus are tolerant because hinduism is a "non-proselysing", religion - I agree completely. Hinduism does not advocate proselytism, i.e. it does not demand conversion of non-hindus and does not expressively proclaim to 'spread the faith'. Most world religions are otherwise. The reason is that most major world religions began 'at a point'. The new faith could not flourish without sufficient followers who had to be won over one-way-or-other. This leads to the missionary zeal of these religions. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and also some of the occidental religions like Buddhism and Confuciansim were started by personalities. The Hindu religion was not 'started' by anybody. It is also referred to as the 'sanatan dharma' (the 'always existing'). An example of this tolerance is perhaps the fact that India is perhaps the only country in the world where jews were not persecuted.
2. Hindus are tolerant because they have never attacked any other nation in history - Dont agree with this one. Hindus (as a single entity or otherwise) have never attacked any other nation simply because perhaps India was never one nation before the colonial era. Moreover, perhaps the Indian (read Hindu) rulers never had the gumption or the resources to carry out any meaningful external attack. They were simply incapable. I believe that real tolerace is when one has the capability to do act but knowingly walks away. The moral high-ground should not be claimed because of the inability to carry-out an action. And there is no point in painting the others as 'agressors'. Everyone was an 'aggressor' back then and Hindu rulers were simply too venal, incompetent and unprepared to put up any resistance. Hence everybody who came, looted india with impunity. Hindus here have no right to preen about their 'non-agression'. In fact it is a shame that every agressor could so easily trample upon the Indian subcontinet as it were a walk in the park. Yes there were heroic individual hindu rajas who defended themselves (chandragupta maurya, prithwiraj chauhan, rana pratap etc.) but there was never a coherent and united response to the agressors.
3. Hindus are tolerant because they consider all religions to be equal (the climbing the mountain from differnt paths metaphor) - Dont agree with this again. A very cogent refutation of this common misconception is presented by Dr. Frank Morales's recent paper. Hinduism i believe does not say that 'all religions are equal'. Hinduism rests on a robust philosophical base (it has six schools of philosphy). It has a very clearly posits its own point-of-view including its own way of solving man's existential dilemna (through moksha). However it has always encouraged dissent. And it gives the individual the choice and the freedom to seek the divine in your own way.
So all-in-all, are Hindus tolerant ? Well Yes and No. The truth lies somewhere in between.
Yes because the religion has in some way tempered hindus to listen to other religions without the burden of forcible proselytism. And without the baggage of a 'with-us-or-against-us' mindset.
No because Hindus are no less violent than other people. They are not creatures from some other planet. And while universalism has been a theme, it is not the fundamental one. (One only needs to look squarely at that divisions within the Hindu society)
1. Hindus are tolerant because hinduism is a "non-proselysing", religion - I agree completely. Hinduism does not advocate proselytism, i.e. it does not demand conversion of non-hindus and does not expressively proclaim to 'spread the faith'. Most world religions are otherwise. The reason is that most major world religions began 'at a point'. The new faith could not flourish without sufficient followers who had to be won over one-way-or-other. This leads to the missionary zeal of these religions. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and also some of the occidental religions like Buddhism and Confuciansim were started by personalities. The Hindu religion was not 'started' by anybody. It is also referred to as the 'sanatan dharma' (the 'always existing'). An example of this tolerance is perhaps the fact that India is perhaps the only country in the world where jews were not persecuted.
2. Hindus are tolerant because they have never attacked any other nation in history - Dont agree with this one. Hindus (as a single entity or otherwise) have never attacked any other nation simply because perhaps India was never one nation before the colonial era. Moreover, perhaps the Indian (read Hindu) rulers never had the gumption or the resources to carry out any meaningful external attack. They were simply incapable. I believe that real tolerace is when one has the capability to do act but knowingly walks away. The moral high-ground should not be claimed because of the inability to carry-out an action. And there is no point in painting the others as 'agressors'. Everyone was an 'aggressor' back then and Hindu rulers were simply too venal, incompetent and unprepared to put up any resistance. Hence everybody who came, looted india with impunity. Hindus here have no right to preen about their 'non-agression'. In fact it is a shame that every agressor could so easily trample upon the Indian subcontinet as it were a walk in the park. Yes there were heroic individual hindu rajas who defended themselves (chandragupta maurya, prithwiraj chauhan, rana pratap etc.) but there was never a coherent and united response to the agressors.
3. Hindus are tolerant because they consider all religions to be equal (the climbing the mountain from differnt paths metaphor) - Dont agree with this again. A very cogent refutation of this common misconception is presented by Dr. Frank Morales's recent paper. Hinduism i believe does not say that 'all religions are equal'. Hinduism rests on a robust philosophical base (it has six schools of philosphy). It has a very clearly posits its own point-of-view including its own way of solving man's existential dilemna (through moksha). However it has always encouraged dissent. And it gives the individual the choice and the freedom to seek the divine in your own way.
So all-in-all, are Hindus tolerant ? Well Yes and No. The truth lies somewhere in between.
Yes because the religion has in some way tempered hindus to listen to other religions without the burden of forcible proselytism. And without the baggage of a 'with-us-or-against-us' mindset.
No because Hindus are no less violent than other people. They are not creatures from some other planet. And while universalism has been a theme, it is not the fundamental one. (One only needs to look squarely at that divisions within the Hindu society)
