[jelliclesfarm]

The temples are places of worship for Hindu deities. If that’s not Hindu identity, what is?

India is Hindu. Hinduism was a term coined later for Sanatana Dharma that was based on Vedism, the study and worship of Vedas.

It included all forms of worship under one umbrella. It worked out well as a diverse society with one identity until monotheistic Abrahamic faiths and their adherents came as invaders and colonizers.

For most of the rest of the world, a few hundred years ago is ancient history. For India, it goes back thousands of years. And that is the identity of India. Everything else is imported and new.

[lukan]

So Buddhism is included in Hinduism in your perspective?

Because I know many disagree to that. I also know it is not one of the "monotheistic Abrahamic faiths".

And the muslims might have come as invaders, but the islamic faith is still present in india since over 1200 years. You might not like it, but most think that qualifies as being part of that land by now.

Same im europe. Christian faith came mostly by the sword. It is still part of european culture now.

[jelliclesfarm]

No. Buddhism is not Hinduism. Buddhists are not Hindus.

Perhaps what you say is true. But Hinduism came from India and most of the world’s Hindus live in India.

One would expect India will declare Hinduism as their official religion as they should.

When a nation’s religious majority is unable to defend its rights, then it’s an invasion. It can be by the sword or by conversion. It’s still a displacement and replacement strategy. Indian Hindus are waking up to it. About time.

There is no country in the world where Hinduism is the official religion. Even India where 79% of the population are Hindus.

Nepal used to be the only Hindu nation in the world but that changed recently during the Maoist insurgency.

Who knows. We will have to wait and see.

[lukan]

"One would expect India will declare Hinduism as their official religion as they should."

Well, apparently Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Pagans and Atheists would strongly disagree. Secularism was invented for a reason.

[jelliclesfarm]

It’s not working in India. It’s not working there. We’ll see what happens.

Why shouldn’t one billion Hindus have a Hindu nation? There is no country in the world that has Hinduism as official religion.

Religious conversions and by extension, secularism is a form of colonization.

[lukan]

It is working in europe.

Yes, there are people who want many european states to become officially christian again. But they are a minority and hopefully stay that.

I am fine with small states choosing a official religion. People can then more easily choose to also get away.

But not a big continent, or a country as big as whole india. Because that creates tension as many do not want their life dominated by a religion they do not believe in.

[jelliclesfarm]

What do you mean ‘it’s working in Europe?

The dominant and official state religion in Europe is mostly Christianity.

[..]Europe

Christianity (Eastern Orthodox)

1. Belarus 2. Bulgaria 3. Cyprus 4. Georgia 5. Greece 6. Moldova 7. Montenegro 8. North Macedonia 9. Russia 10. Serbia

Christianity (Roman Catholicism)

1. Andorra 2. Austria 3. Belgium 4. Bosnia and Herzegovina (also Islam) 5. Croatia 6. Czech Republic 7. France 8. Hungary 9. Italy 10. Latvia 11. Lithuania 12. Luxembourg 13. Malta 14. Monaco 15. Poland 16. Portugal 17. Slovakia 18. Slovenia 19. Spain 20. Switzerland

Christianity (Protestantism)

1. Denmark 2. Estonia 3. Finland 4. Germany 5. Iceland 6. Netherlands 7. Norway 8. Sweden 9. United Kingdom (Anglican)

Mixed/Other

1. Albania (Islam and Christianity) 2. Kosovo (Islam and Christianity) [..]

[jnaina]

Best to keep these sort of Hindutuva extremist rhetoric (or any other extremist rhetoric) out of HN.

[jelliclesfarm]

Which part do you find ‘extremist’. Facts are not rhetoric.

[lukan]

Like the fact, that apart from Hinduism, there is no no non abrahamtic religion in India (ignoring Buddhism) and 1200 years do not count as long enough and the fact that you despise secularism as colonism, yet claim we in europe have mainly religious states, like you also want in india?

I have to say, yes, I also do find that extremist.

[NoRagrets]

These are personal views. How can they be extremist? It affects none and has no power at all.

Does me as a Hindu having an opinion about my faith offend you and strike you as extremist?

Time is relative. Non abrahamic religions have always been a minority faith since millennia.

I think it’s not right to say that I ‘despise secularism’. I am critiquing the poor state and expression of ‘secularism’ in India.

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India#:~:text=....

[..]The Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 continues to be the law of land of modern India for Indian Muslims, while parliament-based, non-religious uniform civil code passed in mid-1950s applies to Indians who are Hindus (which includes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Parsees), as well as to Indian Christians and Jews.[..]

Is this a secularism?

All I am saying is that if Muslims are allowed to practice their religious laws, Hindus should also be allowed to hold their religious law as Personal law.

The state cannot discriminate between two faiths and call itself secular.

I want Muslims (and Christians and Buddhists and everyone)to have the freedom to practice their faith. I want the same for Hindus, Saying Hindus should have the same freedom and rights is causing me to face accusations of ‘extremism’.

Strange.

[noworriesnate]

Not a Hindu at all, but to me the idea that an ethnicity should be able to draw lines around itself to defend itself seems self-evident. Self-determinism and all that. And I that is a place where we can come together--come together to agree to follow separate paths and stop trying to force everyone into a generic govt that has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[lukan]

"Does me as a Hindu having an opinion about my faith offend you and strike you as extremist?"

No. I believe, you may believe whatever you want.

But I also believe, that when you define India as a Hindu Nation only, you do exclude all the other faiths and non faiths. That is my definition of extremism. In this case, going in the direction of a theocracy.

"I want Muslims (and Christians and Buddhists and everyone)to have the freedom to practice their faith. I want the same for Hindus"

Because when you want India defined as a Hindu state, like you stated elsewhere many times, you do not want equal terms for all religions, you want a privileged position for Hinduism, integrated into the state.

I do understand, that you want to live in a Hindu state - the laws shaped by your believe. But why must it be as big as whole India? Because many Indians do not believe in Hinduism - and they will eventually fight, if they have to submit to laws, they do not agree with.

Can't there be a compromise, where the big state is somewhat neutral, but some local state/districts are more Hindu and some others maybe more Muslim or whatever?

I think this would be more peaceful for everyone. Live and let live.

Otherwise a big percentage of the population will never really identify with the Nation. And not fight for it, but against. You see some of the results in this thread here.

edit:

This thread started with:

"Hinduism is no doubt a important part of india, but maybe not the only one?"

to which you replied with:

"India is Hindu."

Which seems at odds with freedom and equality for all religions.

[NoRagrets]

Hindus might like a nation of their own when they are a billion in strength and India was where Hinduism was born and grew.

Hindus are a majority in India. 80% are Hindus and 94% of the world’s Hindus reside in India.

There is thousands of years of history of Hinduism in India. It was the colonial Brits who created a ‘secular’ India after they orchestrated the partitions of Pakistan and Bangladesh (as Muslim countries).

As a democracy, the nation has the right to choose a Hindu Nation/Rashtra over secularism. This is true for every nation in the world. As the only non abrahamic polytheist nation in the world, there seems to be some unfair expectations of India and what Indians want. Why?

The Abrahamic nations have split the whole rest of the world amongst them. Hindus have only one nation. Why can’t their have their spiritual land as a Hindu nation if it’s democratically desired and achieved?

It is the spiritual land for over a billion Hindus(whose rights and places of worship are being trampled upon in the name of secularism while other religions are not required to follow the law of the land)

Israel is a Jewish nation. There are many Christian and Muslim nations. Why wouldn’t Hindus want a country where they have civilizational roots to be a Hindu Nation?

Are all the countries of the world ‘secular’? Why do we expect India to be constitutionally secular? There are only 5 countries that have secular baked into their constitution, India, USA, France(Laïcité), Australia and Japan.

India is only secular by name. Currently, there is the nation’s law and then there is the Shariat Law for Muslims.

These laws especially impact women as it relates to marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession etc. the Christian and Hindu Personal Law are not at odds with the constitutional law.

To this end, BJP, the current ruling party wants a Uniform Civil Code where the law applies equally for every citizen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_personal_law

3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Civil_Code

It would nullify Shariat Law. It is a mockery of the word ‘secular’ when different laws and rights are allotted to different religions. It is against democratic principles. And fundamentally wrong.

Triple Talaq: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_talaq_in_India

Nikah Halala: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_halala

[wslh]

Clearly your use of Abrahamic faiths is not fair in this context when the root of Abrahamic faith is Judaism and it is also an old religion as Hinduism.

[jelliclesfarm]

Hinduism is a new term. We follow Sanatana Dharma and our basis is Vedism.

Judaism..as it is now.. wasn’t always monotheist. And it evolved over time. And not as old as Hinduism.

Texts and inscriptions and temples from the Vedic period are much older. And that’s why there has been a systematic purge, revisionism, faulty translations and suppression of civilizational history. Hinduism..as it’s known now..is and was decentralized giving it the ability to survive and thrive millennia.

While it can be called many names and has been co opted, our source text is common to all who call themselves Hindu and that is the Vedas…our religious text.

[wslh]

The context of my answer is that you cannot include Abrahamic religions in your comments without separating the root, which is Judaism, to your claim.

You said: "It worked out well as a diverse society with one identity until monotheistic Abrahamic faiths and their adherents came as invaders and colonizers.".

[jelliclesfarm]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all ‘People of the Book’. Hindus scriptural texts are the Vedas.

Abrahamic faiths are monotheistic and against idol worship. While not all Hindus worship idols and multiple gods, these practices are not blasphemy or apostasy.

There is a binary criteria amongst Abrahamic religions about what constitutes membership.

[wslh]

Re: "Abrahamic faiths and their adherents came as invaders and colonizers".

[NoRagrets]

The adherents of the Jewish faith did not come as invaders or colonizers but the other monotheists faiths came to evangelize and convert the native population as polytheism was an affront to their religious sensibilities.

[selimthegrim]

Sikhs and Jains and tribals are Hindu now?

[NoRagrets]

They are not Hindus.

Having said that, they are all covered by the Hindu Personal Law. And there is a separate Muslim Personal Law aka Shariat Law in ‘secular’ India.

For the purposes of the law, they are all Hindus. But from a faith based perspective, they are all separate religions whose congregations are considered a minority.