hinduism relation?

Question

how does hinduism relate to nationalism in the predominant country

Answer 1

The rise of Hindu nationalism is basically because of the special rights and privilages provided to the Muslims by the Indian constitution. Muslims enjoy seperate, discriminatory against women laws of marriage, divorce, inheritence. Infact India is the only country in the world to provide subsidy to Muslims for Haj from the tax prayers money. The Kashmir violence funded and supported by Pakistan is another cause for the rise of Hindu nationalism. They say when Pakistan is a muslim only country then why cant India be Hindu only country. The Hindu nationalist came to power because of these reasons but were voted out by the people of India when they started interfering with the secular fabric of our society. For eg Gujrat riots.

Answer 2

Hinduism is a truely secular relgion and accepts all faiths are parts of the greatest Truth. Hindus never had any attacks on other countries even for conversions.

Hindus treat all religions to be a part of hinduism, with different worship techniques.

As long as Hindus are in majority in India, muslims, christians, jews, persians can live peacefully.

But if muslims continue fiddeling with the idea of Jehad...then dont blame hindus for the backlash

Answer 3

According to Bhagavad Gita, God says
"A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries." Bhagavad Gita 5.29.

So all land, all country, all living entity belongs to God. Hence there is no question of a piece of Land belonging to any race or sect or even religion.

Infact dividing land and considering ones birth land as belonging to self, is considered as Mentality of a Dog which barks on whoever want to come to its place of existence. The place never belonged to the Dog, it was born and it will die, but the land will remain.

Unfortunately this mentality has come up very strong among the people all over the world and governments encourage it. This has caused so much disturbance all over the world...Only if people could understand this basic fact..

His Devine Grace Srila Prabhupada once commented: "We have created United Nations, but only disunited flags are increasing"

Answer 4

hinduism is not theocratic by nature so the only country predominantly hindu --india and nepal are not theocratic like muslim countries hence they are more secular unfortunatly it also means that these counrties with a lot of non majority populations are liable to violence. hinduism like buddhism is truly peacefull although there is tension between the hindus and muslims but thats normal about muslims they always have problems.......

Answer 5

Shanks and truth seeker aswered it well. So I will just point out about psychology behind Gujarat riots , because it was mentioned above:


In spite of strong and widespread anti-Muslim feelings, Hindus have shown remarkable patience and forbearance in past instances of Islamic terrorism. There was no retaliation after the numerous selective mass killings of Hindu and Sikh villagers or bus passengers in Jammu and Kashmir, nor after the attacks on Hindu pilgrims there; nor after the Mumbai bomb blasts (March 1993); nor after the bomb attack against a BJP gathering in Coimbatore (February 1998); nor after the attacks on the Parliament buildings of Srinagar and Delhi (September and December 2001). After handfuls, dozens or hundreds of Hindus were massacred, Hindus all over India maintained calm and refused to take their anger out on their Muslim neighbors. This should be kept in mind when assessing the Hindu loss of self-control after the Godhra massacre. In spite of secularist predictions that the communal situation in Gujarat was fast spinning out of control, possibly for good, this Hindu self-restraint re-asserted itself after the Akshardham massacre. Given this persistent Hindu attitude of self-restraint, which makes violent retaliation against Islamic aggression the exception rather than the rule, the motives behind the unwarranted secularist alarmism should be questioned.

There is a nexus between India’s vanguard secularists and anti-Indian forces in Washington and Islamabad: Not everyone reacted to the outbreak of the Gujarat riots with anger or sadness. On the contrary, it can rationally be inferred that many in India’s secularist circles were elated, not to say euphoric. Suddenly they were back in business, enthusiastically accepting invitations for lecture tours in the USA and Pakistan. The BJP’s term in government had, after all, been very disappointing for them. They had been predicting for years that a BJP Prime Minister would prove to be Hitler and Khomeini in one, and that the Muslims would be thrown into the Arabian Sea if not into gas chambers. In the four years since March 1998, they somehow had to face down the fact that India’s streets remained peaceful and that the BJP government was extreme only in its humdrumness. In 1999, they tried to make the most of a spate of incidents between Christians and non-Christian tribals in which a few Christians got killed (mercifully far fewer than the periodic harvest of martyrs in Pakistan). They falsely blamed Hindu activists for some inter-Christian rape cases and for a series of bomb attacks against churches, which turned out to be the handiwork of a Pakistan-based Muslim group, Deendar Anjuman. Before ill-informed but consequential international audiences such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, they managed to uphold their original story, but in India the campaign to blame Hindu activists for everything had badly lost its credibility. And so, the Gujarat crisis came as a great boon to the professionals of secularism. It gave them such a strong warrant for anti-Hindu and anti-Indian propaganda that some of their star spokespersons shed all inhibitions and volunteered for performances on Pakistani propaganda platforms. The latter gladly highlighted the secularists’ line of blaming the state and central governments of complicity in the riots, so that the guilt for the “genocide” of Gujarati Muslims would not just fall on particular Gujarati Hindu groups but on Hindu society and on the Indian state as a whole.


In conclusion, then, we may say that this way, the Gujarat crisis has at least served to throw light on some of the problems of India’s opinion climate as related to the country’s communal antagonism. In its Indian version, secularism, rather than being the cure-all which many inside and outside India believe it to be, is a profoundly problematic concept to begin with, and a thoroughly tainted one in practice. This is all the more sobering because its putative antagonist, religious bigotry, remains a real threat to society as well. That too is an inescapable, albeit banal, conclusion imposed upon us by the Gujarat crisis.

-by Koenraad Elst