17 September 2007

Hindu Rashtra - 1

(This is the first post in a five-part series)

Why India Is A Hindu Rashtra

Secularists just don't get it. They are simply not willing to admit that India is a Hindu country. The point is so obvious that one doesn't know where to begin 'proving' it.


Firstly, it's a matter of simple numbers. India is 80.5% Hindu. Muslims and Christians are 13.4% and 2.3% respectively. That alone should be enough to clinch the case. But there is more.


Throughout India’s history, Hinduism has been the land’s dominant tradition. In fact, for a long time it was the only tradition.

India's history began with the Indus Valley Civilisation (3000 BC – 1700 BC). Elements from this civilisation were absorbed into the way of life that developed during the Vedic Period (1500 BC – 500 BC), forming what we today know as Hinduism.

The first alien faith (Christianity) arrived in India only in 50 AD, when we had been a purely Hindu civilisation for 3000 years! (And how much headway was made by this faith can be judged by the fact that after 2000 years of missionary activity and 200 years of European rule, it is still a mere 2% of the population) The second alien faith (Islam) arrived in India in 712 AD. So Islam has been in the subcontinent for only 1300 out of 5000 years of our history.

Secularists disagree with the above argument, saying that India was a "multi-religious" civilisation long before Christianity and Islam arrived. They point to Jainism and Buddhism. What they don't realise is that Jainism and Buddhism are not separate religions. These are just two of the many schools of thought (or 'sects') within Hinduism. Mahavira and Buddha did not teach anything fundamentally different from the Vedas. Their revolt was against the empty ritualism and ill practices that Vedic religion had degenerated into, not against the Vedas themselves. With their emphasis on concepts like satya and ahimsa - which are what the Vedas also teach - they succeeded in restoring Sanatana Dharma to its true spirit (A similar revival can be seen in the Upanishads during the same period, albeit at the intellectual level). The teachings of Guru Nanak 2000 years later should also be seen in the same light. Thus Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are just different streams (and such beautiful streams!) flowing into the great river of Sanatana Dharma. Yet secularists like Amartya Sen insist on saying that Ashoka, arguably India's greatest ruler, was "a Buddhist, not a Hindu".


Anonymous said...

I agree with you (I am Sikh). It is some separatists who are always trying to make us feel we are "different", as if that makes us more special. On the contrary, enriching, and being enriched by, a civilization of 5000 years is what makes us rich.

Indian said...

Sikhism was the sword arm of Hinduism. If it weren't for Guru Govind Singh and the Khalsa, Aurangzeb might have succeeded in wiping out Hinduism.

Anonymous said...

Actually Indian, what you say is factually incorrect. Sikh power in India started only AFTER muslim power had died out. The Sikh kingdom in Punjab is dated 11799-1849. They did not have any success against the mughals.

Almost the entire credit for destroying the Mughal empire goes to the Marathas - first the maratha kingdom under Shivaji (1630 - 1680) and then the Peshwas.

In fact, the reason Sikh power was able to rise in the Punjab was because the Marathas and the Afghans, who were engaged in a long war for control of Punjab, hurt each other badly in the 3rd battle of Panipat (1761). It was in the vacuum left due to this that the sikhs made their first territorial gains (in 1762). This was well after the Mughal period.

Please don't write false things without checking facts.

Btw, read up on the 27 year Mughal-maratha war. Aurangzeb spend the last 25 years of his life in Maharashtra trying to defeat the Marathas. Maharashtra lost about 15% of its population in that war.

Please take a look at the map of India in 1760 - you can find it here:

You will see that the maratha empire has completely destroyed and taken over all Mughal territories (and there is no sikh kingdom yet - it would begin much later).

Not to take credit from Sikhs, but they had a short lived Kingdom, AFTER mughal empire had been destroyed by the Marathas.

Indian said...

I said nothing about an independent Sikh kingdom. I was talking about Guru Govind Singh's battles against Aurangzeb. The Sikhs blunted the Mughal sword in north-western India (just as the Marathas, under Shivaji, did in western and central India).