Tweet
While the rest of the MSM is touting the latest EU "Brexit" votes after the weekend elections, we take time here to notice the results from the "world's largest democracy" - the dot heads in India.
Carefully avoiding a contest for the world's worst false religion, one has to assume that sacred bovine worshiping has to rank high amongst them. There was the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:21-24) incident in the Bible (KJV1611), but to permit real live cows to wander aimlessly eating and deficating throughout a country leads to squalor and disease (not to mention turning it into a shithole).
The MSM is busy blaming all this "Nationalism" on our Godly president Donald Trump ("Trumpism"), but to the astute observer much of this started way before Trump was even born. In the case of the Europaeons it has to do with some socialist pencil-neck EU bureaucrats, and the Hindaloos (if they really were "great") were too stupid to build a wall to keep the mooselimbs from invading way back in the 7th Century.
Throughout history there have arisen various groups of people so obnoxious that no one wanted them as neighbors - much less wanting them in their country. The Bible (KJV1611) documents the "Good Samaritan" - mainly because it was an exception to the rest of the troublesome Samaritans. In our own time there are the beligerant and drunken Irish, the insufferable bead slinging papists, and the more notable mooselimbs and their violent "religion of peace" - that almost everyone is becoming fed up with.
In some sense, one has to side with the Hindaloos in this squabble. The mooselimbs had their chance to move to the newly created Pakistan in 1947 but chose to remain in India - so suck it up or hitch up the camels and move to Pakistan if you want to eat cows.
Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, so one has to issue a warning here - try to enforce your silly religions on Godly Americans that want to enjoy grilled steaks and BBQ ribs while celebrating Memorial Day with nuclear weapons and there will be some serious trouble.
Lastly there are the usual whining "secularists" that are advancing their usual answer to these problems. How has that been working out for you lately?
Carefully avoiding a contest for the world's worst false religion, one has to assume that sacred bovine worshiping has to rank high amongst them. There was the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:21-24) incident in the Bible (KJV1611), but to permit real live cows to wander aimlessly eating and deficating throughout a country leads to squalor and disease (not to mention turning it into a shithole).
The MSM is busy blaming all this "Nationalism" on our Godly president Donald Trump ("Trumpism"), but to the astute observer much of this started way before Trump was even born. In the case of the Europaeons it has to do with some socialist pencil-neck EU bureaucrats, and the Hindaloos (if they really were "great") were too stupid to build a wall to keep the mooselimbs from invading way back in the 7th Century.
Throughout history there have arisen various groups of people so obnoxious that no one wanted them as neighbors - much less wanting them in their country. The Bible (KJV1611) documents the "Good Samaritan" - mainly because it was an exception to the rest of the troublesome Samaritans. In our own time there are the beligerant and drunken Irish, the insufferable bead slinging papists, and the more notable mooselimbs and their violent "religion of peace" - that almost everyone is becoming fed up with.
In some sense, one has to side with the Hindaloos in this squabble. The mooselimbs had their chance to move to the newly created Pakistan in 1947 but chose to remain in India - so suck it up or hitch up the camels and move to Pakistan if you want to eat cows.
Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, so one has to issue a warning here - try to enforce your silly religions on Godly Americans that want to enjoy grilled steaks and BBQ ribs while celebrating Memorial Day with nuclear weapons and there will be some serious trouble.
Lastly there are the usual whining "secularists" that are advancing their usual answer to these problems. How has that been working out for you lately?
India’s Prime Minister Modi pursues politics of Hindu nationalism – what does that mean?
May 27, 2019 1.13pm EDT
Almost immediately after winning a second term in office on May 23, India’s Prime Minister Modi gave a speech making light of parties and individuals who had espoused secularism over the past five years.
During the five years while the Indian government has been led by Modi and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party – or BJP – several Muslims were lynched on allegations of eating beef or even just transporting cattle for slaughter. As the number of attacks on Muslims grew, Modi mostly remained silent.
The consumption of beef in India has long been a divisive issue because many Hindus believe that the cow is a sacred animal. Cow slaughter and consumption of beef have long been banned in 24 out of 29 states across India.
Despite this concession to orthodox Hindu sentiments, India has a constitutional commitment to secularism. Unlike in the West, where secularism calls for a strict separation of church and state, Indian secularism is based on the premise of respect toward all faiths.
However, Modi and the political party he represents are adherents of Hindutva. What exactly is Hindutva and how is it different from the beliefs and practices of Hinduism?
Colonial roots
Hindutva is an ideology that states that India is the homeland of the Hindus. According to believers, those who profess other faiths can live in the country only at the sufferance of Hindus.
As a scholar of contemporary Indian politics, I find this proposition to be profoundly disturbing and deeply antithetical to the the central tenets of Hinduism.
The roots of this ideology can, in considerable part, be traced to the growth of Hindu anxieties in colonial India. In 1906, a Muslim political party – the All-India Muslim League – was created. Later, a charismatic politician, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, became its standard-bearer and subsequently the first governor-general of the state of Pakistan following the British partition of India in 1947. Partition led to the division of the former British India into the two independent states of India and Pakistan.
The creation of the All-India Muslim League caused some serious misgivings on the part of some segments of the Hindu population, leading to their political mobilization along religious lines, pitting Hindus against Muslims. In 1921, an organization emerged in northern India called the Hindu Mahasabha.
It brought together people who opposed the secular outlook of the major political party at the time, the Indian National Congress, led by Mahatma Gandhi and others. The Mahasabha’s ideology espoused the education and uplift of Hindus and also the conversion of Muslims to Hinduism.
The ideology has its roots in the ideas of an important but controversial Indian nationalist, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who was not only ardently opposed to British rule in India, but advocated violence to end colonial domination and argued that India was the sole preserve of Hindus.
His ideas were fundamentally at odds with the principals of the Indian nationalist movement, Mahatma Gandhi and his disciple Jawaharlal Nehru, who would become the first prime minister of a free India. Gandhi, though deeply religious, had advocated Hindu-Muslim amity. Nehru, a staunch secularist, had supported religious pluralism. He died at the hands of a fanatic, Nathuram Godse, a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, in 1948.
. . . .
May 27, 2019 1.13pm EDT
Almost immediately after winning a second term in office on May 23, India’s Prime Minister Modi gave a speech making light of parties and individuals who had espoused secularism over the past five years.
During the five years while the Indian government has been led by Modi and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party – or BJP – several Muslims were lynched on allegations of eating beef or even just transporting cattle for slaughter. As the number of attacks on Muslims grew, Modi mostly remained silent.
The consumption of beef in India has long been a divisive issue because many Hindus believe that the cow is a sacred animal. Cow slaughter and consumption of beef have long been banned in 24 out of 29 states across India.
Despite this concession to orthodox Hindu sentiments, India has a constitutional commitment to secularism. Unlike in the West, where secularism calls for a strict separation of church and state, Indian secularism is based on the premise of respect toward all faiths.
However, Modi and the political party he represents are adherents of Hindutva. What exactly is Hindutva and how is it different from the beliefs and practices of Hinduism?
Colonial roots
Hindutva is an ideology that states that India is the homeland of the Hindus. According to believers, those who profess other faiths can live in the country only at the sufferance of Hindus.
As a scholar of contemporary Indian politics, I find this proposition to be profoundly disturbing and deeply antithetical to the the central tenets of Hinduism.
The roots of this ideology can, in considerable part, be traced to the growth of Hindu anxieties in colonial India. In 1906, a Muslim political party – the All-India Muslim League – was created. Later, a charismatic politician, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, became its standard-bearer and subsequently the first governor-general of the state of Pakistan following the British partition of India in 1947. Partition led to the division of the former British India into the two independent states of India and Pakistan.
The creation of the All-India Muslim League caused some serious misgivings on the part of some segments of the Hindu population, leading to their political mobilization along religious lines, pitting Hindus against Muslims. In 1921, an organization emerged in northern India called the Hindu Mahasabha.
It brought together people who opposed the secular outlook of the major political party at the time, the Indian National Congress, led by Mahatma Gandhi and others. The Mahasabha’s ideology espoused the education and uplift of Hindus and also the conversion of Muslims to Hinduism.
The ideology has its roots in the ideas of an important but controversial Indian nationalist, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who was not only ardently opposed to British rule in India, but advocated violence to end colonial domination and argued that India was the sole preserve of Hindus.
His ideas were fundamentally at odds with the principals of the Indian nationalist movement, Mahatma Gandhi and his disciple Jawaharlal Nehru, who would become the first prime minister of a free India. Gandhi, though deeply religious, had advocated Hindu-Muslim amity. Nehru, a staunch secularist, had supported religious pluralism. He died at the hands of a fanatic, Nathuram Godse, a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, in 1948.
. . . .
Comment