If its any consolation to anyone, most people see through this prejudice, but they dont understand it. In my intro class to south asia class my non indian friends thought the professor railed against India the way she did because she was of Pakistani descent when in fact she was a Bengali hindu, one whose family actually had been forced to move from bangladesh. I think the mentality is that India is like the older sibling of the neighborhood, so it has the responsibility to show the way. This would hold true, but India has remained a secular country that treats its minorities better through its history than Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Does India treat its minorities with complete fairness? No and India has a lot to learn in this respect. What makes India different than its neighbors is that it could teach the world a thing or two as well about living in a diverse society.

The way they respond to similiar external stimuli are not the same. For eg: Faced with an inappropriate comment like “Were you not hugged as a child?” (implying that one is a product of poor parenting skills) may make a Hindutvadi to retort “Did your father commit fellatio on you?”, but a hindu may respond in a more mellow manner.

However, the issues and concerns they face are one and the same.

M. Nam

Yeah and Jains do not eat anything that grows under the soil (I think). So next step for the government is to ban all those food products. Finally after allowing every religious story to dictate how OTHERS should live we would end up with banning every item as food and just left with air to breathe. Maybe that’s not a bad idea either.

This is true. Constitutionally Pakistan is an Islamic state and Bangladesh’s constitution says this http://www.pmo.gov.bd/constitution/index.htm

2A. The state religion. The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic.]

.

I don’t think Indian constitution has anything similar that clearly says Hinduism is the state religion.

Terrible idea for multiple reasons. Pork’s a big part of many local economies. It’s also a traditional dish in many parts of Karnataka, and all over the completely alienated North East. I’m sure you could make the same argument for beef. Depriving people of their favourite foods isn’t going to foster goodwill.

A blanket, nationwide ban on anything that offends one religious group is going to lead to demands by every single religious group, and our government damn well give in to all if it gives in to one. Bad precedent leading to a slippery slope.

You don’t like pork and beef, don’t eat any. I don’t like pork and beef either, and that’s why I’m vegetarian.

As part of my professional interests, I come across (and pick up) books such as these to understand the ecology and epidemiology of anthrax deaths in people in India: See last paragraph, 2nd column, page 120 of book ‘Food, ecology, and culture’.

Perhaps the rest of the chapter is not exactly what you are looking for…still, it is an interesting chapter overall.

The sad part is many NRIs who had a good chilodhhod, got a good subsidized education, never feel any real need to contribute back. They do seem to feel a strong need to belong to the group of India haters. I just wish you all could get skin grafts and be happy. No will identify you as Indian.

1.You haven’t entirely been a paragon of civility while describing people who don’t fit your belief system, so please don’t be so sour about public relations. It works both ways. As for Bangla speakers being ‘allegedly’ denied ration cards and what not in Delhi, I know plenty of them, from my own driver and his extended family to very upper class family friends, and I haven’t come across this before.

2.We know what SM is about. Please don’t involve it in your personal ideological battles.

1. You are correct. You and Amardeep are two completely different personalities. Nobody is even comparing the two of you.

4.

perhaps if the singleminded focus on what Hindus face was made more substantial and included countries besides Pakistan and Bangladesh, your claims and points would be taken more seriously.

Why?

5.

Hindu and Hindutva are not the same.

So far so good…. But then you bring out your broadest brush…

usually people who seek to speak in the name of Hinduism a) don’t know wtf they’re talking about and b) are so singlemindedly focused on Hinduism and alleged and rael oppression of people who are Hindu and c) are completely comfortable accepting links with groups that have murdered, displaced, and otherwise harmed nonHindus, women, LGBT people, etc., that it becomes difficult to have a conversation

Exactly what are you asking from others? That they adopt your mindset and therefore always write about the issues you want?- your questions, directed towards you.

6

.If you try to describe the real world, the idea that there are attacks on Hindus everywhere is ridiculous.

Not everywhere. Please don’t exaggerate.

Indian fundamentalists burn Christian priests. pakistani fundaentalists attack Muslis for not being Muslim enough. Bangladeshi fundamentalists attack Hindus and Ahmadis. That is the common thread, in a broader contexxt of a cultural comunalism that pervades all three countries.

Bangladesh, Pakistan and India are not the same. They may all be flawed societies with inequalities, but to insinuate that Indian Muslims (or Christians, Sikhs and other minority religious groups) face the kind of institutionalised discrimination that can make their numbers drop from 14% to 2% in 60 years is a bit of a joke.

7.Very presumptuous of you to think that all of us are armchair warriors sitting around our fat haunches while you toil away where the action is. Have you ever been to Western Sahara?