Religious Conversion - Is It Anti-National?

Religious Conversion - Is It Anti-National?:
by SHRI P. PARAMESWARAN

India is passing through a very delicate, dangerous and tricky situation. It has to be handled with subtlety, skill and intelligent planning. Emotional outbursts and violent confrontations are not only unhelpful, but will be even counterproductive. It has to be realised that the forces which are ranged against us are adept in the art of manipulation and have international roots and resources.

It is no secret that all the world churches- most important of them being the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church -- have a common agenda which they call 'Evangelisation 2000 and Beyond'.

Missionary Ethics?

Missionary Ethics? by Valery Countryman

Christianity has misled people by hypocritical teachings and false writings for centuries. Its history is an unhappy one characterized by disunity, distrust and conflicting philosophical messages. Christian missionaries sought conversions in accordance with the laws of their "revealed" religion. They began ministerial efforts in Africa when the trade route by sea around the Cape of Good Hope was discovered in the 15th century. They felt driven by their god to thoroughly displace African concepts with Christianity and to rehabilitate native traditions into more acceptable (to them) viewpoints of Eurocentric Christianity.

To Christendom's mindset, African culture had little or no significance. One reason for this misperception was that only a handful of more than 800 languages were written ones before missionaries arrived. Christian zealots perceived this as an indication of ignorance. They developed means of writing these languages in order to provide religious textbooks (bibles). These tomes were utilized as primary tools for education and indoctrination into Christian thinking and belief. Some translations of biblical passages had already been produced. In Egypt, the book of Psalms had been scripted in a Coptic dialect as early as the fourth century. Christian efforts didn't result in printing of a complete missionary bible until the 1700's. Today, these mixtures of tales and legends are translated into over 100 African languages with selected chapters available in 400 others.

Deconstructing 'Secular' Historians

Tortured Souls Create Twisted History by Navaratna S. Rajaram

It is now widely recognized that Indian history has been distorted. The public too is gradually becoming aware of this fact. At first, it was blamed on the British rulers, who distorted Indian history to divide the people of India so it would be easy to rule. There is truth in this. Lord Macaulay who created the modern Indian education system, explicitly stated that he wanted Indians to turn against their own history and tradition and take pride in being loyal subjects of their British masters. In effect, what he envisaged was a form of conversion— almost like religious conversion. It was entirely natural that Christian missionaries should have jumped at the opportunity of converting the people of India in the guise of educating the natives. So education was a principal tool of missionary activity also. This produced a breed of ‘secular converts’ who are proving to be as fanatical as any religious fundamentalist. We call them secularists.

Macaulay made no secret of his intentions. In a famous letter to his father he wrote: “Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. The effect of this education on the Hindus is prodigious. ...It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the project.”

Macaulay, and British authorities in general, did not stop at this. They recognized that a conquered people are not fully defeated unless their history is destroyed. It is best if this destruction takes place at their own hands: British ‘scholars’ would assist it of course, but ultimately, the Indians themselves should be made to destroy their past. So the plan envisaged cultural suicide rather than cultural genocide. To this end, a new discipline called Indology, and whole new tribe of scholarship called Indologists were created and supported by the British. The most famous of them all was a German by name Friedrich Max Muller who saw the opportunity and made a grand success of it by working for the British according to Macaulay’s plan. The plan was to translate, edit and publish Indian classics—especially the Vedas—in such a manner that it would turn the educated people of India against their history and tradition and make them take pride in being ruled by the British. It was hoped that with this, many would also give up Hinduism and opt for Christianity.

Max Muller is still regarded as a great lover of India and her civilization but the reality is that he was a British agent paid to give a derogatory interpretation of the Vedas. We have his word for it. There can be no doubt at all regarding Max Muller's commitment to the conversion of Indians to Christianity through his scholarly activity. Writing to his wife in 1866 he observed: “It [the Rigveda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.” Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?"

The facts therefore are clear: like Lawrence of Arabia in the twentieth century, Max Muller, though a scholar was an agent of the British government paid to advance its colonial and Christian missionary interests. He was by no means the only one, but only the most successful. Bishop Robert Caldwell who created the Dravidian language theory once admitted his theory was “not only of considerable moment from a philological [linguistic] point of view but of vast moral and political importance.” By ‘moral and political’, he meant Christian missionary and British colonial interests. He was the founder of the Dravidian movement, which has proven to be highly disruptive. It is no accident that even today the field of Dravidian linguistics continues be dominated by Christian missionaries. Bishop Caldwell was the pioneer of this brand of political-missionary agenda masquerading as scholarship.

It is entirely understandable that the British authorities should have engaged in such tactics. They were only trying to make their own life as rulers easy, for no imperialism can work without native collaborators. Even Aurangazeb had to recruit Rajputs to run the Moghul Empire. The question today is— why do these so-called secularist scholars, born and brought up in India, continue to work within the framework handed down to them by their former colonial masters? And many of these scholars were not even born when the British left.

To understand this we need to see them as converted people who transfer their loyalties from the land of their birth to the land of their masters. This is compounded by their lack of confidence in their own generally weak scholarship— a state of mind that constantly seeks both patronage and protection. Before we examine this conversion phenomenon, it is worth looking at the nature and the magnitude of distortion that these men and women are engaged in.

RISA Lila - 2 - Limp Scholarship and Demonology

RISA Lila - 2 - Limp Scholarship and Demonology by Rajiv Malhotra

The growing Indian Diaspora is gradually learning how its heritage has been both portrayed and mis-portrayed in the American education system, and about the urgency to engage the system along the same lines as is already being done by other American minorities, such as Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, African-Americans, Hispanics and Native-Americans.

This engagement requires the members of the Diaspora to be equal participants at the discussion tables where Indian traditions are the topic – including schools, colleges, museums, media, political think tanks and corporate policy meetings. However, getting such a seat involves a complex process of negotiation, because the incumbents who are entrenched in the institutions often see any power-sharing as a dilution of their authority.

Dating back to the earliest occupation of India by the British, academic scholarship has often studied and depicted India and its religious and cultural traditions as consisting of the exotic cultures of distant and primitive peoples. For generations, these views went unchallenged. Although more recently, a number of educated Indians, as well as contemporary American scholars, have sought to stimulate a rethinking of this approach and bring into the scholarly dialogue an expanding knowledge and awareness of the traditions, a significant portion of the scholarly community continues to adhere to and promote myopic and outdated views.

Moreover, such scholarship sadly fails to acknowledge that the adherents of these traditions are not primitive foreigners, but they are increasingly one's Indian-American neighbors, doctors, classmates and friends. Furthermore, it fails to recognize that these traditions are finding adherents among a significant number of Americans and other Westerners who find them compelling and important. This increasing presence and participation of Indians and Indian culture in American society not only provides new and valuable resources for scholarly research understanding, but it also demands that scholars become more aware of and sensitive to the traditions and their followers.

The events described below illustrate how the Diaspora is disadvantaged in its attempt to enter the negotiation process with the Western academic structure. Many Diaspora leaders have opted not to articulate their indigenous viewpoint (many, no doubt, never had a native Indian viewpoint in the first place, having been raised in a Eurocentric education system). Several spiritual leaders remain cocooned within the security of their introverted spiritual groups, and lack the required skills for successful negotiation in the global context on behalf of their cultural identity. Therefore, it is challenging to find knowledgeable individuals who are committed to a fair and balanced approach to tradition, and are willing to stick their necks out amidst a hostile environment, whereas it is not hard to find atheist, Marxist Indians in academia today, who are happy to trash Indian traditions.

This leadership vacuum has spawned a plethora of self-appointed activists, who often lack the sophistication to engage the systems effectively. Nonetheless, this may be a part of the cross-cultural learning process.

This dilemma in cultural discourse about Indian Traditions in the academy may be illustrated by the following fast-moving events which occurred recently. This essay is structured as listed below:

I. Petition against the “Limp Phallus” depiction of Ganesha.
II. Dialog with Paul Courtright.
III. Critique of the Petition.
IV. Threats and attempts to stop them.
V. Another RISA Lila begins.
VI. In India: Motilal Banarsidas withdraws the book.
VII. “Good boycotts” and “Evil boycotts”
VIII. “Good against Evil” witch-hunts begin
IX. Reality begins to sink in
X. The Myth of RISA
XI. (Re) negotiating our place in globalization
XII. Letter from a 14-year old Indian-American schoolgirl

RISA Lila - 1: Wendy's Child Syndrome

RISA Lila - 1: Wendy's Child Syndrome by Rajiv Malhotra

This essay's thrust revolves around the portrayal of India's religions in the West. Being unable to appreciate how and why academic Religious Studies is different from other activities that might appear similar, most Indians are ignorant of the abuses being caused in the West as a result of (a) the negative stereotyping of Indic traditions, and (b) the misappropriation from Indic traditions while erasing the sources.

Here is a typical anecdote that illustrates my frustration: I sent an article to an Indian journal about how Hinduism was (mis)portrayed in American academe. The editor was very interested. But the reviewers' comments were incredibly naïve about the basic structure and nature of the field of Religious Studies -- one reviewer was confusing academic Religious Studies with something that Hindu temples or ashrams in USA were already teaching, while the other reviewer wondered why this field was so important in a secular age! When I showed it to Western friends in academics, they found this Indian thinking amusing.

As with any large academic field, Religious Studies in the US is highly organized, with prestigious journals, chairs and programs of study. To carry out the studies and research, there is a well-defined system that uses the tools and methods that have come to be known as “hermeneutics”. This is the theory of interpretation, especially of religious texts, using a process of deriving new interpretations from a body of text or knowledge, so that (hopefully) our insights about the text or subject keep growing.

To control and regulate this field pertaining to Indian religions, there is the association known as RISA (Religions In South Asia). RISA is a unit within The American Academy of Religion (AAR), which is the official organization of academic scholars of Religious Studies in the Western world.

Around fifty years ago, there was a partition of the guild of scholars who studied religion, and two organizations were created: AAR and SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). AAR and SBL maintain very close relations and influences, and hold their annual conferences jointly. While SBL members study and promote the insiders' view of Judeo-Christianity, AAR members are supposed to pursue the objective view from outside a given tradition and to not promote anything. However, as I have noted many times, outsiders to Hinduism are insiders to Judeo-Christianity, and/or to Western Feminism, and/or to Marxism, and/or to other ideologies, and hence they are not “neutral” as advertised.

With a membership of over 10,000 scholars -- and growing -- the AAR has enormous clout over the future direction of Religious Studies, and indirectly, over the humanities at large.

Because the depictions of India in the West are inseparable from depictions of India's religious life (something that Indian secularists have tried to wish away unsuccessfully), the work done by RISA scholars has implications that go well beyond the discipline's boundaries. Religion is prominently featured in South Asian Studies, Asian Studies, International Studies, Women's Studies, Philosophy, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Literature, and Politics, and indirectly also influences Journalism, Film, and so forth. Therefore, the utter ignorance of Indians regarding such a discipline is a major gap that deserves attention and remedy.

Meanwhile, under Western control, Hinduism Studies has produced ridiculous caricatures that could easily be turned into a Bollywood movie or a TV serial. This Lila of the inner workings of RISA is the subject of this essay.

Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam

Negationism In India - Concealing The Record Of Islam
by Koenraad Elst

Negationism usually means the denial of the Nazi genocide of the Jews and Gypsies in World War 2. Less well-known is that India has its own brand of negationism. A section of the Indian intelligentsia is still trying to erase from the Hindus' memory the history of their persecution by the swordsmen of Islam. The number of victims of this persecution surpasses that of the Nazi crimes. The Islamic campaign to wipe out Paganism could not be equally thorough, but it has continued for centuries without any moral doubts arising in the minds of the persecutors and their chroniclers. The Islamic reports on the massacres of Hindus, destruction of Hindu temples, the abduction of Hindu women and forced conversions, invariably express great glee and pride. They leave no doubt that the destruction of Paganism by every means, was considered the God-ordained duty of the Moslem community. Yet, today many Indian historians, journalists and politicians, deny that there ever was a Hindu-Moslem conflict. They shamelessly rewrite history and conjure up centuries of Hindu-Moslem amity; now a growing section of the public in India and the West only knows their negationist version of history. It is not a pleasant task to rudely shake people out of their delusions, especially if these have been wilfully created; but this essay does just that.

Ethics of Conversion

Ethics of Conversion

by Dr. David Frawley

Conversion has always been a topic that arouses, if not inflames our human emotions. After all, the missionary is trying to persuade a person to change his religious belief, which concerns the ultimate issues of life and death, the very meaning of our existence. And the missionary is usually denigrating the person's current belief, which may represent a strong personal commitment or a long family or cultural tradition, calling it inferior, wrong, sinful, or even perverse.

Such statements are hardly polite or courteous and are often insulting and derogatory. The missionary is not coming with an open mind for sincere discussion and give and take dialogue, but already has his mind made up and is seeking to impose his opinion on others, often even before he knows what they actually believe or do. It is difficult to imagine a more stressful human encounter short of actual physical violence. Missionary activity always holds an implicit psychological violence, however discretely it is conducted. It is aimed at turning the minds and hearts of people away from their native religion to one that is generally unsympathetic and hostile to it.

In this article I will address conversion and missionary activity mainly in regard to Christianity, which has so commonly employed and insisted upon the practice. Indeed it is difficult to imagine the Christian religion apart from missionary activity, which has been the backbone of the faith for most of its history. Christianity has mainly been an outward looking religion seeking to convert the world. In this process it has seldom been open to real dialogue with other religions. It has rarely examined its own motives or the harm that such missionary activity has caused, even though the history of its missionary activity has been tainted with intolerance, genocide and the destruction not only of individuals but of entire cultures.

Missionary activity and conversion is not about freedom of religion. The missionary wants to put an end to pluralism, choice and freedom of religion. He wants one religion, his own, for everyone and will sacrifice his life to that cause. True freedom of religion should involve freedom from conversion. The missionary is like a salesman targeting people in their homes or like an invader seeking to conquer. Such disruptive activity is not a right and it cannot promote social harmony or respect between different religious communities. In fact people should have the right not to be bothered by missionaries unless they seek them out. Those of us in the West are irritated by local missionaries like the Jehovah's Witnesses that often come soliciting at our doors. Can one imagine the distress or confusion they could cause to some poor person in Asia? Once let into the door, it is hard to get them out.

Though most countries in the world today are secular, this still has not created a level playing field in the field of religion. Western religions are still taking an aggressive, intolerant, if not predatory role toward non-Western beliefs. They are using financial and media advantages, including mass marketing, to promote their agenda of conversion. Though missionary activity became less overt after the end of the colonial era it still goes on. And we cannot forget the bloody history of missionary activity or its potential for disruption, violence and destruction should the circumstance again arise.

Today it is illegal in most countries to promote racial hatred, to call a person of any race inferior or the product of the devil (which white Christians used to call the blacks until recently). But Hindus can still be denigrated as polytheists, idolaters and devil-worshippers. This is tolerated under freedom of religion, though it obviously breeds distrust, if not hatred and itself is prejudicial. Prejudicial statements that are not allowed about race are allowed about religion and missionaries commonly employ these derogatory remarks.

In the West there is a cry against cults, which any religious movement out of mainstream Christianity can be called. There is a tendency to regard Hindu based religious movements in the West as cults. Under the guise of being a cult a religious organization can be sued for millions of dollars if even one disgruntled or disappointed former disciple can be found who feels that they were taken advantage of. Many Hindu-based and yoga movements in the West have been sued as cults.

The criticism against cults is that they are outside the cultural religious norm, that they are intolerant of majority religions, that they divide families and turn individuals against their upbringing. Precisely the same charges can be leveled against missionaries all over the world. The early Romans for the same reasons regarded Christianity as a cult.

People in India may believe that in America all religions are treated equally. Certainly the law requires that, but this is not the fact of life. For example, it is still very difficult for Hindus to build temples in the United States, particularly in areas in which fundamentalist Christians are strong, like the Bible belt of the South. To put in perspective one would say that it over ten times harder in America to build a temple than it is to build a church. In many areas temples must not outwardly look like a temple, but should look like a school or church, or the local governments won't approve of them. While there are a few Hindu style temples in America these are exceptional and took special efforts to be allowed.

Western Monoculture and Indic Pluralism

Western Monoculture and Indic Pluralism
By David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)

Western civilization, in spite of claims to support diversity, is promoting a worldwide monoculture—the same basic values, institutions and points of view for everyone—which it calls ‘globalization’. Western commercial culture with its pursuit of markets and commodities eliminates all true culture, which is based on quality, not quantity. It creates a culture of money that submerges any true culture of refinement or spirituality, in which everything can be bought and sold, possessed or capitalized on.

If we visit shopping malls in America today, for example, it is hard to tell what state in the country we are located in. The shopping malls in Florida, California, New York or the Midwest have the same basic stores and sell the same basic products. The streets look the same, as do the houses, apartment buildings and office buildings. People eat the same basic types of food and have the same habits of work, sleep and relaxation. Almost everything is mass-produced and follows the same economy driven forces.

These same types of businesses pioneered in America are spreading worldwide, whether it is Coca Cola, McDonalds, blue jeans or Barbie dolls. One finds the same multinational corporations operating in nearly every major city of the world, whether Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai or London. While one finds foreign stores like Chinese restaurants in shopping malls even in America, which have their niche in the global scene, these operate according to the same commercial approach as standard western businesses. They do not represent real globalization but a co-opting of foreign businesses by the western commercial culture.

The world media is yet more of a monoculture. News services worldwide provide what are essentially the same stories from the same cultural slant. They are standardized in a western model and promote a western point of view with western ideals of free trade, social equality, democracy and affluence. People all over the world watch Hollywood movies, listen to the pop music of the US and Europe, and adulate American athletes.

Similarly, in the universities of the world, it is mainly western civilization that is taught, even if there is an old and profound civilization. In a country like India, Shakespeare is a much better known and quoted poet than Kalidas, the equivalent great Sanskrit poet. The West honors the Japanese for enthusiastically taking up western culture, music and entertainment. But it regards as close-minded or communal, cultures that try to hold their own ground and avoid the consumerist assimilation.

Indian virtues pre-date 'secularism'!

Indian virtues pre-date 'secularism'!:
by Chinmay Bajekal

Swami Vivekananda at the parliament of religions in Chicago (1893) mentioned in his speech, that he was proud to belong to a Nation that gave safe refuge to several persecuted communities of the world. In history we find examples of the Jews, Syrian Christians, Zoroastrians, and in recent times the Tibetan Buddhists who after being driven out of their homeland sought safe refuge in India. The native Indians back then � Hindus not just accommodated these refugees but also gave them the freedom to practice their respective faiths.

Long ago, even before the birth of the Greek and Roman Empires, our Vedic Seers had declared ‘Vasudaiva kutumbakam’ – “The world is one family”. Long before the modern world came out with the concept of ‘Universal welfare’ our Vedic prayer throughout the ages has been ‘Loka samastha sukinau Bhavantu’ – “May entire world attain bliss”. Even the modern concept of freedom of thought is respected in the Vedic verse, ‘Ekam sat vipraha, bahudha vadanti’ – “Truth is one the wise call it by various names". The verse expresses the matured understanding of the Human mind that the ancient thinkers of India possessed.

Centuries ago when sects like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism came as reformist movements to correct what their founders perceived as wrong or unwanted in the society, the Hindus did not suppress these reformers but gave them the freedom and space to grow. Sri Adi Shankaracharya brought many back to the Hindu fold not through force, coercion, incentives or threat but by preaching in the form of debates.

Thus, Indian virtues like ‘pluralism’, ’tolerance’, ’freedom of thought’ and ‘Universal welfare’ pre-date the arrival of the ‘secular’ concept in India. This point needs to be emphasized as in today’s India ‘secularism’ is unjustifiably credited for all these Indian virtues and the term is being misused to suppress the movement of ‘national renaissance’ also known as Hindutva that aims at preserving the very culture which actually deserves credit for these age-old virtues of India.

Secularism originated in Europe centuries ago when the Kings revolted and overthrew the theocratic hegemony of the Pope from over their kingdoms and established their own rule. But India has never known such a conflict, thus the western secularism never was relevant for India. However today many Indians perceive ‘secularism’ to be a synonym of ‘pluralism’ and ‘tolerance’, but they perceive the very culture that blessed the Indian society with these noble features from the Western perspective of being a “religion”.

The pseudo-seculars in India who swear by secularism would like to have us believe that any threat or challenge to the concept of secularism in India would endanger the age-old pluralism of the country. Little do these self-proclaimed defenders of secularism realize that wherever in the Indian subcontinent Hinduism declines, with it declines the support for secularism too (whichever kind of secularism that may be). Pakistan & Bangladesh two of our neighbouring countries were formed out of the same territory and people of undivided India, yet they are far from being secular.

The need of the hour for India is the recognition of the fact that India does not owe its great virtues of pluralism, diversity and tolerance to any western concept or ideology, but to the influence over India of Vedic culture and philosophy. And also to be understood is the fact that India’s age-old virtues shall not be endangered by the questioning of the relevance of secularism to the world’s oldest and most pluralistic civilization.

India has always been a country that has welcomed reforms, and encouraged new ideas. It has never resorted to prejudicial behavior. Unfortunately the manner in which the self-proclaimed seculars in India spew venom over the movement of ‘national renaissance’ and call for ‘de-saffronization’ is in reality an act that is ‘de-Indianizing’ as it does not go well with the ethos of our ancient country which tolerated different views.

Biases in Hinduism Studies

Biases in Hinduism Studies:

by Abhijit Bagal

The purpose of this essay is to highlight the growing dissatisfaction on the part of the Indian American Hindu Diaspora with the way Hinduism, Hindus, and India have been depicted and mis-portrayed in the American education system, and about the urgency to engage the system along the same lines as is already being done by other American minorities, such as the Native-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. This article also explores how Hinduism and India studies directly or indirectly forms American perceptions of India and its culture, its products and services, and of the Indian American minority, and the need to bring objectivity and balance to these studies.

Myth of Hindu Sameness

Myth of Hindu Sameness
by Rajiv Malhotra

This essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus alike that Hinduism is the same as other religions. Some common factors that cause many Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows: Hindus arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism, and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor. Against this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make a clear distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by separating them as dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity), devika and asuric, etc.

Many Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with the diversity of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing with the diversity and conflict found in the worldly. Furthermore, they fail to distinguish between shruti and smriti. The unity of all shruti is assumed to mean that all smritis must be the same. In particular, Hindus fail to understand the critical history-dependence of the Abrahamic religions and the way their core myths and institutions are built around these frozen smritis. Often what Hindus really mean is that all religions are equal in the respect and rights they deserve, but they confuse this with sameness.

At the same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences lead to tensions and violence. Many Hindus have internalized these arguments, over simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one truth and all paths leading to it.

To address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. It classifies religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric. The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. Non History-Centric religious movements, as History-Centric and non History-Centric. The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. Non History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do have beliefs about history, but their faith is not contingent on history.

The essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are inherent among History-Centric religions.

In analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of Christianity and Islam. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-Centric, and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of Sameness, by offering itself as a library of shareware for "generic" spirituality.

The essay cautions that Hinduism runs the risk of becoming either (1) History-Centric itself, or (2) losing its identity and becoming digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth.

Scenario #1 leads to a three-way jihad among three History-Centric religions – Christianity vs. Islam vs. Hinduism – in which Hinduism cannot win. Scenario #2 leads to the dissolution of Hinduism through a combination of hostile and friendly takeovers by Christianity, which, in turn, worsens the two-way jihad between Christianity and Islam. Therefore, both scenarios ultimately feed the clash of Christianity vs. Islam, i.e. between conflicting History-Centric positions.

To construct an alternative framework, the essay debunks the Sameness Myth, which reflects naïve Hindus' wishful thinking about how other religions ought to be rather than how they actually are.

The essay calls for Hindu scholars to develop a rigorous approach to purva-paksha (scholarly critiques of other traditions within the framework of the Indian darshanas); to highlight the Hindu history of constructions through its own smriti traditions; and to refute false presuppositions about Hinduism that have spread into many academic disciplines.

The essay recommends the promotion of equality-with-difference as a core Hindu principle, also referred to within this essay as difference-with-respect. This entails asserting a positive Hindu identity that is neither History-Centric nor dismissive of its distinctiveness.

Faith, Civilization and Eurocentric Racism

Faith, Civilization and Eurocentric Racism:
by George Thundiparambil

This essay examines the concepts 'faith' and 'civilization' and traces Eurocentric 'white' racism to the 'faith' named Christianity. When one investigates 'faith', it is impossible to avoid the age-old controversy -- the 'faith vs. rationality' problem. Just as in post-renaissance Europe, it makes headlines in the world media even in the 21st Century, e.g., the BBC that runs programs on 'science and religion'. The 'faith vs. rationality' dilemma is peculiar to the Western civilization, though religious imperialism has done its best to spread it like a virus all over the world. The rationale for the problem offered in this essay clears up the mess surrounding the tower of Babel -- why human cultures fail to bridge gaps between themselves leading to the clash of civilizations despite the fact that the element of reason in thought and behavior unite the whole of humanity -- the singular mark of civilization. The article contends that the Western confrontationist equation of 'science vs. faith' gives 'faith' an undue recognition in cultures and becomes the root cause for differences and conflicts between them.

The essay points to the faith-based ideology and approach that have become a dominant force in the contemporary world, despite its opposition to rationality, the benchmark of human civilization. It examines the 'faith' ideology as reflected in Christian and Islamic cultures, and how this ideology threatens global peace by creating meaningless challenges that arise uniquely from their faiths.

The purpose is to show that in real terms the 'faith' has no rational basis and exists only in the form of a prejudice manifesting as racism and stands as a hindrance to the progress of civilization. The faith element gains enormous validity

The Axis of Neocolonialism

The Axis of Neocolonialism:
by Rajiv Malhotra

'In the modern planetary situation, Eastern and Western 'cultures' can no longer meet one another as equal partners. They meet in a westernized world, under conditions shaped by western ways of thinking.' --- W. Halbfass

This essay argues that intellectual svaraj (self-rule) is as fundamental to the long term success of a civilization as is svaraj in the political and financial areas. Therefore, it is important to ask: whose way of representing knowledge will be in control? It is the representation system that defines the metaphors and terminology, interprets what they mean in various situations, influences what issues are selected to focus on, and, most importantly, grants privileges by determining who is to control this marketplace of ideas.
As an implicit body of standards, a representation system disguises a meta-ideology � the substratum of contexts on which specific ideologies emerge and interact. It includes the language used and the unstated frames of reference, and acts as the subliminal filter through which positions are constructed and their fate negotiated.

A people without their own representation system, in a worst case scenario, get reduced to being intellectual consumers looking up to the dominant culture. In the best case scenario, they could become intellectual producers, but only within the representation system as defined and controlled by the dominant culture, such as has happened recently with many Indian writers in English. "

Stereotyping Hinduism in American Education

Stereotyping Hinduism in American Education:
by Rajiv Malhotra:

This essay addresses how the Greco-Semitic religious paradigms, being the prevailing undercurrents in Western civilization's narrative of the humanities, have influenced the portrayal of the Indic religions. Hinduism is used in this essay to make the points concerning Indic religions, but similar issues also apply to all Indic religions.

The intellectual spectacles formed by one's own culture determine how one perceives the world. According to the postmodern theory of constructivism, no meaning of any kind ever stands on its own. Instead, there is always mediation by prior mental programming and assumptions, even though these biases might be unconsciously applied. As W.C. Smith, E. W. Said and others have noted, we select, group, and organize the multiplicity of events experienced within our own conceptual categories to give coherence to the world.

Are we aware of the effects of mapping other religions onto Greco-Semitic theological categories, even when there is no intentional agenda? Is the narrative being colored by beliefs and even dogma, perhaps unconsciously, of the academic narrator? Does the process known as academic 'objectivity' in fact, facilitate a facade to cloak the prejudices of the scholar, and if so, how might one extricate oneself from the presuppositions of one's heritage? "

Washington Post and Hinduphobia

Washington Post and Hinduphobia
by Rajiv Malhotra

When Washington Post was recently approached by the public relations campaigns emanating from Emory University and other supporters of the powerful Wendy Doniger, a door was opened for the Post to play a responsible role in bringing out serious blind spots of Eurocentrism/American-centrism that reside deep in America's higher education. As shown below, the Post bungled up this opportunity by regurgitating the narratives supplied to it by the establishment of India Studies.

Washington Post's front-page article entitled, 'Wrath Over a Hindu God: U.S. Scholars' Writings Draw Threats From Faithful,' by Shankar Vedantam (April 10, 2004; Page A01) misrepresents the topic by failing to highlight the central issues being debated, namely, systemic ideological biases within academia, while caricaturing the community's dissenting intellectuals in ways that approach Hinduphobia. Its strategic timing on Easter weekend, which is charged with Christian emotions especially after the 'Passion' movie, was a serious setback to America's pluralism. It has the effect of misdirecting the casual reader towards an intellectual cul-de-sac and away from serious inquiry. The Post's article could discourage further dissenting discourse, which would stifle much needed reform and progress within academic scholarship.

Towards an Indian Pluralism

Towards an Indian Pluralism:

by Sankrant Sanu

Indian society faces a choice between maintaining a pluralistic approach, with mutual respect for different religions, or following the European intellectual secularism, where the state protects religious exclusivism.

The birth in Europe of ideas of religious tolerance, religious pluralism and ultimately the separation of church and state arose out of their experience with religious intolerance. This religious intolerance was a natural outgrowth of religious exclusivism - the idea that there is only One Way, and that One Way is controlled or determined by a particular church, tribe or book. Thus the liberal struggle in the Age of Reason was precisely against the ideas of religious exclusivism and authority, and the resultant foreclosure of free thought and speech in the name of curbing apostasy and heresy. Similarly in the Islamic world, the Shia-Sunni conflict and the persecution of Sufis, Bahais Ahmediyas arises from doctrinal exclusivism that applies both externally and internally.

By contrast, Indian traditions developed differently. The pluralism of paths and viewpoints is an essential Indian viewpoint, found as far back as the Rig Veda, that states: �Ekam Sat, Vipra Bahuda Vadanti� (Truth is One, the Wise describe it variously). This was a principle that was broadly accepted among followers of religions of Indian origin - Hindu, Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs and others such as the Bahais is slowly being understood throughout the world - in the Unitarian Church, among some liberal Christians and Muslims, and among humanistic groups such as the United Nations where Kofi Annan used this quote to point to a great and ancient teaching of religious pluralism that can offer succor in the world of religious conflict caused by exclusivist doctrines. "

Proselytization In India: An Indian Christian's Perspective by C. Alex Alexander

Proselytization In India: An Indian Christian's Perspective:
by C. Alex Alexander

Since colonial times to the present, the impetus for Christian proselytizing work in India has largely emanated from Western Christian Church groups and missions. The latter's continuing obsession for promoting religious conversions under the aegis of India's Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom has triggered a raging debate among religious and political leaders of that country. Many Hindus of the Indian Diaspora have also been drawn into it.

Over seventy years ago, Mahatma Gandhi stated that: �proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy, to say the least. It is most resented by people here'. The resentment that Gandhi alluded to has increased in India over the years, mostly due to the persistence of religious conversions engineered by Christian evangelists who derive their financial support from foreign sources. Fundamentalist Muslims too have entered the fray in recent years with substantive financial contributions from Muslim countries interested in furthering the spread of Islam in India. Some Hindu groups have resorted to reverse conversions. All these trends are destructive to India's time-tested culture of religious tolerance.

The muteness of liberal Indian Christians, both in India and overseas, is indeed surprising. The aim of this essay is to rectify that omission at least in part. I hope that liberal Indians of all faiths will debate this issue with their fundamentalist counterparts in a similar vein to prevent the spread of inter-religious conflicts in that subcontinent. At the end of this essay, I shall present for your consideration a plan for pre-empting the religious militancy embedded in the fundamentalist varieties of both Christianity and Islam.

Are Hinduism studies prejudiced? A look at Microsoft Encarta

Are Hinduism studies prejudiced? A look at Microsoft Encarta:
by Sankrant Sanu

In this article we discuss the differences, in both approach and result, of Encarta's articles on Hinduism in comparison with the articles on some of the other major world religions in Encarta. Encarta Encyclopedia is published by Microsoft Corporation, which claims that it is the 'Best-selling encyclopedia brand.' Encarta is widely used as a reference source in American schools. In particular, because of its widespread use amongst children, we would expect Encarta's coverage of religions to be even-handed, sensitive and unprejudiced. In a world of religious conflict, it becomes particularly important that children are given balanced viewpoints of mainstream beliefs and practices of all religions.

In particular, we contrast Encarta's treatment of Hinduism, with the two other major religions -- Islam and Christianity. On occasion, we also refer to the treatment of other religions like Judaism and Buddhism. The purpose of this article is not to make value judgments or a comparative study of the religions themselves. In studying such a vast and complex phenomena as the major religions, one can always find conflicting or questionable issues, just as one can find highly elevating truths. What aspects of the religion get highlighted is a matter of editorial choice. Our interest is not in comparing the religions per se, but in understanding the differences in editorial choice -- both in the selection of content as well as style, in the scholarly treatment of these religions in Encarta.

A Hindu Call for Religious Pluralism

A Hindu Call for Religious Pluralism
by Dr. David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)

Hinduism is the largest pluralistic religion in the world. It teaches that there are many paths, many sages, and many holy books and that no religion can claim any exclusive or final representation of truth. This does not mean that Hinduism does not recognize a unity to truth. On the contrary, Hinduism recognizes a total and profound unity but one that is broad enough to allow for diversity and to integrate multiplicity, like the many leaves on a great banyan tree.

This Hindu pluralism has confused people coming from singularistic religious traditions, such as have dominated the Western world, who are baffled by the great diversity within Hinduism. It has caused them to look upon Hinduism as a collection of cults or sects rather than any consistent religious heritage. However if we look deeply into the many-sided vision of Hinduism we will discover that it has much wisdom to teach everyone. Today in the emerging global era we must learn to handle the great diversity of human beings and their often very different cultures. This requires a pluralistic vision in all aspects of life, from which religion, often the most important aspect of human culture, cannot be excluded.

Hinduism is built upon diversity and holds within itself an amazing,even bewildering, variety of teachers and teachings from what appear to be the most primitive forms to the most abstract spiritual philosophies and yogic practices. One could say that there are more religions inside of Hinduism than outside of it. Hinduism has more Gods and Goddesses, more scriptures, more saints, sages and avatars, than any other religion in the world, perhaps more than all the other major religions put together. This is because Hinduism has sought to preserve all the main spiritual practices that developed in India over the past five thousand years. It has never sought to reduce itself to any one teacher, book, faith or revelation. It has always remained open to new teachings and revelations on one hand, and yet has not cut itself off from older traditions on the other. It would be as if in the Western world today along with the dominant religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, that the old Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian religions had been preserved, as well as an acceptance of newer teachings and religions.

We can contrast the Hindu view with that of dominant Western religions and their standard formula of one God, one prophet or savior and one holy book that has led them to promote the supremacy of their belief for everyone. Christianity and Islam, with few exceptions, have sought throughout history to convert the entire world to their faith, and to this end have often tried to discredit, if not suppress other traditions - a practice that still continues in various parts in the world. On the other hand, Hinduism has never tried to create any one center, one church, one pope, or one doctrine or to impose its views through any army or group of missionaries. It has sought to preserve diversity and emphasizes local application of the teachings.

In the dawning global age we can no longer claim that any one religion is the only truth for all humanity any more than we can claim that one language, culture or way of life is the best for all. We must have a broad enough view to recognize what is of value in the different peoples and cultures of the globe from so-called aborigines, who have a much deeper understanding of nature than modern people, to the great civilizations not only of Europe and the Middle East but of America, Africa and Asia, including those not built upon Biblical religious ideas.

Any great civilization, we must note, is a product of diversity. It is able to bring together many different views and practices in science, religion, art, and culture as well as embrace various racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups. It also has a long sense of history and can integrate within itself many different historical currents. A culture where everyone must have the same beliefs and follow the same practices is not a true culture and must deny the human spirit that always seeks to grow and express itself in a variety of ways.