Who is Anti-Hindu and Anti-Indian? Some Logical Questions

Pseudoscience, Religious intolerance, Injustice, Hindu Muslim Disunity, Fake spiritual babas like Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev & Nithyananda, harmful ideas like Hindu rashtra etc in a country like India is a shame for all of us.

The complete surrender, complete karma yoga and a permanent state of flow with a feeling of boundlessness, peace, fulfillment, balanced energy state, highest possible clarity, a mind devoid of conflicts and wandering incessant flow of thoughts, a feeling of harmony and synchronicity towards existence, and a feeling of oneness in everything as if one is immersed in an ocean of consciousness with blurred or fuzzy distinction and more and more and more are the gifts of the Holy Spirit or Shakthi! There is a precise science to make it true in one’s experience and being, which has been lost because of lack of royal patronage for nearly 300 years. Once Colonial movements imposed a concept called religion in India, everything has become distorted, just leaving a mess that is guided by fake gurus and power hungry politicians.

Pseudoscience in the land of Aryabhatta? Religious intolerance in the land of Shankara, Ramakrishna, Akbar, Guru Nanak, Vivekananda, Gandhi, Tirumular, Thiruvalluvar and Abdul Kalam? Injustice in the land of Manu Needhi Cholan? Provoking Hindu-Muslim disunity in the land of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Dr. Zakir Hussain, Mohammad Sharfuddin Quadri, Asaf Ali, Maulana Mazharul Haque, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi, Abid Hassan etc who fought against the British rule? Speaking without logic and with whataboutery and ad hominem in the land where Nyaya Shastra, the ancient Indian school of logic thrived? Fake spiritual gurus in the land of Adi Shankara? The idea of Hindu Rashtra in the land which said Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam or the entire earth is a family? Constant ‘We’ vs ‘You all” fights in the land which proclaimed “Yadum Ure, Yavarum Kelir (Every village/town is my village. Everybody is my relative)”? Who are Anti-Indians and Anti-Hindus then? Who is actually shaming India?

Also read:

Pappankulam – A Village of Brahmins and Four Vedas

Why is there so much hate between Hindus and Muslims in India?

Prophet Muhammad Exposed – A Different Perspective That Everyone Should Read

Hinduism and Dharma: The Distinction between a Religion and a Way of Life

Did Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism Copy from Each Other?

12 Shocking Truths About Religions

Did Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism Copy from Each Other?

Every culture has influenced every other culture during mutual interactions. It is only because of this influence that humanity has achieved a lot. But many people today call such cross-cultural interactions, influences, adaptations etc as ‘copying’ or ‘plagiarism’ which is both sad and stupid.

For example, today Indians wear shirt and pant, celebrate birthdays using English calendar, cut cakes and blow candles etc. Should we say India copied this from West or West influenced India?

Of course, a lot of Catholic churches and many Sufis have adapted certain cultural things from India as well. So yes, Indian culture has influenced Indian Christians and Indian Muslims. There is no question about it. Have you ever wondered why the Bible is called as Vedagamam in Tamil? It is not plagiarism but influence! Plagiarism or copying means a person using somebody’s work without attribution. This doesn’t apply to cultures.

Let me give you a lot of examples:

  1. The story of Adam in Bible is heavily influenced by Enkidu from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.
  2. The story of Noah and Manu was influenced by the great flood in the epic of Gilgamesh.
  3. The old testament doesn’t have the concept of hell or heaven. The divine justice is delivered on earth itself, which is indicated by fall or rise of states. This idea of divine justice was also borrowed from Sumerian-Mesopotamian cultures.
  4. The idea of Good and evil (Satan) in Bible was adapted from Persian religion; and Persian religion itself heavily borrowed from early Vedic religion.
  5. Vedic religion itself adapted many deities from other cultures: Dyaus, Usas and Ashvins come from proto-Indo European culture. Indra and Soma come from Bactria-Margiana culture. And according to Asko Parpola, Varuna was a deity native to Indus valley civilization ( I am a little skeptical of Parpola’s claim though).
  6. There was an ancient University in Taxila founded in 10th century BCE which should have certainly attracted students from all over the world, Even though majority of the people were unaware of other states and empires, there were certainly elites and traders who travelled long distance from the Near East. It is through the influence of this University, many ideas which existed in cultures close to it has travelled to far away lands. A lot of such ideas got distorted, modified, re-interpreted and even developed in the places where they reached. I see no other reason for development of new ideas during Axial age ( 800 BCE to 300 BCE) all over the world.
  7. Early Vedic religion did not have the concept of samsara, moksha or karma. But some individual rishis of Rig Veda might have been aware of such ideas already. These ideas were influenced by Sramana traditions and re-interpreted within Vedic context. Also, early Vedic religion neither had temples or idols.
  8. The stance against idolatry in Judaism was strongly influenced by the representation of the king and the state through images in Egypt . So, the stance against idolatry has a hidden and lost message: Do not consider a human being as infallible authority! But the Hebrew Bible is a theological and mythological narrative to explain real political events, such as the conquery of Israel by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and others. Along with this, Jewish mysticism which is close to Eastern traditions existed and their ideas also influenced the old Testament.
  9. Followed by Taxila university, Plato’s academy was established in Greece in c. 387 BC in Athens. The idea of eternal hell was developed by Plato as a social tool to discipline people who wouldn’t listen to reason. Later it was adopted by Abrahamic traditions. Plato’s allegory of cave is another metaphorical distinction between real and unreal, just like Vedanta.
  10. Muhammad travelled from Mecca to Damascus every year for trading. In Damascus, he must have been exposed to various mystical traditions. No, he didn’t copy them. He simply brought it to Arabia which by that time had no state, no law, and no justice; People had primitive social norms, killed female infants, raided caravans, married irresponsibly and abandoned orphans and widows. Once thing I can infer is, the intellectual gap between Muḥammad and his followers was very large. As historians agree, Islam indeed improved the status quo of pre-Islamic Arabia and was an improvement to the existing conditions . So many ideas which we think from Islam were already existing before Islam; Muhammad just managed to reform some of them but compromised and adapted some olden values too.
  11. Vedic religion had a concept of Rna or indebtedness. It simply means human beings are obligated to follow a law or Dharma and settle the debts he owes for the society and nature. Failure to do so simply means a lack of gratitude. Dharma means law or way of life. Initially, Dharma was only about ethics and order, wealth and pleasure. But after being influenced by Sramana traditions, Dharma also included the way to attain eternal peace. They came up with three means to do that: karma (doing your obligatory duties without being too attached to the fruits of actions), Jnana (a direct inquiry into the nature of existence) and bhakti (surrender and love to one and only supreme God). Now let us see how all this fits into Islam. Muhammad did not call Islam as a religion but called it as Deen. It means law or way of life, just like Dharma. And the word comes from Arabic for ‘dayne’ which means ‘debt’ (just like rna). And Muḥammad insisted that submission to God as true form of worship. Jihad means struggle, which is the same as Srama in Sramana. And the word ‘khafir‘ originally meant someone who lacked gratitude or someone who hides the truth. If you put together all the pieces and see the whole picture, it will make a lot of sense.

12. Muhammad did not claim that he was bringing something new. He simply claimed he was restoring the original form of worship by Abraham. Who is Abraham? People have noticed strong similarity between Abraham and Brahma and have suggest that Jews and Brahmins were the same. A passage that is quoted often for this is:

“The similarities between the names of Abraham and Brahma have not gone unnoticed. Abraham is said to be the father of the Jews, and Brahma, as the first created being, is often seen as the father of mankind…’ We might also note that the name of Brahma’s consort Sarasvati seems to resonate with that of Abraham’s wife, Sarah [… each one’s identity as a wife and/or sister]. Also, in India, the Sarasvati River includes a tributary known as the Ghaggar…. According to Jewish tradition, Hagar was Sarah’s maidservant…. Both Brahmins … and Jews see themselves as the ‘chosen people of God.’ The Hebrews began their sojourn through history as a ‘kingdom of priests’ (Exodus 19:6). Likewise, Brahmins are also a community of priests. — Rosen in Essential Hinduism, p. 12.”

But I don’t think it is true; there is strong evidence against it. It will make more sense to consider Abraham as a metaphor for a Brahmin who lives between the rivers Sarasvati and Ghaggar. So who is the God of Abraham? It is more likely to be the fusion of aspects of Vedic deities Rudra and Varuna. When I was researching the origins of devotion or bhakti, I was able to trace it back until Varuna, who is described as the Lord of justice, expects surrender and repentance, just like Abrahamic God. And just like God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Varuna asks Harischandra to sacrifice his son. Later, the benevolent deity Yahweh (who is similar to Rudra, later syncretized with Shiva) absorbed all aspects of hundreds of older Jewish deities and the aspects of God of Abraham too. This also makes sense, because the same story about human sacrifice make a re-entry in India through a Tamil Text ‘Periya Puranam’ several centuries later. And this time it is Shiva (who absorbed Vedic Rudra) who comes in disguise as a sadhu and asks for human sacrifice of his son. Makes sense?

13. The lost or unknown years of Jesus in the Bible between the age 12–30 has been explained by many by saying that he has travelled the world, including Indian subcontinent. There is a document in monastery in ladakh which actually talks about Jesus studying there and it has been witnessed and translated by many. Jesus also said that he came to establish the Law (Halakha in Hebrew, which means the same as Dharma).

14. All cultures evolve their dharma like this: an animistic tradition that doesn’t have a concept of God but only believes in various spirits inside real world objects —-> Clan deities of various tribes forming a pantheon, sacrificial rituals and accompanying poetry — Evolutionary monotheism which happens by syncretism of various deities into one —-> Worship and surrender to one supreme God with names like Ishvara, Allah, Narayana etc. —-> The mystical path that involves realizing God as all that exists (Brahman, which is usually thought a direct result of worship and surrender to one God, along with Karma and Jnana. In Islam, there is Sufism; in Christianity there is Christian Mysticism; in Judaism, there is Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism. They all start with surrender and worship in the beginning of the path but also talk about the higher truth of oneness of Brahman; But since they use different names and concepts, use different teaching methods, enumerate the contents of consciousness differently (which is nothing but the actual meaning of Samkhya) and also define the stages of the spiritual paths differently, they all seem different. In addition to it, there are cultural, historical, political, linguistic, and geographical differences which has all been wrapped as a package to come up with the modern concept of religion .

15. Apart from Vedic and Sramana traditions, there were thousands of folk traditions with thousands of deities in India. Many were benevolent but absorbed into Buddhist mythology as yakshas and yakshinis who were the disciples of Buddha. They are also seen as various extensions of one reality in meditation. Vedic religion did the same thing by Sanskritizing all these deities and absorbing them into Shiva or Vishnu; if they were female deities, they merged with Shakthi or Lakshmi. And Shiva and Shakthi are again considered as two aspects of one divinity. Many people, especially from South of India think that this is bad. No, it is really not; the only negative consequence of this was denying entry and access to temple worship to people of specific social class. This is similar to ancient Egyptian tradition in which priests were the only ones who had access to temples and other people can only see the deity during processions. This Sanskritization of folk deities led to various monotheistic traditions like Shaivism and Vaishnavism, which were all united by Adhi Shankara as various paths of single dharma.

16. If you stop seeing things with modern lens using modern concept of religion, you can see the truth; if you take this modern concept as your identity and tend to feel superior towards it, it will certainly lead to intolerance. But if you go to the roots and see that it is all about dharma and its three aspects (bhakti, jnana and karma), then everything will be clear. You will agree with what I have written in this post: Shanmugam P’s answer to Why is Hinduism spreading so fast all over the world?

An article that you may be interested in: Pappankulam – A Village of Brahmins and Four Vedas

A Rebuttal to Ram Ablo’s answer on Hindu Misconceptions – Quora

I recently came across the answer of Ram Ablo who says that people who claim that all religions lead to the same truth are some confused and ignorant Hindus. Well, then looks like the list would include the following people too: The list of Ignorant and confused people who claimed that all religions lead to the same goal (according to Ram Ablo): Guru Nanak, Kabir, Rumi, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Shirdi Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Sivananda, Gandhi, Abdul Kalam and many others.

I see a group of people teaming up and supporting each other for promoting Hindu superiority, an illusion that was created in the recent modern past. This blog or this post is not intended to personally offend them but only refute the ideas they are promoting. And comparing this clash of cultural identity with Adhi Shankara’s debates is the biggest insult to Adhi Shankara.

Let me first quote his answer:

“The biggest misconception about being a Hindu is that there is no difference or distinction between the mundane material world and the spiritual world.

I see a vast majority of Hindus being utterly confused about this real and harsh distinction between the mundane affairs of the world and what is considered spirituality. Most Hindus mix up the two, and inappropriately apply the conclusions of abstract philosophical spiritual teachings to real-world problems.

For example, these ignorant Hindus say that all religions are the same, all religions teach the same thing, so people of all religions should be treated the same way, innocently, without caring about what these different religions say, and what the followers of these religions do in the real world.

This confusion comes from the unfortunate availability of all scriptures to everybody, irrespective of qualifications. Everybody reads books on Advaita and Brahman, and without the full understanding of the appropriate application of teachings to appropriate situations, they start talking bullshit about everyone being the same, everything being the same, no need to maintain Hindu identity, no need for any action, no need to protect and defend Hinduism against predatory religions, etc.

Here’s an episode from the life of Adi Shankara, the greatest teacher of Advaita:

Once during his travels across India, teaching and debating, Adi Shankara had a discussion with a king. The king misunderstood Advaita and thought that Shankara was teaching that the world is unreal, and nothing has any value. To mock Shankara, the king ordered his attendants to release the wildest elephant in his stable just as Shankara was walking down the path of the royal garden. As soon as he saw the elephant charging, Shankara broke into a sprint and quickly climbed up the tallest coconut tree nearby.

Seeing this apparently hilarious spectacle, the king laughed and asked Shankara, why he ran from the imaginary elephant, as according to Advaita, everything is unreal? To this, Shankara gave a witty reply that what the king saw as Shankara running was also equally as imaginary as the charging elephant.

This witty episode really explains the true philosophy of Advaita.

Adi Shankara was not a fool to ignore the real-world threat of the charging elephant at the physical mundane level of existence. He protected himself with all his physical capabilities. At a higher level of consciousness, the physical level is less real, but these two levels do not interact. This was the misunderstanding of the king, who mixed the two levels of consciousness and mocked Advaita.

But today, Hindus are getting confused from the opposite side — in their immense faith, they apply their naive and dangerously wrong understanding of Advaita to the real, physical, mundane world.

I have said this in many answers and comments — Hindu philosophy guarantees the spiritual equality of everyone “up there” in the sky. But on the ground, in the physical world of flesh and blood — conflict, aggression and predation are real things that need to be guarded against if this beautiful Hindu philosophy needs to survive.

If Adi Shankara did not see the significance of debating and defeating real-world flesh-and-blood people, and re-establishing Hindu Vedic religion in a physical sense, he would not have taken the pains of travelling through the length and breadth of India and establishing real physical maThas and temples and rituals. He would have just sat in his home in Kerala, thinking, “Everything is the same, so there is no difference whether I go and preach Advaita or whether Hinduism dies.”

As Kalidasa says in Raghuvamsham, “sharIram Adyam khalu dharmasAdhanam शरीरमाद्यं खलु धर्मसाधनम्” — “The body is the primary and only means of conducting Dharma’.

For the Hindu dharma and philosophy to survive, the “body” of Hinduism needs to not only survive but thrive in robust physical forms in the real physical world of flesh-and-blood. This requires protection and defence against real physical world flesh-and-blood threats of various kinds. This protection and defence can only happen when there is unambiguous recognition that everything is not the same. There are real differences, which is why there is conflict.

There is a Sanskrit saying — “pishAcAnAm paishAcabhAshayA uttaram deyam पिशाचानां पैशाचभाषया उत्तरं देयम्” — “Villains only understand the language of villainy, so they need to be answered back in the language of villainy.”

In other words, violence and aggression do not understand the language of peace and civility, and they should be retaliated in the same way that they act.

Let us not repeat the mistake of Prithviraj Chauhan who showed foolish and innocent mercy to the ruthless and cunning Muhammad Ghori.

Innocence is not a quality that is praised in Hindu scriptures. Knowledge and intelligence (of all kinds) are praised.”

https://qr.ae/Tz8WXN

My reply, which I also left as a comment:

The list of Ignorant and confused people who claimed that all religions lead to the same goal: Guru Nanak, Kabir, Rumi, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Shirdi Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Sivananda, Gandhi, Abdul Kalam and many others…

All confusion arises because religion, as it is segregated now, is a modern Western concept. The term ‘religio’ was initially used to call various sects of Christianity. During protestant reformation, they actually defined what religion is, and for the first time in the history, religions were defined based on beliefs, rather than way of life. When the word Hindu was first used in colonial period, it was spelt as Hindoo and used strictly as a geographical identity. Terms like Hindoo Christians and Hindoo muslims were very common. : 12 Shocking Truths About Religions

I grew up as a devotee, and due to intense suffering I went through, I surrendered and finally became a spiritual seeker, going through self-inquiry and mindfulness for nearly 12 years. Even before that I was devotee inquiring about life and throughout my life I have always received divine guidance.

I knew this similarity between religions by studying sufism and Christian mysticism, which say the same thing. And I also did a thorough research on life and teachings of Muhammad and Jesus. What happens in today’s world in the name of religions is not what I am pointing to when I say all religions lead to to the same goal; nor am I using this term as a ‘negative terminology’ given by British. The original word for Hinduism was ‘heathens’, and it was changed to Hinduism since it was offensive.

I studied in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Golden Jubilee matriculation school, Sankarnagar and I guess you can see the relationship with Adi Shankara. That school was indeed a blessing. Even if someone is not convinced by my logic when I say the original Islam and the teachings of Muhammad were the same as the paths in our own scriptures, they will be convinced by faith if they go through the story of my life. So it is not that I am talking about Advaita simply after reading some easily available material on the internet; I can backup what I am saying by science (psychology), scriptures and faith. I myself have written a detailed article for beginners about sadhana chatushtaya, the qualifications that you are talking about: What is Advaita Vedanta? – Advaita For Dummies

Since you mentioned Adi Shankara, let me quote from one of my answers:

Adi Shankara has never heard of Hinduism. Hinduism is a modern concept popularized by Irish missionary Charles Grant.

Adi Shankara debated with many people and made them his disciples once they were defeated in the argument. He did not convert anyone as there was no such concept called conversion or even Hinduism.

For your information, he not only refuted some ideas held by Buddhist monks but also refuted many ideas from the school of yoga, samkhya, pancharatra. If he existed today and came up with the same arguments, he would have been called as ‘Anti-Hindu’…

Shankara was not interested in defending any identity. Hinduism is an identity; that is how Hindus see it. But Vedanta that Shankara was teaching is a path.

If Shankara indeed defended Hinduism just like today’s Hindus do, this is how it would have been:

“Shankara: Buddhists are destroying Hinduism. That is because Hindus are not united.

Buddhist: yeah.. so it has got nothing to do with treating Shudras as third class citizens.

Shankara: look who is talking.. the follower of a person who left his wife and children to forest. No sane person would do that.”

But Shankara was not debating like that. He was not a right wing troll. His debates were more like this:

“The purvapakshin (opponent) says that universe orginated from unconscious principle called pradhana. But it is not possible because conciousness cannot arise from something that is unconscious.”

So he was dealing with ideas; not identities.

If he was alive today, it wouldn’t take much to refute the ideas in Christianity, Islam and even within Hinduism which are contradictory to Advaita. His arguments would go more like this, as seen in his commentaries:

“The purvapakshin says that those who reject the message in Quran will go to eternal hell. But it contradicts the idea of the most merciful and most gracious God which is mentioned in Quran itself. “

If you want to get a taste of how his debates sounded like, read his commentaries on Brahmasutras. it is available for free on the internet.

…………………………………………

What I see that is happening in the name of Hinduism today is just a plain hatred towards people of Abrahamic faith, shaking one of the very foundations of what this so called ‘Hinduism’ is based on: tolerance. Shankara was not fighting for a Hindu identity; this equates my Guru Shankara to a right wing troll who mindlessly abuses people without logic. Sorry… Adhi Shankara was not campaigning for BJP; in fact, he criticized many things which we would call today as an aspect of Hinduism.

An article that you may be interested in: Pappankulam – A Village of Brahmins and Four Vedas

12 Shocking Truths About Religions

  1. Religion, understood as something related to ‘beliefs’ is a modern Western concept which did not exist 300 years before. {Nongbri,Brent (2013). Before Religion – A History of a Modern Concept. Yale University}.
  2. Religion as a modern concept arose during Protestant reformation, when many people began to emphasize ‘what they believed in’ more than the kind of life they lived.
  3. None of the religions have a word for ‘religion’ and none of them identified themselves based on beliefs. The religions used a different word to call themselves, which is Dharma in Sanskrit, Deen in Arabic and Halakha in Hebrew. All these words mean ‘Law’ or the way of life. It focuses on a way of life that brings ultimate happiness both to yourself and others.
  4. Hinduism as a religion is a modern concept popularized by Irish missionary Charles Grant in 1787. Before that, no one identified themselves as a ‘Hindu’. So in a sense, Hinduism is the youngest religion on the planet. Dharma was never based on an identity, whereas the modern notion of Hinduism is based on identity.
  5. Most of the attempts to define religion is based on the unconscious assumption that it should sufficiently resemble Protestant Christianity. When people debate about whether a particular ‘ism’ such as Marxism is a religion, they are debating whether it is sufficiently similar to Protestant Christianity.
  6. But essentially, all these so called religious traditions are the offshoots of a central wisdom which developed during axial age (8th to the 3rd century BCE). This was developed by inquiring into the nature of human suffering and finding liberation from it.
  7. The central wisdom of axial age was based on inquiry rather than blind faith. They kind of had their own peer review just like we have in science. Their conclusion about human psychological suffering and the way out of it had more to do with the sense of a separate self in human beings rather than belief in supernatural things.
  8. The central wisdom of axial age found that the key to permanent peace in this life is to get rid of the sense that you are a person or entity that is seperate from the rest of the existence. They found three ways that helped: Mindfulness and insight related practices (Jnana Yoga), practices based on unconditional love and devotion (Bhakti yoga), practices based on doing the required actions without being attached to the results (Karma yoga).
  9. Christianity is pure Bhakti yoga; Islam is a combination of Bhakti and Karma; Buddhism is focused mainly on Jnana. But the mystical traditions of these schools also have Jnana Yoga or practices based on insight.
  10. What we call ‘sanatana dharma’ or Hindu Dharma is a school which recognizes all three methods. It is not polytheistic though; Surrender is not possible with two divinites. So Hinduism as a polytheistic religion is a recent myth; we only had monotheistic schools like Shaivism, Vaishnavism etc.
  11. The various monotheistic schools of Indian subcontinent were connected by a single dharma by Adhi Shankara. Many folk traditions were also creatively absorbed within the context of Dharma and their elements were used as psychological aids. All these schools recognize different divinities as aspects, manifestations and various forms of one Supreme reality. If thought as formless, it is called Nirguna Brahman. If imagined with form, it is Saguna Brahman.
  12. So, all religions, if understood properly, lead to the same goal. This has been repeatedly asserted by people like Guru Nanak, Kabir, Rumi, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Shirdi Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Sivananda, Gandhi, Abdul Kalam and many others.

An article that you may be interested in: Pappankulam – A Village of Brahmins and Four Vedas

Also read:

Why is there so much hate between Hindus and Muslims in India?

Prophet Muhammad Exposed – A Different Perspective That Everyone Should Read

Hinduism and Dharma: The Distinction between a Religion and a Way of Life

Hindu Muslim Unity and Grey Block Illusion

This is called grey block illusion. Even though both blocks appear to have a different color, it is an optical illusion. If you hide the part in the centre, you can see that they have the same color… Hatred and discrimination is also an optical illusion, because it is a plank in your eye that hides your vision; you cannot really recognize a dust from somebody else’s eye. (Matthew 7)…♥️

Also read:

Why is there so much hate between Hindus and Muslims in India?

Prophet Muhammad Exposed – A Different Perspective That Everyone Should Read

Hinduism and Dharma: The Distinction between a Religion and a Way of Life

Here is one more illusion. But it is a deeper topic (The actual optical illusion you see in the image is called ‘the Kanizsa triangle illusion):

An article that you may be interested in: Pappankulam – A Village of Brahmins and Four Vedas

Why is there so much hate between Hindus and Muslims in India?

(Republishing my Quora answer for the same question) …This is going to be a long answer because I want to cover many aspects which are related to Hindu-Muslim disunity and also suggest some solution for that.

Before I answer the question, let me narrate how I grew up and what values I was taught when I was very young:

  1. My first introduction to anything religious happened through Lord Ayyappa, if I try to remember clearly. My father used to wear mala and go to Sabarimala in Kerala every year. Sabarimala is a symbol of religious tolerance, as there is also a shrine of Vavar, a muslim friend of prince Manikandan there. Every Sabarimala devotee has to first go to a mosque of Vavar and offer salutations before having the darshan of Ayyappa. I learned at a very young age how this promotes religious tolerance.
  2. During my first standard, I studied in Presentation convent, Thachanallur. It was a Christian convent and our classroom was very close to a church. I didn’t know anything about Christianity back then; but for me, Jesus was just another God. I didn’t find anything odd in thinking that way.
  3. During my second standard, I lived in Colachel, Tamil Nadu, a town where Hindus are a small minority. Majority of the residents in the town are Christians and Muslims. I studied in a Muslim school where I was the only Hindu in my class. We lived in a big compound owned by a Christian family that had a lot of animals including cows, turkeys, hens etc. The compound was full of bones of animals as the Christian family ate meat regularly. Inside the same compound, a Brahmin family, an old Muslim couple and us lived together like a big family. It was also the time when Babar masjid was demolished. But we all lived very peacefully there. We celebrated all our festivals together.
  4. During my 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th std, I studied in another school in Tittagudi, where I had a close friend called Anbarasan. Their parents had an interesting story. They were Christians; but one day his father wore mala to Sabarimala without his mother’s knowledge. This led their whole family to accept both Christianity and Hinduism. Since I was his close friend, I always went to his house before going to school and used to have a light morning breakfast there. We used to discuss a lot about both religions as my friend was very much devotional.
  5. In 7th standard, I entered a Hindu school, which is Swami Jayendra Sarasvati Swamigal golden jubilee matriculation higher secondary school in Tirunelveli. There were lots of Muslims and Christians there, as their parents didn’t mind their children studying in a Hindu school. They valued the quality of education more than religion. Each day for us began by reciting slokas from Guru Gita, Dakshinamurthy slokam, Saraswati sloka, Shanti mantra etc. On Fridays, we had an hour long Bhajan session and everyone including Hindus and Muslims sang those songs. And here is one of the songs we used to sing:

Govind Bolo Gopal Bolo

Ram Ram Bolo Hari Nam Bolo

Allah Malik Isha Nanak

Zoarastra Mahavir Buddha Nam Bolo

Govind Bolo Gopal Bolo

Ye Nam Sare Hai Jivan Sahare

Paramananand Ke Kholte Hai Dvare

Jo Nam Chaho Vo Nam Bolo

Prem Se Bolo Bhav Se Bolo

Translation:

Sing the glorious names of Govinda, Gopala,

Rama, Hari, Allah, Sai, Jesus, Nanak, Zoroaster,

Mahavir, and Buddha. As companions in life,

they open our hearts to supreme bliss. Chant

the name you choose with love and devotion

There is a small shrine of Vinayaka in front of the house. During every Hindu festival we ate prasad together. We celebrated Holi and Raksha Bandhan together

6. During 10th standard, I studied in a school in Thirumalaiappapuram, a small village in Tirunelveli district in between Pottalpudur and Ravanasamudram which had Muslim majority. We had a lot of muslims there, playing together with Hindus. There is a famous dargah in Pottalpudur where Kandhiri is celebrated by people of all religions.

7. My role models during these days also insisted that all names like Allah and Ishvara were various names for one God. I read about Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, who practiced different religious paths including Sufi Islam and Christian mysticism, attained the same samadhi experience, and proclaimed that all these religions are various paths leading to the same goal. I spoke regarding Ramakrishna and Vivekananda in lectures in my school and won many prizes in competitions conducted by Vivekananda Kendra. I also loved the poems of Bharathiyar, who wrote songs about Jesus and Allah too. I learnt that he had even given a speech about Prophet Muhammad in Pottalpudur dargah during his time.

8. In my personal life, I have had some close Muslim friends. There was a girl called Fathima in my first company who took care of me like a mother. She also fell in love with a Hindu guy and married him. There was also a Fazil Hussain who stood beside me for every problem. In general, I have received lots of love and hospitality from Muslims. So, I have been conditioned to never think that a Muslim or a Christian is an outsider or someone who doesn’t belong to my group or block.

But only when I began to see the kind of comments made by religious extremists online, I woke up to a different reality. The beautiful world of religious tolerance that I saw in school life is now being threatened; I am scared that if we do not act now, we may no longer be able to brag about the unity in diversity in India, after a few generations.

Let us come to the question now. What is the reason for hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India?

The simple reason for any conflict that arises between two groups is In-group favoritism, or in-group–out-group bias:

“In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one’s in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

This effect has been researched by many psychologists and linked to many theories related to group conflict and prejudice. The phenomenon is primarily viewed from a social psychology standpoint. Studies have shown that in-group favoritism arises as a result of the formation of cultural groups. These cultural groups can be divided based on seemingly trivial observable traits, but with time, populations grow to associate certain traits with certain behaviour, increasing covariation. This then incentivises in-group bias.”

We derive our sense of self and ego, not only based on the individual abilities and skills but also based on the group that we belong to. You may be someone who were born just 30-40 years before. But you derive your pride from good things about your culture, and even boast about an ancient ancestor of your group for the good things he did; As a Hindu, you take pride in a temple that was built by someone who lived about 1000 years ago, even though you might not have done anything worthwhile yourself to deserve it. You never had a choice when it comes to where you were born. And you had no idea who your ancestor were 5-6 generations before or what kind of values the great-grandfather of your great-grandfather had. But yet, the very fact that you belong to that group makes you have a sense of superiority.

Then you were told that people from a different group destroyed your temple about 500-600 years before. You also come to know that many people who are identified with that same group indulge in terrorism. You start seeing the world in groups instead of seeing individuals. Just like you derive your pride from your group even though you didn’t do anything to deserve it, you also begin to look down on this ‘other’ group and start to stereotype them. You generalize this whole group, and you somehow tend to think that someone who was born about 30-40 years in that ‘different’ group is responsible for temple destruction and terrorsim. You see him as an outsider.

You know, it is human nature to have some kind of prejudice. But the real maturity is to grow to go beyond that. So, if someone tries to pour fuel into your prejudice or provoke your sense of ego based on your group identity, it is very important to recognize and resist that. Failure to do so is the cause of the growing hatred between Hindus and Muslims.

Do you know what keeps fueling this prejudice? Politics! But unfortunately, even based on politics we create groups. We tend to be married to one political party and be committed to vote for that group for life. We get too defensive when trying to support a political party and we even lose friends because of that. Even based on this answer, people will try to judge me and place me in a political group: a congress supporter, a sickular person, an Anti-hindu etc.

But the reality is, I hate today’s politics and how it is going. I am not attached to any political party or committed to vote them for life. In democracy, I am the king and I do not have to wipe the feet of any politician.

Politicians just play with your emotions to get votes. And you give in. Now, your political leaders become your gurus and authorities. You begin to worship them, blindly support them, kill the spirit of democracy and allow the unity of diversity of this country to be threatened. You fall for it when they act like they are the saviours of your religion, which makes you to neglect the true dharma of this land. You end up worshipping Godse and demonise Gandhi!

A politician openly says in media that Hindu boys should rape Muslim girls. A politician openly declares that Godse, who did nothing but kill a 70 year old man, as a patriot. Most of these politicians say things which are utter nonsense and seems to be lacking real intelligence. Yet, we support them, worship them and try too hard to defend them. And when someone tries to point this out, we try to come with a list of faults from another party, so that your group appears better (which is nothing but fooling ourselves). And when a person who belongs to the ‘other’ group questions it, we stereotype him just based on his Arabic name and troll him.

Yet, when someone asks in Quora if India is becoming intolerant, we have the guts to deny it, because accepting it hurts our self-esteem. So, just to save our self-esteem and pride and to make your people feel better, you start denying the reality and deliberately lie; You close your eyes to the hatred and prejudice. And in order to prove that you country is still tolerant, you come up with examples from other countries to show how we are actually better.

Let us say someone comes to your house and says that there is a lot of garbage in your house and that you should clean it. If you respond by saying, “You know, other houses are worse; you haven’t seen them. They have more garbage than we do”, then you are actually being stupid. There is no reason to look at another house. If your house has even a little garbage, you should attempt to clean it for your own good. But if you remain deaf when someone points that out, you just pave way for more garbage to gather in your house in the future. And soon, it will be worse than other houses.

If you want to know how much poison the minds of people have gathered, just look at the nature of comments on Twitter and Facebook; just see how cheap people get in abusing other people inhumanely, just to save their face and establish their superiority. There are Facebook groups tied to political parties who openly abuse the ‘other’ group members and sometimes I am left speechless and concerned after seeing all that.

The true maturity is the ability to see our own faults and criticize ourselves. We have to take our sense of self less seriously. Pointing out the faults in our own group, acknowledging them and being willing to rectify them is not the same as defaming ourselves or putting ourselves down. It only shows that we are always ready to improve and grow.

There are also two other problems that I would like to point out:

  1. Black and white thinking: Because of too much attachment that we have towards our own culture, we tend to white wash our culture completely; and we tend to ‘black-wash’ another group completely. Caste system? British created it. Sati? That happened because of Muslims.. Our culture? Oh, our culture is golden and there is no fault in our culture at all and never has been. Asram Bapu? He is a Hindu and so I will defend him. Nithyananda? I don’t care how many people he raped; since he is trying to create a Hindu country, I will support him. Raja Raja Chola? Oh, he was a great Hindu king who conquered many countries in South Asia, very peacefully without killing a single human. Did you say Akbar and Shah Jahan were great? Go to Pakistan. We Indians never did anything wrong right from the day God created us, we never suppressed women, we did everything only for good. In fact, the fact that my own grandfather who ran a restaurant in my village had a separate room for dalits, separate bucket to wash their hands etc is something that happened because of some evil ‘outside’ influence. Yes, none of our scriptures have any defects while all other scriptures of the world are complete nonsense.. And people like Rumi, Kabir, etc never existed because nothing good can actually come from the ‘other’ group. This way of thinking is sickness and it needs medicine. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa? Since he said that all religions lead to the same truth, he must be deluded or someone who never existed. (I was told that I am living in a fool’s paradise just because I said the same thing). Have you ever bothered to check why some people say that all religions lead to the same goal? Have you ever bothered to understand why Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi spoke good things about Islam and Christianity? Are you aware that Shirdi sai baba was both a Muslim fakir and a Hindu saint? We are drinking too much alcohol! No, not the ones which are sold in bars; The name of this alcohol is ‘pride’ and it is too intoxicating.
  2. Conformity: The group we belong to and identify with gives us a sense of belonging. So, we try to unconsciously conform to the norms of our own group. We tend to agree with what the members of our own group say, and this takes precedence over logic or ethics. Because, when our self-esteem is threatened, our mind is willing to compromise on logic and ethics. This is a fact in psychology; but the true maturity is to see through that and go beyond that. Guess what, we are not doing that! We simply tend to support someone’s opinion just because they belong to our group, especially if that opinion shows our group in a favourable way and puts down the other. That is like eating chocolate for us. I have seen many intelligent people simply agreeing to things just to conform. And Quora or any social media platform that signals an acceptance by your group members through upvotes and shares acts as a perfect breeding ground for all this.

How to increase Hindu – Muslim unity?

Hindus need to take the first step for that. Why Hindus? Because, we are the ones who claim that we are tolerant than the others. It is our Dharma which teaches that the world is one family. Rather than asking a different group to be tolerant with us and be peaceful us, we need to set an example by doing the first step. Only by seeing examples, other people get inspired. When you make religious tolerance as the highest value to conform to, people from other religions will also start to conform to those values. As I said, conformity is something natural to humans.

What we call as Hinduism is a huge library. And we have a huge list of saints who are important. On the other hand, Islam has just one central holy book and just one important Prophet with whom all of them all emotionally connected. So, even to compare Hinduism and Islam and argue which one is better is very unfair. It is like a huge army with thousands of weapons fighting with a single man who has a small knife. Who has to be more generous here?

You can very easily insult a person who practices Islam. Just cherry pick the so called ‘sword’ verses from Quran and ignore all the verses in the Quran that says things like ‘there should be no compulsion in religion’, or ‘If you kill one human, it is like killing the whole of humanity’. Pick some controversial verses from Hadiths that were written more than a hundred years after the death of Muhammad and use those verses to portray Islam as completely evil. Most importantly, ignore all the verses which are good. On top of that, try to insult the only person that they revere and put him down by calling him with abusive names, without caring about the historicity. Don’t worry, the whole world is with you when you do that.. Many people will come and agree with you and even rejoice at the insults that you are passing. And when you do this, forget about the claim that your religion is tolerant.

Because, the beauty of stupidity is that you can have double standards. On the one hand you can claim that your religion is very tolerant, generous, and forgiving; on the other hand you can go down to any level of intolerance to put down the ‘other’ groups and rejoice in making fun of them. Why should you care about the feelings of an innocent harmless Muslim who is already too scared about the hell fire and is in a dilemma? Why should you have any compassion to any Muslim to help him deal with his cognitive dissonance? After all, 600 years before someone from their group destroyed a temple and somewhere in the world, a sick-minded terrorist is bombing people; and this innocent Muslim is responsible for all of that!

There is an intelligent priest in Quora, an expert in Pancharatra and Mimamsa and a ‘proud’ Shudra, who actually contributes to pouring fuel in this glowing fire of intolerance. I like most of his answers. He is never abusive himself and is a very nice person. But one thing he does is, constantly cater to the needs of some extremist Hindus who are looking for some dose in the alcohol of superiority. Whenever Islam is put down, many people who are looking for this dose rejoice and upvote. And, probably the priest also gets some comfort because now he conforms to the opinions of a particular group and his need for the sense of belonging is satisfied. Who cares about a different perspective on Islam? The world has already made up their mind about it and we can all join in the chorus. Well, while this does absolutely nothing to stop terrorisim and obviously cannot undo the calamities which has happened in the past, it continues to spoil the ‘proud’ people. May be the priest doesn’t know what is happening in India or doesn’t care about the politician who said that Hindu boys should rape Muslim girls or that Godse is a patriot (After all, these politicians are Hindus, right?).

Please remember. It is the comparison of religions (to feel superior) that makes the differences and gaps in humanity larger and larger. Dharma is a path; it is not an identity. The focus of Dharma is to ensure the well-being of yourself and others. If you want to brag, please pick something else. Buy fancy clothes and post your pictures on Instagram, write beautiful and useful answers on Quora and enjoy the pride of being appreciated, go to the gym and build a six-pack to show off, play cricket and impress others etc. But do not touch dharma! Dharma is not for you to brag.

OK. Now, let me tell you about my views on Muhammad; This may help you to get a different perspective:

  1. Historians agree that we can’t be sure about Muhammad’s life at all. The only thing we can say for sure is the fact that a person called Muhammad existed.
  2. But they do agree that Islam improved the status quo of the pre-Islamic society. Islamic society was an improvement of what was existing.
  3. We also know that Muhammad was invited to be a mediator in Medina to handle religious intolerance. It is not an opportunity that some cruel bigot can get.
  4. If a person is cruel and he is just after power and money, there is no reason for him to promote charity, welfare of orphans etc or even name his religious doctrine as ‘Islam’ which is a word related to peace and surrender. There is no reason why there should be even a sentence in Quran that says that there should be no compulsion in religion.
  5. Human beings are not generally good in judging others. We really do not know another person. Trying to judge a person who lived about 1500 years ago based on some bits and pieces of information that we have is not going to work out.
  6. No human being is perfect; so I am pretty sure that Muhammad was not a perfect man either.

Also, please understand this: A human being’s behavior, personality, moral sense etc strictly depends on two things: Nature and nurture. Pre-Islamic society was very backwards and this was the society that Muhammad was brought up in. Now ask yourself these three questions:

  1. If you had been born in 5th century Arabia, what kind of person would you be?
  2. If Muhammad with his same genetic make up is born in today’s world in a developed country, what kind of person he would be?
  3. If Muhammad was born in 5th century India instead of Arabia, what kind of person he would have been?

Place Muhammad in his own time and in his own society. Before you try to judge him, place him in the stage where he belongs to. So, abusing Muhammad in an attempt to criticize Islam is not only unfair, it will only make you as a ‘hater’ in the eyes of Muslims. As soon as you talk ill about Muhammad, all the ears will be closed and you can’t expect any open-mindedness from the other side, even if you want to engage in some healthy discussion. At least, try to understand human psychology.

Now, my views about Islam:

  1. Islam means ‘submission’ or surrender to the supreme God. This concept of surrender exists in all religions. For me, this is the only criteria that defines a Muslim. In that sense, I am a Muslim too.
  2. Allah is just another word for God or Ishvara. I am not too obsessed with names. Also, this is what Ramakrishna, Kabir, Rumi, Vivekananda, Gandhi etc taught me. And the opinion of a modern Godse fan or Savarkar’s fan cannot change that. (By the way, Savarkar praised Nazism and he said that Indians should do the same thing to Muslims. So, I think any political party that is associated with this guy is evil).
  3. I reject the concept of eternal hell because it contradicts with Quran itself. I think the idea of hell and heaven were only brought to control the order of society based on fear. These ideas were first popularized by Plato.
  4. Quran says, ‘everywhere you turn, there is a face of God’. So, as long as you see the face of God in an idol, it is not shirk.
  5. I do not agree that Muhammad is the last messenger of God. In fact, Muhammad was considered as seal of Prophets, which seem to indicate that Muhammad concluded and finalized the teachings of specific prophets accepted by Jews and Christians.
  6. I do not agree with Sharia laws and I think most of them are outdated.
  7. I am completely against the cruel blasphemy laws, killing people in the name of faith or anything that is unethical, which is done in the name of Islam.

I do not have to abuse Muhammad or totally blackwash Islam to say all that. And I am pretty sure that we can come up with a list of problematic aspects in many religious scriptures of many religions.

When you come across any idea from any religion, there are only two simple questions to ask:

  1. Is it rational?
  2. Is it ethically correct?

If yes, accept it; if no discard it. This was the simple message of Mahatma Gandhi.

Hindu-Muslim conflicts are caused when we see these religions as an identity. But we don’t have to. We can discuss independant ideas without worrying about which religion it comes from.

Please remember.. You cannot make a person to leave his religion by condemning his religion. This has never worked. Most of the conflicts in religions have been resolved by syncretism and exchange of ideas. Even Shankaracharya united six different traditions under Vedantic philosophy by fusion of ideas and not by completely condemning any tradition. In fact, Muhammad himself did exactly that to unite the people of Arabia under a common law.

If you want to look at Islam from different perspective, please read this: Prophet Muhammad Exposed – A Different Perspective That Everyone Should Read

There is also a difference between Hinduism and Dharma. We have all been misled on that. Please read this to know more: Hinduism and Dharma: The Distinction between a Religion and a Way of Life.

Also read Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi and Other Non-Muslims on Muhammad, Islam and Quran

10 Things that BJP, RSS, and Hindutva Bhakts Should Understand

My answer in Quora to the question “What message do you have for BJP Bhakts?”:

BJP as a party is nothing but a collection of people; that applies to any party. Parties are like human societies on their own with human beings with a variety of personalities.

Since good and bad people and stupid and intelligent people are randomly distributed among a group of people, it would be unwise to categorize an entire group as good or bad. It would be unwise to also categorize all members of any party with a specific label, like ‘bhakts’.

But still, there is a distinct group of BJP supporters whom you can identify as bhakts. They can be identified by specific traits, thought patterns, way of responding to criticisms etc.

The most important characteristic feature that sets them apart is that they do not know how to argue anything with logic; they are logically handicapped! This handicap varies by degrees from person to person.

In fact, such bhakts exists in every party, but BJP seems to have a large number of them, at least as far as I have observed. And, I do have a lot of things to say to them; in order to help them to get more healthy attitude towards reality and the world. So, here are my messages to them:

1. You don’t have to save Hinduism


It is typical for many BJP bhakts to act as the saviours of Hinduism. I would like to quote from my recent answer, to the question “How can Hinduism be saved in India?”

There are two kinds of people who follow any religion:

People who consider their religion as a path to walk.
People who consider their religion as an identity.
People who consider their religion as a path do not worry about saving their religion. They are happy about the fact that they have a path to walk on and they teach that path to their children. They try to understand the true essence of the scriptures. They consider love towards humanity and God as more important than anything else.

But people who take religions as an identity are the self-proclaimed saviours of those religions. For them, religion is not a matter of love, but a matter of pride. They are concerned about nourishing their ego with religion. Most of the self- proclaimed saviours of Hinduism haven’t read even Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads and have no idea about the essence of their religion. In the name of saving their religion, all they do is breed hatred. As far as I have seen, they seem to be dangerous because their attitude is anti-Hindu.

But anyway, saying that Hinduism needs to be saved is like the biggest insult to Hinduism. Come on? You really think that a library of thousands of books can be destroyed by just two books, the Bible and the Quran?

Whatever that makes sense will continue to grow and make sense to people. Whatever gives importance to love and humanity will flourish. Anything that is anti-humanity will eventually be destroyed in the world. So saving Hinduism is not your responsibility! You following the religion and understanding the essence of it is the greatest service you can do to Hinduism.

If you are still worried about saving Hinduism, I suggest you read Gita 4.7:

yada yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata

abhyutthanam adharmasya tadatmanam srjamyaham.

Meaning: whenever there is decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, I will manifest myself on earth!

Then why do you worry? Lack of faith, may be?[1]

Criticisms cannot destroy Hinduism; because, Hinduism itself is a culture which has enormous literature filled with criticisms of various schools of thought.

Even if all the temples are destroyed, it will only be a loss of property ( a huge loss, of course) and not a loss for Hinduism as a religion. Because we have the agama literature, the science which deals with creating temples. The sad part is, any attempt to understand agamas is totally ignored among these Hindu saviors. I recommend reading Rami Sivan ‘s answers to know more about agamas and other scriptures. He is a walking encyclopedia of agamas.

2) Vedic scriptures do not have modern science or technology

It is true that ancient Indians had a lot of scientific temper and made some significant contributions to science. But, even those contributions get overlooked or ignored when bhakts claim that Vedas talk about atomic structure, particle physics, quantum mechanics and nuclear weapons.

By claiming these things, you are not only making the real contributions to fade away but you are also insulting the scriptures themselves. Because scriptures such as Upanishads and Gita are filled with tons of spiritual wisdom, which can transform your life if understood properly. They show a path to supreme bliss! Ignoring all that wisdom, when you talk as if Vedas are science journals, you begin to look like a joker.

I have gone through major Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and some Gitas that most of the bhakts haven’t even heard of, like Ashtavakra Gita, Ribhu Gita, Avadhuta Gita, Bhoothanatha Gita etc. I see the transformative quality of these texts and that remains unnoticed because people are already creating aversion towards our scriptures by claiming extra-ordinary and baseless things.

You need to really stop doing that! Because, when I try to convince some hardcore atheists about the importance of these scriptures, I see a lack of open-mindedness, which is nothing but a direct consequence of such an illogical behaviour. Please refer Raziman T.V. (റസിമാൻ ടി.വി.) answers in which he has debunked such claims.

3) We all came from the outside

Hindu nationalists want to believe that everything originated from India. This is not a positive trait to have but it is the result of intoxicated pride.

These people would often confuse between Aryan invasion theory and Aryan migration theory. It is true that Aryans never invaded and that Aryan invasion theory was proved to be false. But it is so true that Aryans migrated from Steppes; the Aryan migration theory is true.

We not only have strong evidence for it, but it is obvious even if you read our scriptures. Migration was the nature of Aryans. For six months they would migrate, and for six months covering the winter season, they would settle down. It was called yoga and kshema respectively. When we look at the history, we can see that first the Vedic civilization thrived in the West of India, then it slowly occupied Kuru kingdom near Punjab, then moved to Ganges valley and flourished with urban culture and spiritual wisdom when it finally covered the North eastern part of India. The whole movement has a direction, from North West to South East. But apart from this, there are tons of archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence.

But BJP and other Hindutva-inclined parties have some talented speakers who speak skillfully in trying to prove that Indians actually migrated from India and moved to different parts of the world. For someone who is naive, it may sound extraordinary. But if you get more awareness on how historical method and research works, you will start seeing the truth.

This is not to say that Dravidians were initial inhabitants of Indian subcontinent. Australoids and Negritos were here before them. Dravidians moved from mediterranean, and interbred with the earlier inhabitants to form the ancestral South Indian population. But now we all have mixed genes. No one is Dravidian or Aryan, everyone are just Indians.

Every one of us can trace their home back to Africa anyway; all divisions of language and culture came much later!

4) Sanskrit is not the oldest language in the world.

I love Sanskrit and I have been learning it for the past three years. Now I can speak and express almost anything in Sanskrit (not fluent though), read simple Sanskrit stories, write Sanskrit poems and more. But neither Sanskrit nor Tamil is the oldest language in the world; they can’t be! (My mother tongue is Tamil, by the way).

Languages evolved 150,000 years ago. No language can exist for 150,000 years without becoming extinct or transforming into a different language. So none of the languages spoken today is the oldest; they all descended from a parent language. We don’t even know what people spoke some 12,000 years ago. That was when people first started to settle down and do farming and that was when a major part of anything close to a modern language could have evolved. Because, that is when people started trading and communicating extensively.

Sanskrit descended from proto-Indo-Aryan language and Tamil descended from Pro-Dravidian language. It is true that they are hypothetical, but it is a fact that both must have descended in some parent language anyway. There is no way that such a highly advanced language like Tamil or Sanskrit can be the same as the language that humans spoke before they settled down in one place. If you understand the basics of linguistics, you will know how dumb the ‘oldest language’ claims are.

5) Historical research is not biased

There may be biased historians anywhere, but the general consensus among historians all over the world that is achieved by rigorous teamwork and peer review is not biased.

I am saying this because I recently noticed a meme shared by bhakts. It also received a lot of ‘lol’ reactions, implying how stupid those historians were. The meme said something like , “Jesus and Muhammad are historical persons, but Durga, Ganesh and Ram are not historical”.

These people simply do not understand how historical research works. The historians who say this also agree that Abraham and Moses were not historical. The only two incidents which have been agreed to be true widely by historians in Jesus’s life are his baptism by John and his crucifixion. Durga and Ganesh are forms of God intended for meditations and worship, and their stories are intended to convey spiritual wisdom symbolically. They cannot be considered as historical figures. There is no reference to Rama outside the various versions of Ramayana in ancient literature (which doesn’t reduce the significance of Ramayana in anyway or undermine its essential message). And obviously, no historian would dare to say that Muhammad really ascended to heaven, even though the fact that a person called Muhammad existed is completely and undeniably true.

Every conclusion has reasons. They are promptly explained by historians in historical journals and publications. You can argue with logic, but don’t argue simply driven by emotions.

So, bhakts! you neither understand how historical research works nor understand the purpose of mythology or epics in Hinduism. Just cool down, people who know stuff in India will take care of raising India’s pride. Keep quiet and let them speak.

6) Gandhi is not a demon and Godse is not a hero

The disastrous opinion that Gandhi was bad and deserved to be killed has poisoned a lot of these bhakts.

In seventh standard, we had a lesson about Gandhi in English. My English teacher gave me a nickname ‘Gandhi’ because I also had bad handwriting like him, was very shy like him, and left school as soon as the school closed just like he did. But later I got a lot of interest in him and read his autobiography. He is the real inspiration to every Hindu!

Gandhi was not a perfect person; no one is! Every human being is fallible, but tries his best to reach his highest potential in all dimensions. Did Gandhi strive to achieve the highest dimension in his life? Was he a seeker of truth, peace and harmony? He most certainly was! Please set your biased and preconceived notions about Gandhi and learn true history of him from people like Balaji Viswanathan (பாலாஜி விஸ்வநாதன்) and Awdhesh Singh (Quora user) .

7) Logic matters

If you really like this culture, you must stand true to the values of this culture. Logic and reasoning is one of the core values of this land. Nyaya shastra, one of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism deals extensively with logic. All Acharyas including Adhi Shankara followed the logical of Nyaya shastras in their commentaries, criticisms and debates. Adhi Shankara criticized even Pancharatra agama and yoga, without a single logical fallacy that went against Nyaya shastra. (Now we have modern informal logical which will teach you how to speak with logic.)

But it is sad to see that the comments of these Bhakts are filled with logical fallacies like ad hominem, whataboutism etc. Just google ‘informal logical fallacies and you will discover a lot of mistakes that you make when you are engaged in any heated argument. I won’t be surprised if someone asks ‘what about Congress’ in the comment section or call me anti-Hindu. This simply means that you don’t have anything valid to say, logically, to refute whatever that I have said.

8) Being devoted to a political party is not democracy

This applies to everyone, no matter what party they support. But there is too much attachment to BJP for all these BJP bhakts. For them, the only crime there is in the world is to criticize BJP or the ideas spread by the party members.

If you become committed to vote for one party for your entire life, you have forgotten the true meaning of democracy. If you want to be unbiased in your voting, you must drop your attachments and devotion to political parties and deriving your identity or self-image from them. It is not good for the country.

Bhakts have gone one step further by creating a cult of personality around Modi. There are some bhakts who even built a temple for Modi. I listened to Modi once and I liked his speech. He explained the difference between criticism and allegation and how criticism is healthy for democracy. But why are bhakts too intolerant to any healthy criticism? Because of their devotion and attachment.

9) You are misinformed about Muslims and Christians

Because of the ways of divide and rule by politicians, we are slowly forgetting what being an Indian means. The beauty and significance of India is in the unity in diversity; India is the opportunity to prove to the world that people of major religions of the world can live together without conflict. But because of our huge trust in politicians, we are slowly building up aversion towards other religions and its people. From some Facebook groups and their posts, it is very clear that this aversion is growing day by day.

First, it is a misconception to believe that Islam was brought by Mughal rulers and Christianity was brought here by British. Christianity entered South India almost a century after Jesus and Islam entered South India almost a century or two after Muhammad, Their descendants are still living in Kerala.

Second, both Christianity and Islam have mystic schools which share the same essence as Hinduism. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa went through the spiritual practices of both of those traditions independently and concluded that they all lead to the same goal, moksha! We have numerous saints like Kabir, Shirdi Sai baba etc and wonderful personalities like Mahatma Gandhi, Abdul kalam, Poet Bharathiyar etc who understood that the true essence of Islam and Christianity is the same as the essence of Hinduism. (98% of Christians and Muslims do not know this. So do not ask me whether they would accept what I say). Anyway, I have written more about this in my book “Discovering God: Bridging Christianity, Hinduism and Islam”.

If you think that people of other religions are wrong about something, engage in a healthy, logical debate with them. To do that, you must be strong in logic and scriptural knowledge yourself. A Christian reads the Bible everyday, a Muslim reads the Quran everyday; how many of you read the Gita everyday? How many of you are capable of handling any criticism with logic, instead of resorting to name calling and logical fallacies?

We are living in a world in which things that make sense will survive the test of time and things which are nonsensical will get discarded eventually. If your arguments are logically strong, there is no need to be concerned about any criticism.

10) I am not an anti-Indian or anti-Hindu.

A typical behaviour of bhakts is to label anyone who criticizes BJP as anti-Hindu or anti-Indian. I hope you understand why that is dumb, based on what we have discussed so far. So, let us be mature, shall we?

%d bloggers like this: