RAJARAM EPISODE

[nanda chandran]

>This is not relevant. I know of Hindus who have married Muslims:
>does this mean that Islam is Hindu?

To make such a statement you must either be ignorant or arguing just
for the sake of the argument.

Is the Hindu-Muslim union blessed by tradition? There are Vaishnava
JainAs who if they do not find a suitable match within their own circles,
will marry Vaishnava Hindus as the next alternative - they overlook other
JainAs even.

In matrimonial alliances, Hindus might even accept Christians but Muslims
are on the other extreme end of the spectrum and such union will have little
support from the community. Note a recent article by Tavleen Singh in "India
Today", where she pointed out an incident where a Hindu girl abducted and
"married" by a Muslim youth, were both beaten to death by a Hindu mob.

As I said before, mere knowledge of Sanskrit or Indian literature will not
enable one to truly understand intricacies of the Hindu psyche. Even if you
lived in India, understand that there are things that people will not say
explicitly - but still their actions will be guided by these unspoken
attitudes.

>This is not at all "common knowledge", but a theological view of
>things that is not supported by historical research that is not a
>priori committed to such a theological view.

>This is not relevant, even if it were completely true (which it is not).

>This sweeping generalisation is not supported by reality.

I guess we've to take your word - the word of a non-Indian - for it!

>I am also disappointed to note that apparently you are not aware that there
>are Hindus and Hindus, just as there are Jainas and Jainas (etc.), and that
>this lack of awareness apparently motivates you to make vehement
>irresponsible statements in this forum.

The problem is that you're trying to whittle down the differences between
the "Hindus" and highlighting the differences between the "Hindus" and the
JainAs. Both these positions are inherently flawed. Neither are all the
"Hindus" alike nor are the JainAs totally different from the Hindus.
Actually the differences between JainAs and certain sects of "Hindus" might
be much slighter than differences between other sects of "Hindus". One of my
friend's - an Iyer - wife is a Gujarati JainA, though born and brought up in
Madras. Being vegetarian and from a Sanskritic background (that she could
give a flawless rendering of Soundaryalahari was one of the points in
her favor in the eyes of my friend's parents) she effortlessly moved in as
the daughter-in-law of the brahmin household. This transition might not have
been so smooth nor the match accepted, if she had been from other sects of
Hinduism.

The differences between JainAs and "Hindus" is not greatly different from
the differences between smarthas, Vaishnavas, Madhvas, ShAktAists,
Saiva Siddanthists etc. But when you bring in the Islamic factor, the JainAs
merge into the "Hindu" fold, since like the Hindus they too suffered the
same fate at the hands of fanatic iconoclasts and quite likely, for the
Islamic conquerors they were never identified as an entity apart from the
Hindu majority (which infact might have protected them from being singled
out).

>"Truth and integrity." Na j;naanena sad.r;sam, as the motto of
>Mysore University goes. Advancement of knowledge, as is the
>motto of Calcutta University. Your "facts" are not facts, hence there
>can be no question here of "pot-shots at Hinduism".

Given your line of reasoning, I somehow find this hard to believe.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.