Nobel prize winner on Indian identity

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

That was a funny article by Prof Amartya Sen. I see that kind of stuff in
daily news papers in India, nothing 'nobel' quality in it.

>There are three distinct issues here:
>(1) The first is not concerned with history at all....Even if it were >the
>case that Indian history were primarily Hindu history, we still >would have
>to determine how a pluralist..

The first point by Prof Amartya Sen was about "what India should be" under
the current constitution. I fully respect the constitution, and it is a
taboo to think about future. But unfortunately changes do happen, mostly for
economic reasons and everything is a cycle (Prof Sen as an economist should
know better than us). That is the reason why civilizations change hats from
anarchy to dictatorship to communism to democracy to capitalism to.

Afghanistan was a multi religious country and even today it has minorities,
then why is it an Islamic country now? Was'nt India an Islamic state under
Akbar? Was'nt Shivaji a Hindu raja as he called himself in the modern sense
of the word Hindu at least limited to the area ruled by him? Why this
denial?

Can I say that India was not a colonized state before 1857 because there
still some minor kings and queens who were holding out against the British?

>(2) The second point is more historical. India has been a multi-
>religious country for a very long time. ...Also pre-Muslim India was >not,
>as it is sometimes claimed, mainly a Hindu country, since >Buddhism was the
>dominant religion

Whoever said "mainly a Hindu country" did not use the word "exclusively".
Therefore that person was right! This is a non-issue. Does he Prof Sen imply
that the people he terms as Hindus were in "minority" in pre-muslim India?

>(3) I come now to the third reason ... Hindus are defined in 2 quite
>distinct ways

Which are those two? I suppose he means "ethnic" and "belief" as I
understand from later wording. I like to see a hypothesis stated first and
proven next. Do I have to cull out the hypothesis from a proof?

>When the number of Hindus is counted, and it is established that the >vast
>majority of Indians are in fact Hindu, this is not a counting of >religious
>belief, but essentially of ethnic background. But when >generalizations are
>made about, say, the divinity of Rama, or the >sacred status of the
>Ramayana, beliefs are involved.

Does he indirectly shows a disinterest in belief based method? If so, then
Hindus are ethnic and one should not count religious belief. That means
people living in India who think Rama as divine and also people who think
Allah (peace be to the world) as divine are both Hindus(!).. Can I say so?
Or does he mean that "believing in Rama's divinity" is not a worthy belief,
but believing in divinity of other religions is only a worthy belief?

>For a large proportion of the Hindus, however, that attribution would >be
>just a mistake, since millions of people who are defined as Hindu >in the
>first approach do not share these beliefs which is central to >the second
>approach. Indeed, by making this attribution, the >champions of Hindu
>politics undermine the rich tradition of hetero

Hai (mythical or historical but not divine) Ram!

So what is this "richness" of tradition "without" a belief about the
greatness of an object of worship or adoration?  Can I claim a "rich"
Sankaran tradition by saying Sankara was just an ordinary advaitist on the
street? Is a figure like "Rama" only great when he is mythical or historical
but not divine? I am confused!

Regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com