Are Christian and Muslim nations ok and Hindu nations not?

I wonder who influences whom: the Indian mainstream journalists the foreign correspondents or the other way round, as they always hold the same view. Or is there even a directive from the top of the media houses about who must be protected and who can be abused?

Obviously, Hindus can be abused. I recently checked articles in major newspapers like the New York Times on the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a ‘Hindu nation’ where minorities have no place. The articles peddled untruths and drew unacceptable conclusions. The Swiss NZZ for example wrote that it is hardly possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.

A Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called ‘liberal’ media. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh blasphemy laws. Why are these ok, and a Hindu nation is not ok? They don’t explain; they just insinuate that minorities (read Muslims and Christians) will suffer in a Hindu nation.

Maybe they came to this conclusion because minorities like Jews or Hindus suffer in certain Christian or Muslim nations though the media hardly pulls those countries up for it. However, even otherwise, this conclusion is wrong, as Hindus have a different mind-set. They are open towards other views, unlike ‘good’ Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.

Hindus cannot be put into one single box. There are too many different ways to reach the goal of life. As it were, there are many minorities within Hinduism. But they all are based on the Vedic insight that everything, including our persons, is permeated by the same divine essence which is called by many names but is ultimately ONE. Our human consciousness (Atman) is one with the cosmic consciousness (Brahman) and to realize this, is the goal and fulfillment of life. “Satyam vada, Dharmam chara” the Veda exhorts – speak the truth and do what is right under the given circumstances. And find out who you really are: you are not a separate entity but in the depths of your being one with all.

From this follows that ‘good’ Hindus are those rare human beings whose dharma makes them regard all others as brothers and sisters. Their dharma makes them further respect nature and not harm unnecessarily any living being.

Hindus do not, unlike Christians and Muslims, divide humanity into those who are chosen by God and those who are eternally damned. Hindu children are not taught to look down on those who are not Hindus, unlike children of the dogmatic religions who are taught that their God does not love those others unless they join their ‘true’ religions.

Hindus are also comparatively kinder to animals. The great bulk of vegetarians worldwide are Hindus.

Hindus never fought crusades or jihads to establish their dharma in foreign lands. In fact, they didn’t need to, because they convinced most of Asia merely by solid arguments.  Yet, for the past thousand years Hindus were at the receiving end of jihads and conversion campaigns and millions of Hindus were killed in cold blood because they were Hindus.

It has to be held in favour of Hindus that they held on to their tradition and did not succumb to the pressure and even violence brought on them to adopt blind belief that only one particular person has revealed the full truth. Instead, they continued trusting their sages who never asked for blind belief, but asked to verify their insights through experience.

So why do media worldwide get so worked up about ‘Hindu fundamentalists’ and a possible ‘Hindu nation’. What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.

The concept of Divinity is also different. For Hindus the best description for the absolute truth is sat-chit-ananda (it is true, aware and blissful). The many personal gods help the devotee to realize the Absolute. Christians and Muslims perceive Divinity in its highest form as a personal, superhuman entity who is jealous of other gods. The first commandment in Christianity and a very important issue in Islam is the claim that nobody must worship other gods except the ‘one true god’, which both religions claim is only with them.

In all likelihood the Hindu view comes closer to truth. When the first translations of Vedic texts appeared in the west, the greatest minds in Europe were greatly impressed by Indian thought. It did spread among scientists, too, who used it to push the frontiers of science further. It is no coincidence that modern science discovered that all is one energy after Vedanta became known in the west. It is also no coincidence that the Church lost much of its power in Europe when some of India’s wisdom filtered down to the masses

Why then are the media worldwide so worried about a nation where the Hindu roots are fostered? Where Sanskrit is taught, which is the most perfect, dignified, powerful language on earth and which is useful even for NASA? Where yoga is practised in schools, which is an ideal means for all-round development and which, on a deeper level, helps to find fulfilment in live? Where Vedic philosophy is studied, which inspired the new scientific discoveries for example in nuclear physics? Where the amazing wisdom of Mahabharata and Ramayana becomes common knowledge, which is already taught in business seminars abroad? Where children chant “Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu” (let all be happy) instead of Humpey dumpey, which happens already in certain schools in the west?

Yet as soon as Hindus make suggestions for India to keep its Hindu character or rather, to gain back its Hindu character, as even after Independence, the youth was encouraged to abandon it, there is an outcry by the media that “Hindu fundamentalists” want to make India a Hindu nation and exclude religious minorities. Ironically, ‘Hindu’ is a geographical term, with the same root as Indian – people who lived beyond the Sindu or between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean.

So why would Indians who rather recently converted to Islam or Christianity not be proud of the achievements of their ancestors? India was the cradle of civilization, a knowledge hub and the richest country on earth. It was known for its wisdom. Greeks, including Pythagoras, are said to have come to India for knowledge and today everybody knows his name, but not the name of the Indian mathematician (Baudhayana) who originally discovered the Pythagoras theorem. Surely Christians and Muslims cannot have any objection that students are taught this fact or the fact that the Rishis of the Rig Veda (10.22.14) knew many thousand years before Copernicus that the earth goes around the sun. Surely they also cannot have any objection that students chant “May all be happy” in Sanskrit, the language of their forefathers. If someone calls such teaching communal it is malicious. If someone objects to this teaching, should not he be shouted at by the media instead of those who want to revive their ancient culture? Is not he the one who tries to divide society and not those who say “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (all is one family) due to their philosophical outlook?

Hindus are the exemplary role model for ‘how not to exclude others’? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to realize this fact.

Why then are Hindus of all people accused of excluding others?

The reason may be this: neither the west nor Muslim countries want a strong India.  India was the cradle of civilisation and over most of the known history economically very powerful. They may fear that based on her ancient culture, India may rise again to the top. Is it the media’s job to put Hindus perpetually on the defensive by spreading this bogey of Hindu fundamentalism and prevent a better education policy which would give India an edge?

“Imagine, India would become a Hindu nation!” the media shout infuriated. The problem, however, is that they don’t imagine it and don’t ask basic questions. If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe for harmony and peace in the world.

One day, when people have become tired of blindly believing strange things, and when nobody is threatened any longer with dire consequences if he stops believing in those strange things, the world may be grateful to Bharat Mata that she has conceived and preserved over millennia those eternal, precious insights for the benefit of humanity.

By Maria Wirth

PS: I thought the above article was clear, but since some comments argue that a Hindu nation is not secular, a few more points:

A Hindu nation has no blasphemy laws.

There is not one way but many different ways to connect with and worship the Divine. Yet truth naturally is One. It is ‘That What Is’. It is not a mental concept contained in a book.

Questioning the different paths is not forbidden, but encouraged.

In short, common sense and one’s own conscience are not suspended in favour of a doctrine that needs to be blindly believed.

 

It is no coincidence that secularism was ‘invented’ in the west to keep the influence of Christianity out from the state. When the term ‘secularism’ was introduced in the Indian constitution, right at that time there was the need to scrap the different personal laws based on religions. It was not done. So India is not secular in the original meaning of the term.

Hindu is basically a geographical term, as mentioned in the article.

It would be beneficial, if other nations copied the open-minded Hindu approach.

So the answer to the question posed in the title, would be:

Hindu nations (based on the eternal principles of the ancient Indian tradition) are ok and Christian and Muslim nations (based on fixed, unverifiable, must believe dogmas) are not.

Maria Wirth

Advertisements

174 comments

  1. Maria is trying to Christianize or Islamize Hinduism …! India is a country where Hindus and other minorities are present . This is a secular nation because all of us (our ancestors) fight bravely for getting freedom . Our National leaders have made a decision that the rights of all people groups will be honored in the newly formed nations . This nation should follow the directives made by the fathers of this nation. Untied we will stand , divided we will fall. Fundamentalism is against the concept of modern India . All nations in the world can follow this concept , “Unity in diversity ” , the motto of modern India , which is highly rooted in Hinduism. But you don’t want to talk about it instead take the old concept of polarizing nations based on religion.

    1. You seem to have missed the point..how can you claim the author is trying to christianize Hinduism? Her point is, Hinduism is inherently secular and secularism would be better served in a Hindu country than in a Christian or Muslim country. She has expressed surprise that the media accepts it without battling an eyelid when Cameron describes England as a Christian country or America is described as a Christian country but works itself up to a lather when India is described as a Hindu country.

      1. Thank you

    2. Hahahahahaha. Who according to you are the fathers (plural, do you even have some sense to think what it means) of THIS nation?
      And can you please tell me about the directives or whatever they are that you are blabbering about? Can you think deeply and tell me ‘On what basis did the so Called FATHERS of this nation arrive at such directives’??????
      Can the fathers of some Islamic nations also arrive at similar directives on Secularism?

    3. thevoiceofindian · · Reply

      you are totally ignorant of her entire writing in the sense that you’re entirely saying what her view is in a tone of opposition!

  2. i.am.krishnam · · Reply

    Indian Independence Movement was not about a free Hindu nation. Also Independent India was not about a Hindu Nation. The participants of Indian Independence Movement were Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and so on. The constitution of India states India a secular state. The notion of making India a Hindu nation is a hypocrisy by radical HIndutva proponents and some Hindu intellectuals because they fear intellectual dialogue with respect to religion and about God. So, India cannot be a Hindu Nation. So, this emotional and illogical appeal is not rational but I doubt it has an hidden agenda. And also see who has promoted this?

    1. I promote this. A spanish HIndu who regards Bharat as my Mother (and with familiar links with India). So being marxist and Islamist or Christian or pro-either of the three is “secular”, but being HIndu is being radical?

      “Secularism” is a notion absolutely alien to the Indian ethos. It comes from Europe when, after the MIddle Age, the power of interfering of the Catholic Church was so strong in every affair, that they had to look for a solution in which state and religion (CATHOLIC Christian religion, not any) would be absolutely separated. Why? Because Catholic Church wanted everybody and everything to be seen from a Christian view, and that was preventing very much the advance of science, when instead of letting scientists do their jobs, everything had to be in accordance with the Bible.

      The result of this artificial imported concept in India is that in India the things are working, theoretically, in a “secular” way, but practically, in an anti-Hindu way and pro-minorities. Because both religions want everybody to become on their fold through conversions. It is in the core of their dogmas, unlike Sanatana Dharma.
      A Hindu India, also in my view, would comply much more with a REAL concept of secularism: freedom for ALL to practice their religions. Because conversion IS NOT IN THE CORE of Hinduism.
      This is the gist of all the story why a Hindu nation could work as REALLY secular, without favouring anybody just because of the religion that s/he belongs. But favouring or helping whatever individual in need.

      Mainstream media parrots and defends the world “secular” meaning in reality “pro-minorities” and “anti-Hindu”. That is NOT secularism. They do not even know what it is. Only the western masters say it is good, so they have to say it is good.

      1. Hans Grob · ·

        “”Because Catholic Church wanted everybody and everything to be seen from a Christian view, and that was preventing very much the advance of science” Christianity is in principle a ‘bimodal’ religion, as the sovereignty and independence of the ‘state’ or ‘the empire’ or the worldly things was granted also due to Jesus’ phrase ‘Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.’ Of course, the church has sometimes intervened too much into society, but there was never a true theocracy in the West. The biggest influence were in the arts (the Bishop of Salzburg promoted Mozart). The belief into one God as a universal rule-giver has promoted the scientific search, of course. If everything that happens in the world is by chance of by the mood of Gods, then there is no reason to look for natural laws. The first real modern scientists appeared already in the 15th century. Most important Catholic scientists: G. Mendel, a monk, who detected the rules of inheritance. G.Lemaitre, priest, inventor of the Big Bang theory. P.T. de Chardin, Society of Jesus, ethnologist, paleontologist, philosopher. Kepler and Newton were also believers. The case with Galilei is not so straightforward as most people think. The vaticans operates a observatory and helds an academy of sciences, where contemporary issues are discussed with top scientists.

      2. Namaste
        Thanks for being in support of Bharat

    2. Your problem lies in your education which was designed to say what you say now. Why India can’t be a Hindu Rashtra when she was divided based on religion? Majority Muslims and 100% Christians can’t claim any role in freedom fight, Christians were with the Brits completely and never wanted freedom from them. Constitution was baptised as Secular later by the so called liberals and leftists with the help of our history’s biggest blunder Jawaharlal Nehru. The present day secularism is appeasing minorities by rejecting the majority Hindu’s rights and not acceptable.

    3. vidyanand · · Reply

      Indian was always a plural society,. founding father never wanted the word Secular.. it was inserted by Indira Gandhi… secular word is fit to western countries where church was major influence.. in India religious leaders were always helped to reform society..

    4. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      Bullshit. U seem to be a Mulla undercover with Hindu name. It has to be a Hindu nation. There is every chance that you are a Soul prostitute.

    5. You say the Indian Independence movement was not about creating a Hindu nation?? Yeah yeah, sounds right! It was about creating a Muslim nation by breaking a secular nation into two!
      Sounds good! Very liberal views! Keep it going!
      Yours,
      A radical Hindutva proponent.

  3. The Constitution says that India will be secular. The word ‘secular’ was added later, but the ethos of secularism was embedded in the beginning itself. So to argue for a Hindu nation is to argue that Constitution of India be changed. It may be worthwhile to know why the architects of the Constitution did not make India a Hindu nation. The India (or Bharat) that we now talk about was born in 1947, and its Constitution came into effect in 1950. The India before that comprised of present day Pakistan and Bangladesh. I would call this as greater-India or akhand Bharat. But this akhand Bharat did not include states that are there in the North East and are now part of India. The Jaintias, Khasis, Mizos, Nagas et al. who are inhabitants of the North Eastern states were never part of akhand Bharat and they were never ever Hindus — whether one denotes ‘Hindu’ in territorial sense or in religious sense. Ancient Indian kings never ventured into this region. They were dragged into India by the British. So when India got independence in 1947, with such diverse history, it was a fragile state. If the architects of the Constitution had made India a Hindu state, many regions would violently break away from India in 1947 itself. So if one knows the history and diversity of India, to argue for a Hindu state is to call for the break-up of India.
    Yes, Christianity is an exclusivist religion ( if by religion we mean the belief, practice etc.) because there is explicit belief that Jesus is the only one Lord and God. This exclusivist belief became the basis for people of other religion to be tortured and persecuted in Christendom. Anyone who has read European history would know about this. It took over 1500 years for Christians to come with an idea that religious exclusivism cannot entail political exclusivism. To put it differently, though Christianity is exclusivist, in nations where Christians are majority, politically it has to be inclusive. Today no Christianised nations or a Christian would call people who are not Christians to be burnt at stake or be stoned to death. There is virtually no Christian theocratic state today. Today Muslims are grappling with this issue. Whether Islam will evolve like Christianity did or not is something we would have to wait and see. With present day technology that makes the world smaller, Islam will have to evolve this way or that way, or it may self destruct. After all people want more democratic space all over.
    If you look at Nepal, until very recently it was a Hindu theocratic state. One may ask: If Hinduism is inclusive, how come it had a political institution that did not allow freedom of religion to the citizens? My point is that a religion that is exclusivist or inclusive does not necessarily imply that adherents of that religion will necessarily have a political institution that reflects the character of the religion. Transition from religion towards constructing a political philosophy/theory takes effort to negotiate here and there.
    As a practising Christian, I would want Christianity dominated states to continue to give freedom of religion to the citizens. Similarly, I would argue that Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism dominated states should continue to give freedom of religion to the citizens. This call for Hindu nation, Christian nation, Islamic nation etc. should not be made. Why must we call for a state where people who follow a religion different from that of the majority be sent to jail or discriminated against?
    If you think that being a Hindu is good for you, and you are convinced that it will be good for others then spread the word. Put it bluntly: convert others to your belief. Freedom of religion will mean freedom to share your religious belief to others, which in turn implies that others are also free to share their beliefs to you particularly if you are willing to listen. What is wrong is to force people to believe what I believe, whether this coercion comes through the religious institution or through the state.

    1. Dear Jeremiah A.V. Duoma The constitution did not have the word Secular as you have rightly pointed out it was inserted later on during Mrs.Indira Gandhi regime. We are predominantly Hindu country if UK USA can proclaim they are a christian country rightfully so we Indians can also say we are a Hindu Nation kindly note that except India & Nepal where Hindus are majority we as Hindus are a Minority in this world.

      So all this secular talk is just for the sake of votes the politicians indulge in and also because missionaries sponsor many and they are duty bound to support and talk about secularism and Hindu Fundamentalist. India is a land of Great Rishisis it is this which protects our sacred land from all this attack from various overseas religious fundamentalist who want to propagate and cover India into their fold

      1. Jeremiah A.V. Duomai · ·

        KN Ramesh, US/UK as Christian nation. Since when? If you read political history to find out why separation of religion and state came to be maintained in European states, you will learn that it was because of bloody battle between different religious factions. Today if you want to turn India into Hindu state, it will lead to bloodshed. Please get out of your town and see and read about other parts of India as well. India is a Hindu dominated nation, but since ancient times till now, as I stated above, my ancestors have never even Hindus. And, before India got independence my ancestors have became Christians, but that’s a different story.

        All this secular talk could be for votes, but all this Hindu nation could also be for votes. But the reason why secular ethos was woven into the Constitution in the beginning was in order to keep India together while acknowledging its diversity. To strip of such political values and convert India into a Hindu state is to take India into 10th century Europe.

        You mention of overseas religious fundamentalist. But what would you say of emperor Ashoka sending out hundreds of Buddhist missionaries to Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia etc. to convert them to Buddhism? Do you think he was an overseas religious fundamentalist to these nations? In my view, “freedom of religion/conscience” implies that anyone is free to propagate his or her religion/philosophy/culture/ideology within the bound of fair speech i.e without using lies, insult etc. so that people of other religion/philosophy/culture/ideology may change. If whatever you belief and say is right and whatever I say and believe is right, then conversation has no meaning.

    2. Your History lessons are given to you by the missionaries who had only one aim to convert you. I ‘m not here to teach you your own history read it from someone other than your stupid missionaries and pastors first.

      1. Jeremiah A.V. Duomai · ·

        Which bit of history are you referring to? About the North East? If so, I would rather say that as one from the North East I know more of North East and its history than most Indians.

      2. It is difficult for a Roman Catholic to become President of USA the only exception being JFK.Even Obama has to prove he is a true christian by flooding internet with pictures with pastor.

      3. Anything which does not conform to your beliefs become stupid! How convenient and equally lame!!!

    3. Sriram Kasthuri Vinjamoor · · Reply

      Oh Ho Ho Jeremiah… Are you in India? Muslims and Christians in particular have grown 10 times over the last two decades.. Merely by way of coercion, either by way of a favor(money, education, treatment for ailments etc) or by brainwashing and sheer force.. Please know the facts before jumping the gun.. Maria makes 100 percent sense

      1. Jeremiah A.V. Duomai · ·

        Yes, I am in India. Let me give few reasons why your accusation is just a lie. First, the Census figure of Christians in India in 1951 is 2.3%, and again in 2011, it still stands at 2.3%. Second, Use of coercion to convert people is illegal, and if there are such cases policemen could take action. There is no police report about forced conversion. Third, In India where Hindus are in sheer majority, it would be astounding for Christians to be able to use force to convert people. And in the given situation where Christians are in sheer minority, Christians have no such resources to convert people forcefully. Fourth, people do not normally convert because of force. In the past where there are kings, such things did happen. But today where people cannot put to death other person, there is no plausibility in such narrative. Fifth, Christians themselves consider forced conversion to be wrong and illegal, and therefore there is no reason why such things would be supported.

    4. “CHRISTIANITY IS NOT ANY RELIGION : BUT AN ORGANISED CRIMINAL MAFIA GANG :
      Christianity specifically COMMANDS to MURDER those who don’t Follow Jesus. It acts more like an Organised Criminal Mafia Gang of Looters, Thugees, Plunderers, Murderers, Rapists, Pedos, who have No Mercy towards those who don’t Stand with them……

      BIBLE COMMANDS TO KILL :
      1. KILL ADULTERERS : LEV 20:10
      2. KILL ALL WITCHES : EXO 22:18
      3. KILL BLASPHEMERS : LEV 24:14
      4. KILL FALSE PROPHETS : ZECH 13:3
      5. KILL FORTUNE TELLERS : LEV 20:27
      6. KILL ANYONE WHO SINS : EZEK 18:4
      7. KILL THE CURIOUS : 1 SAM 6:19-20
      8. KILL GAYS : LEV 20:13
      9. KILL GAYS : ROM 1:21-32
      10. KILL ALL NON HEBREWS : DT 20:16-17
      11. KILL SONS OF SINNERS : ISAIAH 14:21
      12. KILL NON BELIEVERS : 2 CHRON 15:12-13
      13. KILL WHO CURSES GOD : LEV 24:16
      14. KILL CHILD HITTING PARENTS : EX 21:15
      15. KILL CHILD DISOBEYING PARENTS : DT 21:20
      16. KILL THOSE WHO WORK ON THE SABBATH : EX 31:15
      17. KILL DISOBEDIENT CHILD : EX 21:17
      18. KILL DISOBEDIENT CHILD : MK 7:10
      19. KILL STRANGERS NEAR CHURCH : NUM 1:48-51
      20. KILL ALL MALES AFTER WINNING BATTLES : DT 20:13
      21. KILL THOSE WHO CURSE PARENTS : LEV 20:9
      22. KILL NON VIRGIN BRIDE : DT 22:21
      23. KILL WHO WORSHIP FALSE GODS : NUM 25:1-9
      24. KILL WHO DON’T OBSERVE SABBATH : EX 31:14
      25. KILL EVERYONE IN A TOWN THATS WORSHIPS OTHER THAN JESUS : DT 13:13-16 /

  4. Samsam · · Reply

    True ‘why not a Hindu nation’. But no, our Constitution says otherwise, by which we live in this beautiful country. To uphold the constitution and defend its ‘true values’ is our duty. Your sympathetic view of an un-secular India is pathetic. That secularism, Hopefully, will resurface in the mainstream media like you mentioned, that the Vedic religion in inclusive which is ‘becoming’ the other.

  5. […] blog piece by Maria Wirth – a German settled in India – called ‘Are Christian and Muslim Nations OK and Hindu Nations Not?‘, Originally published on 21 April 2017 in Wirth’s personal blog, the piece gained […]

  6. Absolutely fantastic article.
    God is within us and when we abuse others, we abuse the same God within them.
    God also does not need our help and intervention to help others love him or understand him. As long as we appreciate this, we don’t need to use religion as a tool to destroy other human beings.
    Most importantly, the true essence of Sanathana Dharma is that parmarthika [or understanding GOD] is different from lokarthika [worldly purposes]. Religion is lokarthika and a way of life. It has got so little to do with GOD,

    1. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      You can’t convince people with ignorance.

    2. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      Well summarized. Perhaps others cannot understand or digest what you have summarized. How can one expect to understand the article by @mariawirth1. Difficult.

  7. Rajesh · · Reply

    Namaste Maria, indeed a beautiful article. Wonderful in-depth assessment. A must read for all . God bless you

  8. A Deshpande · · Reply

    Superb, ultimate truth.
    Politicians would never allow scrapping of personal laws for selfish political gains motivated by the west and vested interests.

  9. Love to read the article by Shradheya Bahan Ji. Hinduism is an inclusive religion based on Truth and Dharma. The righteous is the word here to be read at the place of the Dharma. We do not use religion and dharma vice versa pl.

    Let me make very clear that out of Hundred births to Human bening only one happens to the Bharat Bhumi,PunyaBhumi,MatruBhumi,HinduBhumi The purest one. Its our old Karma due to that we are born here as human being. Our job is “Wayam Rashtre Jagruyam Purohitah” , and one who is not following this dharma is not Brahman.

    So let me assure we are changing , our country is changing , There was no need to change name of BharatVarsha/Hindustan as India after independence , it was to just to include Bapu and Chacha to this generation of people without any solid reason by the English .

    BharatMata is etrnal to this PunyaBhumi. We worship this land to our mother. We were never against any faith whatever you say it like Islam,Christianity,jews etc since time immortal. we feel and appreciate that the Char, Achar being of whole world are from Brahman. The Sat Chit Anand is granted by virue of him only. We are always with truth and reformation and discovery is part of the hinduism which is often brought in side by our great Sages,Gurus and the great people of the Kaliyuga.

    Bharat Mata Ki Jay!!!

  10. Pankaj · · Reply

    Superb Logical and true thoughts . Thanks for sharing your views Maria.
    Regs

  11. Absolutely wonderful article Maria Wirth, you are more an Indian than a German to us, true to veda teachings of who we are. Jay Ho.

    1. Phani Kumar · · Reply

      You know one thing, German language is evolved from Sanskrit.

  12. vidyanand · · Reply

    pleasing to read this article.. its because of Hindus that this nation is Plural.. otherwise we can see how churches were influential in west and how sharia is applied in all islamic countries

  13. No indian rishi ever talked about earth orbiting sun. Yes Aryabhat did suggest that earth revolved on its axis and was round. He even measured the earth’s circumference. He explained the phenomena of eclipses and debunked Hindu myths that thrive even today. He was persecuted by brahmins and many of his manuscripts burnt down. Besides rests on a heirarchical caste system which confers privileges on a small percentage of socalled upper caste condemning the majority as shudra and untouchables who are destined do serve the upper castes… Hinduism is one of the brutal within and hence Hindu could never fight invading armies.

  14. SVARGH · · Reply

    The problem is not about India being called a Hindu nation or a secular or by any other name. The problem is the attitude of leaders of this movement who want to make India a Hindu nation.

    You can check out what the leaders – Yogi Adityanath, Praveen Togadia, Sadhvi Prachi – and the like said. You can say these are fringe elements but then if you want to call the CM of the most populous state, a member of parliament, the head of a Sangh Parivar organizaton as fringe elements, pray tell me who are the mainstream.

  15. Great article. I always found Buddhism and Hinduism influential on Asia and the world. Both, especially Buddhism, have syncretic approaches to religion outside of India.

    The liberal bias towards Muslims is because there are a lot of peaceful Muslims in the West, and the fear of Islamphobia. In a certain degree, we do have Islamphobes. However, the criticism of certain forms of Islam is completely valid. But liberals will get mad and use “Islamphobia” to justify shutting down any valid debates on the subject. They also tie such things to racism. While India itself has never completely recovered from the decimation of the Muslims on the culture for a thousand years, and then 200 years of Brit rule.

    Most of this is ignorance, as they do not see that a good chunk of Hindus practice ahimsa. I am not scared of a Hindu state so much, because India is home to some major religions in the world and they are pretty tolerant. However, I would prefer India be secular.

    I find “Hinduism” to be an umbrella term for the original indigenous religions of the area that have similar beliefs and practices, especially in gods. I find the term similar to the term “pagan” that it encompasses many practices/religions.

  16. […] blog piece by Maria Wirth – a German settled in India – called ‘Are Christian and Muslim Nations OK and Hindu Nations Not?‘, Originally published on 21 April 2017 in Wirth’s personal blog, the piece gained […]

  17. Viraj · · Reply

    Dear Ms.Wirth,

    I do not know about the issue raised by you and as always you have been very forthright.

    I have noticed in Germany,Switzerland and Austria that women date more Arabs and Turks.Never seen any Indian with them.A personal issue no doubt but western girls are not bothered about conversions at all.They don’t mind their children converted to Islam from birth even if they don’t convert themselves.Your thoughts on this will be very enlightening.Regards,

    No doubt these ethnic people are handsome but are looks that important to the western girls?I am sure they are not frivolous enough to fall for money.

  18. […] article was originally published on Maria Wirth Blog. Please visit author’s blog for more such […]

  19. Dear Maria,
    Thank you. Born in Germany but having lived most of my life in other countries between UK and India, I made similar observations.

    In view of the bigger picture, I’d say that it is no secret that mainstream media tends to pick the negative aspects of a subject (‘only bad news are good news’) and generally never promotes any life perspectives, teachings, tools and insights that are truly self-empowering and liberating. And why would they? To keep the masses uninformed, small and in modern slavery is most convenient for certain people.

    It comes as no surprise that India’s spiritual science and India’s potency are denied, suppressed and even ridiculed. India’s rich culture simply states a threat to Western lifestyle which is infiltrated by fear and greed. The Western mindframe is linear, rational and focused on consumerism and external achievements. And it is most unfortunate, that the East began copying the West.

    But whether East, Middle East or West, it is high time to remember that we are inherently multidimensional, spiritual beings and begin to view life and influences around us accordingly. This implies to go beyond one personified god and see oneness in all, go beyond our fivesense perception and train our inner antennae for higher sense perception (HSP) like intuition, third eye cognition, inner knowing and self awareness of our own energy fields and soul signatures. In short: go within and connect to Source directly. Without any mediators – neither religions nor gurus.

    The majority of the so called spiritual leaders in religious communities or sanghas are manipulative narcissists anyway. They have an undercover agenda (power, control, wealth accumulation) and siphon – overtly or subliminally, consciously or unconsciously – lifeforce and resources from their ‘targets’. From naiv budding seekers as well as mesmerised, mind-controlled followers and admirers. All in the name of some noble cause.

    It is high time for each individual to wake up and self-responsibly release destructive dependencies, limiting imprints and dysfunctional conditionings that were picked up since birth and during the formative years of childhood – ancestral beliefs as well as collective behaviour- and value-patterns. There is a lot to do for each single one of us.

    May maximum discernment, tenacity, light, love and peace be with us.

    By the way, another German who lives abroad and does excellent work:

  20. Dear Maria
    Thanks for this thought provoking article what we need is a Govt which can say India is a Hindu Nation we do not have to worry about any body in this matter as usual the secular minds in this country will scream shout which will make one deaf let them do what they know best because it they who encourage all this conversion by missionaries turning a blind eye to all that is happening around us and most of them hide behind their alias names because they do not want others to know they are Christians.

  21. i agree with some of your points. But I don’t agree that the media is against a hindu nation. I would say that at this point it is more plausible and Hinduism is getting more attention through the media because it has harmony with judaism. Please read my blog , I have explained this in detail.

  22. Dear Jeremiah A.V. Duoma Good Day your response above Quote “, it would be astounding for Christians to be able to use force to convert people. And in the given situation where Christians are in sheer minority, Christians have no such resources to convert people forcefully” Unquote this is not true the fact is missionaries from abroad send money via NGO this is used for converting kindly see Rajiv Malhotra video on YouTube where he has proved that conversion are taking place in India. Then you census theory Hindus are in Majority is right yes because we are a Hindu nation and only one other than Nepal in this world is a Hindu nation but we are a minority in this world dominated by Christians and Muslims which is a fact. India is a fertile place for conversion because of poverty. Christianity says if you do not believe in Christ you will go to hell this is again forced belief You will never find a atheist in Christianity because an atheist will be shunned by Christians whereas Hinduism accepts atheist for what they are Hinduism never says if you don’t believe in our god you will go to hell

    1. Jeremiah Duomai · · Reply

      I do not deny that Christians try to convert people into Christianity; I just deny that there is forceful conversion today.

      Yes, one cannot be an atheist and be a Christian… because Christians’ belief is that there is a God that exists, and so those who say that God does not exist is wrong. You say that one can be an atheist or a theist and be a Hindu. Of course, that’s a big difference between Christianity and Hinduism.

      1. Read the book “ Breaking India “ by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravind Neelakandan. This will open your eyes if you’re willing to let them open. If you choose to deliberately shut your eyes on the conversion agenda of the Christians, you are as bad as the missionaries who always prey on the poor and the vulnerable. Your statistics on the percentage of Christian population in India needs to be taken with a bucket load of salt. You very well know that a lot of converted Dalit Hindus still state their religion as Hindu to get all the benefits, all at the instigation of the church. Your religion exudes exclusivism and history centric and non believers go to hell . Period. The joke you have a “ judgment day”!! Even humans are encouraged to be non judgmental but apparently this doesn’t apply to your MALE ANGRY GOD AND HIS ONLY SON😡. God is supposed to be infallible but being judgemental, the God of Christianity falls flat on his male face. Piece of advice. Don’t try to defend the indefensible, that’s Christianity .

  23. That’s really great and in-depth analysis of hinduism. Hinduism is a victim of pseudo Secularism since infinity. However the theocratic state concept will not appeal to hindus themselves

  24. Somebody has replied at ‘Eleventh Column’ to this article of Wirth. I have posted my comment there as follows:
    Your piece of response to Maria Wirth’s article on ‘why objection to Hindu nation, if you do not object to Christian nation’ theme though looks like full of scholarly wisdom but in essence is without any substance. You cite NYT articles to say that liberal media there too is against ‘Christian nation’ idea. In your eagerness to refute Wirth’s thesis, you cite ‘Caste discrimination’ of Hinduism. It is a ‘Brahm Ashtra’ to attack Hinduism not only by you alone; the entire West utilizes it, though for conversion purpose. Dear friend, come to the reality and don’t play with words to show wisdom. US is a Christian nation; even the president takes oath there on Bible; most of educational institutions are funded and controlled by Church; in Germany, State funds Church. This much the worth of NYT pieces. Yes, US etc. tolerates Hindu people – unlike Islam – but the hate and defame Hinduism in the name of Caste evil etc; they oppose Hindu things – like Yoga – if possible; if not claim as invented by them. Your this piece is highly superficial with a color of depth.Yes, Caste as it is practised today – inherited by birth – is an evil but all good things degenerate with the passage of time and need adaptation and improvement to suit the changed time. You read all blogs of Wirth, she is much deep and wiser than you. And one thing more: if you have time and aptitude to discuss serious subjects, then read some material of your liking here:
    http://indianpeoplescongress.wordpress.com/

  25. Great reply.

    The caste system is best explained in God Talks To Arjuna by Yogananda.This was all about Sandhya Bhasha which is not taught at any university.It
    s found in Bible and especially the Book Of Revelation.The concept of caste was misused by selfish people.Even today,not Brahmins but Kshatriyas( Thakoors) seem to be tormenting people.Nobody has any courage to denigrate nay other religion except Hinduism.I wonder why that is.All were ,ultimately,interpreted based on “revelations as claimed” by humans.All have flaws.Dr.Farookh Abdulla has gone on record claiming( at least) that his forefathers were Saraswat Brahmins.Many Christian patients of mine have proudly claimed the same .

  26. Great article. Highly objective and written with an open,unbiased mind

    1. Hans Grob · · Reply

      ” Highly objective and written with an open,unbiased mind”

      Improbable. Social, cultural, religious opinions must be considerably unobjective. Most people tend to ascribe an opinion as objective, good and correct, if it complies with their own ideas.

      Maria as a convert is clearly in complete opposition to Christianity. Converts are mostly the most fundamentalist. We can observe that in Europe with converts to Islam.

      1. If you read slowly through the article, you will realize that Hindu Dharma is not a religion based on blind belief. It is not an opinion, but can be verified in own experience. Intellect alone won’t do. One needs to follow certain rules, like Satya vada Dharam Chara.
        Speak the truth, do what is right

      2. What is “fundamentalism “ about Hinduism please? How can a religion which is pluralistic by its very nature and which has no dogmas and which even has atheism as one of the Dhashana ( view) can be “ fundamental????? Christianity and Islam can be fundamental but Hinduism CANNOT BE FUNDAMENTAL. Period!

      3. Hans Grob · ·

        I wrote: ‘Converts are mostly the most fundamentalist’. You cited: ‘What is “fundamentalism “ about Hinduism please?’ I considered persons, not religions. One sign of fundamentalism is the depreciation of other religions, and so does Maria fiercely and completely. In politics, this mindset is called ideology, mostly the one praising socialism/communism.

  27. The fact is India ruled by Moguls for 800 years and Christians for 200 years so many temples destroyed in the process. Many an Hindu Kings fought the Moguls and Christians the length and breadth of India but the British never acknowledge this and their history book is full of distortion glorifying Moguls and Christians this has to be looked into and these books have to taken of the educational system hence many of us or ignorant of true facts.

    During this period many Hindus were forced to convert or they were killed such was the atmosphere prevailing in this Hindu Land but in spite of .all this we continue be 80% Hindu nation. Most of our temples are controlled by the Govt and all the income from this goes to the Govt but none of Mosques or Churches are in Govt Control and muslims going of Ha pilgrimage get subsidy from the Govt the tax payer bears all this.

  28. Saraswati · · Reply

    Wonderful Article..
    Great to know that Maria has such a deep and clear understanding of Hindus and Hinduism..

  29. Hans Grob · · Reply

    “Are Christian and Muslim nations YES … ” Another critique, a semantique one. OK is a confirming response (to a question), like YES. So I substituted OK by YES to show that this sentence is semantically nonsense.

    The same, as written already, in the philosophical realm. Most Western nations are at the same time Christian nations and not. The history, the customs weigh heavy, but they are not theocracies.

    In Bosnia and Herzegovina, former part of Yougoslavia, Europe, West, the Bosniaks are by majority Muslims. Hence is it a Muslim state?

    The traditional philosophy/religion of China is Confucianism. Currently, the Communist party is ruling. Is China therefore a Confucianist Communist state? (P.S.: Christians in the underground).

    1. What it is a nonsense is that minorities rule a country by the means of giving them priority in the laws, or having different laws to apply depending whether the person belongs to a religion or to another, instead of applying uniform laws for all and priority for the ones that really need it, disregarding his or her religion. Happening in India.

      What it is a nonsense is for instance that the a nation whose heart is fully Hindu whether they like it or not, has to suffer in its own heart the stabbing that for Hindu sentiments means to kill its Mother cow just for the sake of the palate of some. Happening in India.

      Example of a Catholic nation and its functioning: mine itself (Spain) when I was born and before: everybody had to be baptised and forcibly keep a Christian name, which of course amounts to everybody born in Spain counting in the figures of the Christian flock whether they were convinced or not by this religion. Add to this the conversion abroad through the Christian Missions and you will get the (injustly counted) major religion in the world by number of followers.

      Example of a Hindu nation: India in the past, when, being Hindu majority, gave shelter to different minorities without imposing them to convert to Hinduism. See Parsis, Jews persecuted everywhere else found shelter in India and could continue with their religion without being harassed and forced to convert to Hinduism. Christians and Muslims despite HAVING INVADED India in the past,
      and having shed rivers of blood among Hindus, specially Muslims who also killed Christians, have a nation of their own now, with the passage of generations, in which they can freely practice their religion (India). And still some of them dare to call the ones who gave them shelter “saffron, right-wing and communals”

      This is a main difference: Christians and Muslims seek to convert anybody else. History proves it. Hindus respect everybody else´s religion, unlike Abrahamic religions. This is the gist of what Maria is talking about, if I am not wrong.

      Now pls, feel free to correct my English. I will get an English class for free! 🙂

  30. Brilliantly stated Maria. Really well argued.

  31. Phani Kumar · · Reply

    Dear Madam, If a non Hindu reads one of your many articles on Hinduism, he would definitely introspect. If he is the one in search of truth, he will read the other articles also before going to libraries. Once he feels to go in depth he will become a satellite to libraries.

  32. gopinathan Mohan · · Reply

    Thank you sister, for understanding our problems, so called peseudo seculars are the biggest problem for this nation

  33. Ramamurthy · · Reply

    Simply beautiful and simple and logic with facts .

  34. nope.
    indo-european languages are all derived from proto-indo-european base language from which sanskrit (the progenitor to hindusthani languages arises) but proto-germanic language arises from P.I.E. also. separately but german didn’t come from sanskrit.

    Germanic- German
    / | \-Danish
    it goes P.I. E Dutch etc.
    |
    Sanskritham – Rajasthani
    \
    Marathi etc.

    1. i wonder what your “nope” refers to.
      Further, instead of saying, “indo-european languages are all derived from PIE”, (which looks like a fact) it would be more correct to say that there is a theory which claims this, but there are no hard and fast proofs.

      Ancient history keeps changing with every new archeological find. for example, now there is an indication that humans came over 100,000 years earlier to America than so far believed.

      we might be better off if we trust the Rishis who mentioned huge time cycles. so far the Rishis have never been proven wrong, including “the world is maya”.

    2. they are not talking about language

  35. Agree with you, thanks

  36. Hans Grob · · Reply

    Mrs. Wirth juxtaposes ‘Christian and Muslim nations’ and an imagined Hindu nation. As I have outlined, it is wrong to think of the West as consisting of ‘Christian’ nations. The only nation which may been called something like a Christian nation or theocracy in the 20th century, was Spain under dictator Franco. Not surprising, that she is of Spanish origin.

    The only Non-Hindu religion in India of importance is Islam. Wirth does not specifically address Islam, but nearly every religio-political question there is governed by it.

    Here a revealing essay, written by Syrian-German professor Bassam Tibi, Muslim himself and researcher on Islam, automatically translated from https://bazonline.ch/ausland/europa/kein-taugliches-modell-fuer-europa/story/26828628:

    “The Indian model of pluralism of religions in a secular state is in danger. India is the largest democracy outside the West; there is also the Islamic minority with 217 million people, the largest of its kind in the world. For some months there has been unrest and violence between Hindus and Muslims in India.

    This raises fears of earlier times dating back to 1947, when Greater India was divided into an Islamic conservative state, Pakistan, and a secular core India. Pakistani and other Muslims call secular India a Hindu India because 60 percent of the resident population is Hindu. This is an omission because India is a secular nation state by constitution.

    I have been able to study these issues through several stays in India over the past twenty years. I experienced India positively as a haven of peace between all religions. All world religions are represented there. Can Europeans learn from India? Does the Islamic minority in India provide a model for Europe?

    In India, after the electoral victory of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, a discussion has been sparked that continues today. This was especially noted internationally by the New York Times, which published an article on August 18, entitled “Fears of Dividing the Country Are Back.” It recalls the hate speech of Islamic Muslim League fanatics who fought against a unified India in the 1940s arguing that Muslims could retain their minority identity only in their own state.

    With that they had success: The land was divided. However, under Gandhi and Nehru, the Congress Party fought for cultural diversity and religious pluralism, not for a state with religious legitimacy. This was done by the Muslims at the time, and this is what the fundamentalist BJP is doing today, who does not forgive the Muslims for dividing up India. The result is that Muslims think of a second division.

    This awakens memories of the bloody conflicts of 1946/47. They ended with the division of the multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural Greater India into two states. Over the past decade, Indian Muslims have started to segregate themselves.

    The Indian Ramachandra Guha has pointed out in the Financial Times that Indian Muslims are using the demonstrative burqa cover for their desire to separate themselves in a redistribution of India. There has never been such a concealment of women in India before.

    Violent acts of militant Hindus

    Europeans still do not seem to have grasped that the Islamic headscarf is an expression of civilizational demarcation with the consequence of self-segregation. The headscarf has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

    The first consideration in this context is whether believers of non-Reformed Islam can live peacefully with other religions in a religious pluralism. Or is it fair to turn the question around and uncritically accept the Islamic claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” and on this basis make the assumption that the Hindus are to blame for the current crisis situation?

    The claim put forward in this question finds support in the fact that India today is constitutionally and culturally no longer secular (as the spirit of the founders of secular India, Gandhi and Nehru, provided) because it is ruled by a Hindu fundamentalist party , the BJP. However, this must not distract from the fact that Islam did not come to India as a religion of peace. Muslims forced the conversion and turned Hindu temples into mosques. These facts are used today in BJP propaganda against Muslims.

    I am a Muslim myself. Here, however, I write as a neutral scientist and admit that the governing party BJP is anti-Islamic and tacitly tolerates attacks by the Hindu mob on Muslims. However, I would not go so far as to share the assumption that India is becoming more secularized. The secular constitutional state and its constitution are firmly anchored in India. Nevertheless, I must admit that the secular Indian model of democracy has failed to integrate Indian Muslims (13 to 15 percent of the resident population) as citizens.

    Today in power, the BJP hides many acts of violence by militant Hindus against Muslims. However, the fact that Muslims feel that they are a minority victim as a collective distracts from the fact that their leaders have contributed significantly to the current malady and indirectly to the rise of the BJP.

    Previously, India was ruled by the secular Congress Party. The BJP was a rudimentary movement on the periphery of politics. If Muslims in India pity themselves as a discriminated minority (as they do in Europe, by the way) and, mind you, their leaders do so systematically and with calculation, then they always pursue the goal of being able to demand special rights. They want to enforce political demands. These include the status of a religious community with tax claims, participation in committees and an institutionalization of self-segregation in parallel societies.

    Sharia law enforced

    In India, the leaders of the Islamic minority succeeded in enforcing Sharia law in this way. As part of this pattern, the Congress Party made concessions to the Indian Islamic community with the result that the secular Congress Party was weakened in favor of radical Hinduism. The BJP capitalized on it and received the majority of Hindus’ votes as an alternative to the Congress Party; now she rules the country. How could this happen?

    India is a secular country and has a secular right that applies to all; but the Muslims have effectively forced the Congress government to act unconstitutional and to allow Sharia law for the Muslims. The state has damaged Indian Muslims by undermining its secularity. This must not happen in Europe. Here Europeans can learn from India.

    This is not a local Indian affair; it has relevance for the whole world, especially for Europe. Muslims and their world of Islam today comprise two billion of the world’s seven billion people. Muslims and their civilization are in a crisis that affects the entire world. American author John Brenkman rightly writes about a “geo-civil war of Islam” as the manifestation of this crisis.

    Striking parallels

    The violence in India has increased so much that some again ask the partition question of 1947 as a way to a “solution”. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a Hindu, but he defined India as secular and modern, not considering the Indians as a Hindu nationalist collective, regardless of their religion, as the BJP does today. The following statement by Nehru about Muslims should be quoted here: “We have a Muslim minority […]. Whatever the provocation from Pakistan […] and horrors inflicted on non-muslims there, we have got to deal with this minority in a civilized manner. ”

    What is this civilized way? Nehru writes: “Do Muslim majorities in Pakistan, for example, deal with non-Muslim minorities in such a civilized manner? I have to say that. Similar to the AKP in Turkey, which tries to exploit some five million European Turks as a foreign policy instrument, Pakistan is working with the Islamic minority in India. The parallel is striking.

    The division of India into an Islamic and a secular state in 1947 was the result of a religious and very bloody conflict 70 years ago. The timeliness of this item is not limited to India, but is relevant to the entire world. Both in the positive and in the negative, the Islamic minority in India serves as a model for Islamic minorities throughout the world.

    Two decades ago, Leiden University in the Netherlands conducted a project on Islam and Muslims in Europe where I was a team member and had the task of answering the following question: Can the Islamic minority in India be a model for Europe?

    To date, there are patterns of Muslim self-perception as a minority. As a minority, Muslims cultivate a kind of self-pity. In this context, the accusation of Islamophobia has emerged as a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Muslims have problems, they are always to blame. This is not only whiny, but also instrumental: So get hold of Islamic officials special rights. They have successfully done so in India by enforcing Sharia law and justice. The side effect is the weakening of the secular Congress Party and the strengthening of the BJP. In Europe, Islam officials are strengthening right-wing extremists by giving them an unwarranted argument.

    Being victims of others is the self-perception of Muslims; but as soon as they are in the majority, they oppress the others. Examples are found in the Arab world (eg Egypt, Sudan and Iraq) and in the extra-Arab world (such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria). Anyone who objects to this Islamic rule of discrimination against other religions is attacked with the accusation of Islamophobia.

    Even more serious is the attempt by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to enforce an “international right against blasphemy” at the United Nations in order to silence Islam critics. This must not succeed.

    Escape to Pakistan

    Historically, India formed a unity until its partition into India and Pakistan in 1947. Separatism came from the Muslim effort to form its own religiously-determined state. Until 1907 Hindus and Muslims worked together in 1885 founded National Congress. Muslims then seceded in 1907, and one year earlier Muslim activists founded the Muslim League, a fanatics organization that raised separatist demands on a religious basis. She began to fight with open force for a state of Muslims in India. In 1947 they reached their destination; Thousands of Indian Muslims fled to Pakistan hoping for a better life.

    The opposite has happened: these Islamic immigrants are discriminated against in Pakistan as a minority to this day.

    How did Islam come to India? He reached India in the 11th century and was able to establish himself by the fact that lower Hindu caste by conversion to Islam found an escape from discrimination.

    What do we learn from the Indian example for Europe? If Europeans allow immigrant Muslims to form a collective, live in Sharia law in their parallel societies and claim Islamocracy for themselves in the context of multiculturalism, then one can forget about the integration project. Muslims can only be integrated as individuals into a secular community, but not as collectives, just as Germans – without any knowledge of Islam – operate to madness in the framework of the German Islam Conference.

    As in India, the implementation of Sharia law as a right for Muslims gave the BJP Hindu fundamentalists tailwind, similar things in Europe will serve right-wing forces and their emergence as mass parties, democratic parties should not consider a change of course and continue – like the Congress Party in India – fail in dealing with Islam officials.

    Destruction of achievements

    We need to distinguish two phenomena: the reality of Muslim Islam tacitly aspiring to Islam, and the right-wing extremist forces exploiting it to fuel fear of Islamization and incite against Muslims. Democrats must equally democratically tackle both trends. Europeans must distinguish between Islamization as part of the Islamic Da’wa and Islamization as right-wing radical propaganda.

    How is this reality perceived in the prevailing narrative in Europe today? Postmodern multiculturalists have abandoned the European concept of the individual in favor of the definition of cultural and religious collectives as minorities with their own rights in their own parallel society.

    Postmodernists are destroying all the central European civilization achievements of modern times and opening the doors of Europe to an Islamic migration of peoples by confusing open society with open borders. This whole issue makes India and its Islamic minority model a warning, not one of compliance.

    So what can Europeans learn from the case of India?

    The Islam diaspora in Western Europe has grown to around 30 million Muslims today. By the middle of this century, it should be 50 to 60 million. Only through a Europeanization of Islam and the Europeans’ insistence on their image of the individual as a citizen and not as a member of a collective can Muslims living in Europe be integrated into Europe.

    The resistance against this democratic solution comes not only from Islamic officials who want to enforce Sharia, but also – and above all – from European postmodernists who engage in self-denial. In the BaZ of February 20, 2017, therefore, I called both parties «enemies of Europe».”

    1. Rongmei Zeliang · · Reply

      Honestly, how can you be a Muslim? Why did you convert to that despicable ”religion”?

      1. Hans Grob · ·

        Confusing blog website. I posted an answer, probably it appears at the wrong place.

    2. Hans Grob · · Reply

      Here another essay which sheds light onto the problem religion – politics – Hinduism – Islamism.

      Again consider and forgive please the machine translation from German.

      To a certain extent, one could replace Muslim by Hindu/Hinduist, Islam by Hinduism and Europe by India.

      For instance: “European societies are secular, and the public realm should remain secular accordingly. However, the organized Islam federations do not accept this stipulation.” “The Indian society is secular, and the public realm should remain secular. However, the organized Hinduist parties do not accept this stipulation”.

      So take care. And again, Maria: The Western nations are NOT ‘Christian nations’. There is a Christian history and background, though.

      “In recent years, a term has been coined for people who do not understand religion and its return to politics: religious analysts. Islam is an example here; this is a belief that deserves respect in the context of religious freedom, but at the same time it is also in a process of politicization, out of which Islamism grows.

      Here, vigilance is required over religion. The double game of Islam officials makes it difficult to deal with the phenomenon. This double play looks like this: Where Muslims live as a minority, these functionaries pity their community in the victim role, as in India and in Europe. These officials then make political demands for Islamic minorities. But this is different where Muslims are in the majority because they oppress, discriminate and silence the minorities of other religions without restraint.

      Non-Muslims are discriminated

      Anyone who objects to this is accused of Islamophobia. I would like to give an example for this. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung correspondent in Kuala Lumpur wrote about it in the following text: “Religion, d. H. Islam is more present than ever in Malaysia’s society and has permeated politics almost dogmatically in recent years. Malay Muslims … are increasingly being understood as the real citizens. To all others, mainly Chinese and Indians, the fluidity of immigrants or even strangers is clinging to them. “Chinese and Hindu minorities are discriminated against in Malaysia even though they are citizens of the country; but they are denied citizenship, because they are not Muslims. I can hardly imagine the outcry if Europeans ever did the same with Muslims. Similar to Malaysia, Muslims are behaving towards Christian minorities in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Egypt, where Christian worship is burned down.

      The Swiss-American John Eibner, who heads Christian Solidarity International (CSI), has organized a series of lectures on this topic in Zurich over the past few years. The book “The Future of Religious Minorities in the Middle East” was published in 2017 , I am one of the co-authors of this book, claiming that Middle Eastern Muslims always disregard the rights of other minorities. This article follows and summarizes the thoughts that I have expressed during recent months in public lectures in Vienna, Bishkek, Lisbon, Praga, Poznan, Warsaw and Prague on the example of Europe in the Age of Migration World of Islam. Even Muslim, I worry about the future of Europe as an “island of freedom in an ocean of tyranny,” as the philosopher Max Horkheimer once described.

      Instrumentalization of religion

      Immigrant Muslims bring the problems of their countries to Europe, and Europeans are banning an open discussion on this issue. It is not about religiosity, that is a fundamental right, but about the practice of a political religion, with the help of which social, economic and political problems are articulated. I call this circumstance religionization of politics. To illustrate, for example: It does not succeed to integrate the immigrant Muslims in Europe. On this basis, parallel societies emerge in which “ethnic poverty” dominates: immigrant Muslims feel victims of Europeans; they use religion to deliberately misinterpret this ethnic poverty as a result of discrimination against their religion. That extends to the use of force against “infidels” in the middle of Europe.

      In my mentioned lectures and public discussions about this topic, I often came across the objection that religion would be instrumentalized here. It is claimed that the Islamic legitimacy of violence has nothing to do with Islam and so on. These people do not seem to know the classic work of Eric Hofer, The True Believer. The true believer is a believer who interprets his fanaticism as part of his religious beliefs. It is cynical to suggest that a fanatical Islamic suicide bomber exploits religion and pays for it with death.

      Little hope

      I would like to avoid two misunderstandings at this point. First, even Muslim, I have no objection to the people of Islamic faith who come to Europe. What I object to is the political religion and the beliefs that they bring with them. The second misconception is the complaint of immigrants’ right to bind their religion to politics. European societies are secular and the public sphere should be secular. H. religion neutral, stay. However, the organized Islam federations do not accept this demand.

      May we talk freely about this? The Berlin Professor Herfried Münkler forbids this, because otherwise – so his words – a “Islamization of the debate” would arise. Anyone who does this and does not stick to it will be put in the right corner. I am a liberal Muslim and refuse to submit to this self-censorship. That would be a “submission,” a capitulation to the Islamists.

      Let us pronounce it uncensored, as I do in my book “Islamic History and German Islamic Studies”: In it I observe a migration of peoples from the world of Islam to Europe. Following the publication of the book, the US Pew Research Center published solid statistics on the increase in the proportion of Islamic populations in the European resident population on November 30 last year, forecasting scenarios by 2050. The Pew expects Muslims to share 20% of the total population of the country of welcome culture (Germany) in 2050; in other European countries, the proportion is 14 to 16 percent lower.

      On this basis, I have designed two scenarios. Scenario A: If the multicultural ideology wins, immigrant Muslims form parallel societies claiming minority rights; H. they are not integrated. Scenario B: Muslims, on the other hand, are integrated as citizens in the sense of the Citoyen, they represent a European Islam and thus have a share in a European leading culture. Under the current conditions, the positive scenario seems to be alien to reality; the officials of the organized Islam federations do not want this.

      The overarching framework of the problem referred to means that, following a successful secularization in Europe, religion returns to politics today and promotes decalcification. Two religious sociologists can be cited as authorities, on the one hand Max Weber, who interprets secularization as a “disenchantment of the world” and praises it as a European achievement; argues Harvard’s sociologist Daniel Bell, who speaks of the “Return of the Sacred”. There are not only economic, political and social conflicts. There are also value conflicts.

      As far as our topic is concerned, we mean the value conflicts that arise from the incompatibility of secular and religious values. Europeans understand z. For example, under right, what the democratically elected parliaments legislatively determine; Muslims, by rights, understand Sharia as revealed by Allah. The conflict between the two understandings of law is a classic conflict of values. And this is not solvable. Either an open society is secular or it is subordinated to Sharia law. The latter demand the Islam functionaries in the name of minority rights.

      One problem is that religion is bound not only to politics but also to culture. Together with the immigration from the world of Islam, and in general through migration, identity politics is pursued. For Muslims, cultural identity is defined religiously, and migrants see themselves as a collective with minority rights. To put it clearly: The identity policy is not the individual citizen, but the collective in the center.

      The understanding of ethnicity

      The Muslims form a religious community that has nothing to do with ethnicity. So there are Muslims who are blond and others who are dark-skinned. Illegal migration and the formation of parallel societies create an Islamic collective that is ethnically opposed to non-Muslims, contrary to their previous understanding of ethnicity.

      https://bazonline.ch/das-beste-aus-der-zeitung/die-rueckkehr-der-religion-in-die-politik/story/28351918

    3. What it is a nonsense is that minorities rule a country by the means of giving them priority in the laws, or having different laws to apply depending whether the person belongs to a religion or to another, instead of applying uniform laws for all and priority for the ones that really need it, disregarding his or her religion. Happening in India.

      What it is a nonsense is for instance that the a nation whose heart is fully Hindu whether they like it or not, has to suffer in its own heart the stabbing that for Hindu sentiments means to kill its Mother cow just for the sake of the palate of some. Happening in India.

      Example of a Catholic nation and its functioning: mine itself (Spain) when I was born and before: everybody had to be baptised and forcibly keep a Christian name, which of course amounts to everybody born in Spain counting in the figures of the Christian flock whether they were convinced or not by this religion. Add to this the conversion abroad through the Christian Missions and you will get the (injustly counted) major religion in the world by number of followers.

      Example of a Hindu nation: India in the past, when, being Hindu majority, gave shelter to different minorities without imposing them to convert to Hinduism. See Parsis, Jews persecuted everywhere else found shelter in India and could continue with their religion without being harassed and forced to convert to Hinduism. Christians and Muslims despite HAVING INVADED India in the past,
      and having shed rivers of blood among Hindus, specially Muslims who also killed Christians, have a nation of their own now, with the passage of generations, in which they can freely practice their religion (India). And still some of them dare to call the ones who gave them shelter “saffron, right-wing and communals”

      This is a main difference: Christians and Muslims seek to convert anybody else. History proves it. Hindus respect everybody else´s religion, unlike Abrahamic religions. This is the gist of what Maria is talking about, if I am not wrong.

      Now pls, feel free to correct my English. I will get an English class for free! 🙂

      1. Thanks for using my comment. You seem to agree so much till the extent of being Spanish yourself too!! 😉 Because you have not even change a word of what, for the good and for the bad, came through my fingers.

      2. Namaste,
        Sorry, It was my mistake
        Actually I copy various Posts, and comments which are of my Interest.
        I was to copy your comment in my file, but I copied by mistake at this Blog
        I hope you forgive me

      3. Nothing to worry about 🙂

      4. Namaste

        Yes,
        Bharat is our Mother.
        In fact the whole Earth is our Mother
        The Whole Nature is our Mother

        because they FEED us

        Hari Om

      5. Though I appreciate the efforts made by you and Maria Wirth towards Hinduism and Bharat.
        Hari Om

      6. Thanks for your appreciation!. But no efforts when Bharat is felt as a Mother, and Dharma as its natural core and spine.

        HARI OM

  37. Hans Grob · · Reply

    If you thought that I am a Muslim, you did not at all understand the text. Or I have written it badly, or the author of the cited/translated text, who is a Muslim, but a Westernized one.

  38. Great Views

  39. There should be more people like Maria Wirth who understand Hinduism correctly. They can spread this knowledge for the benefit of humanity

    1. Hans Grob · · Reply

      Noone can ever understand any BIG religion or culture ‘correctly’. Especially Hinduism, which is a conglomerate of religions. Hinduism does not have much attractiveness worldwide. According to the Pew Research center, only 30’000 will convert to Hinduism during 2015 – 2020, about the as many who want to leave it. That is even smaller than the 40’000 to the ‘small tribe religion’ Jewism, not to speak of the 500’000 to 5 million who switch to Buddhism, Islam or Christendom.

  40. why cant we all mind our own business and spend time to reform our self.when each of the nations worldwide do whatever they have to,to be the best they can be,india minds its own business.this should be a lesson to the rest of the world.

    1. India never interferes in any other countries internal affairs, the fact is that our country was invaded by foreign forces for 1000 years and the invaders converted our people by force those who resisted were killed.When foreign forces invaded our country our kings big and small were fighting the foreign invaders the length and breadth of our country.

      India never invaded any country or converted their people in to Hindus that is the Hall mark of our great nation we Hindus are born secular we believe in debates example The Classic Debate Between Mandana Misra And Adi Shankara. We Hindus do not have to listen to lectures of others on secularism we have atheist among us we accept them Christianity or Muslims do not accept atheist we are tolerant by nature we indulge in debates with others who disagree with our religion or our Vedas.

      1. Hans Grob · ·

        Tolerant religions are also tolerant against sufferings, injustice and evil, ‘intolerant’ ones are not. Why should an alliance not fight against devilish dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Gaddhafi, Assad? India is just too disorganised to invade overseas.

  41. There is only one religion which can be called tolerant. And it is Hinduism. And yes Hinduism is not an organized religion. It did never force its philosophy on others or on its own people. That is the reason everyone in Hinduism is acceptable with different Gods and no Gods. Hindu Kings fought many evil Kings of their own and from other’s land who came to loot our land. And why a country needs to invade other land. This thinking is itself devilish and give birth to devils like Hitler which is what is the gift of West to the world. India’s gift to the world is Yoga, Mahatma Buddha, Gandhi and rational thinking which is the origin of Mathematics and Science.

  42. But you have to agree that Sanskrit is a language which was not evolved but scientifically invented out of cobwebs of Indian languages and its grammar is very scientific

  43. Mahesh J · · Reply

    Kudos for writing this article! In my opinion, this is a fairly accurate representation of the greatness of Sanatana Dharma and the differences between this way of life that promotes thinking and analysis and other religions which do not.

    My only wish is that you hadn’t succumbed to statements like Sanskrit is “the most perfect, dignified, powerful language on earth and which is useful even for NASA” which sound fantastic for tradition-favouring Indians, but which don’t make much sense (what does it even mean for a language to be dignified or powerful?) and aren’t even true (the only reference to Sanskrit in NASA occurred more than 30 years ago by a researcher, and the gist of what he’s saying is available here: https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/466).

  44. Diwakar Tekriwal · · Reply

    Very well said

  45. thevoiceofindian · · Reply

    Wow! This is very intelligent of you to come up with such a neat work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: