Post

Tekkumkoor wrote:

Completely agree with you on what radical religious belief is capable of. However, we need to also realize that Islam is not the only religion susceptible to being radicalised. Christians do it when they shoot Sikhs in the US on suspicion of being Muslims, Hindus do it when they chant Jai Shriram when they invade Muslim neighborhoods raping and pillaging during riots (riots are much more common and claim more victims than terrorism in India), and Muslims certainly do it when they kill cartoonists and embark on a rioting spree on some perceived slight to the Prophet. In India perhaps, radicalisation of the majority community - Hindus is a bigger concern. Look at statistics on violence linked to religion - most victims are in fact Muslim. (many people have a tendency of looking at sophisticated terrorist attacks are the sole instance of religion inspired violence, I'm counting riots in addition to the terrorist attacks in these numbers).
I understand that the global focus on religious violence is on Islamist violence. However, I do think India needs to have different priorities given home truths here are a little different.

There can never be a perfect utopian situation and fundamentalist groups will continue to exist in whatever religion that crops up.However,I personally belief the Hindu nationalism showed in modern India is just like the one that emerged in the pre-colonial era when Indian groups such Bhadralok in Bengal invented Hindu nationalism and Hinduism itself based on the projects of the Empire.The caste system is a result of H.H. Rishley's obsession to fit Indians into a Darwanian-Vedic style uniform system that had to be based on the Portuguese 'Casta'. The Bhadralok as well as the Maharashtrians had tried to create this image of Hindu nationalism in order to subdue a growing and quite aggressive Muslim intellectual movement and it was mostly a Congress faction war.So,I consider the janata party's use of Hindu nationalism just as a political tool via people who show reactionary attitude towards Muslims(due to past skirmishes with Muslims) and in the post 1970s period,a lot of refugees were absorbed into the janata and communist parties and they have exhibited that same anti Muslim reactionary attitude.As for Christianity,it was much more violent during the Early Middle and Medieval Ages.Sweden,Norway were converted by sword and parish sponsored massacres.There are institutions in Christainity like the West boro church,church of oxford,and even the Catholic church at Rome which show fundamentalism but then fundamental islamists wage full scale wars,suppress coreligionists or if they are from other ethno-linguistic groups.Therefore,islamic fundamentalism is dangerous as even a christian group can via a third party use them to bring world wide destruction.Anyway,pardon me but I do not put my lead my life by the rules of ancient Harry Potters,but by being a logical humanist.