Two approaches towards reforming Islam: the Bahai Faith and Ahmadiyya Islam.

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, the government was democratically elected but dominated by Nehru. Nehru was a canny politician. The explanation will not be easily understood by non-Indians, but I will try. He knew that if Hindus unite, then the rule of his family will end since his daughter, Indira had married a Zoroastrian. The first indication of his policy was when his party, Congress (Indian National Congress), blamed the Hindu combine, RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangha) for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and had it banned. He and his successors from the family did everything to divide Hindus. It was only after 50 years of the family rule that the Hindu Party, BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) was able to come to power. It delighted Congress if a few Hindus became Bahais, one more distraction for Hindus. I think the Bahai land purchase was felicitated by his government and was not a purely individual sale or purchase. I am trying to find the exact information.

Thanks for your post.

It’s a little off the topic of the OP but what stands out for me about Hinduism is how strongly it’s associated with both a national and ethnic identity. From that perspective, being anti-Abrahamic makes perfect sense. Indian was colonised and treated harshly by the Muslims. Then the Christians came along it was more of the same. Now we have the emergence of another Abrahamic Faith. How can that bring any good for India, whereas Islam and Christianity have wrought so much havoc and destruction for India.

 

[LuisDantas]

I tend to think of the association between India and HInduism as largely accidental, myself. There is nothing in the doctrines themselves that does not lend itself plenty well enough for a worldwide adoption.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks for your post.

It’s a little off the topic of the OP but what stands out for me about Hinduism is how strongly it’s associated with both a national and ethnic identity. From that perspective, being anti-Abrahamic makes perfect sense. Indian was colonised and treated harshly by the Muslims. Then the Christians came along it was more of the same. Now we have the emergence of another Abrahamic Faith. How can that bring any good for India, whereas Islam and Christianity have wrought so much havoc and destruction for India.

Muslim population in India is 180 million. Christian is 28 million. This out of a total about a billion. Baha'i numbers hover around 10 000 if you trust the Indian census, but 2 million if you trust Baha'i sources. One can hardly consider Baha'i as having any significant effect at all, being so small. Atheism, capitalism, and probably 50 or more Indian Guru based organisations like ISHA foundation have more influence. Calling the Baha'i a third Abrahamic faith is exaggeration to the extreme. One temple designed as a tourist attraction for evangelising purposes, and a few rural classes are nothing compared to the millions of dollars Christian 'aid' pours into the country in its attempt to dilute dharma. But when the anti-proselytising laws come, and that is already happening, Baha'i efforts will be affected right along with the Christian groups.

Edit ... Added link: BAHA'I CENSUS: Baha'i Population in India - A Report

A paper that explores the actual Baha'i population in India.

 

[Vinayaka]

I tend to think of the association between India and HInduism as largely accidental, myself. There is nothing in the doctrines themselves that does not lend itself plenty well enough for a worldwide adoption.

And that is seen world wide. Perhaps not Hinduism directly but tons of side effects like yoga, vegetarianism, greater tolerance, and more. Credit is rarely given where credit is due, but we're good with that. It is the net effect that counts.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I tend to think of the association between India and HInduism as largely accidental, myself. There is nothing in the doctrines themselves that does not lend itself plenty well enough for a worldwide adoption.

That may be true but it’s not the way its played out. Despite its age, its much less ethnically diverse compared to Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. It appears to have become inseparably enmeshed in Indian politics.

Hinduism is arguably the oldest of all the religions and that may contribute to its origins being largely obscured.

The most dominant historic character as far as I can discern is Krishna but then a reasonable case could be made that He never existed at all.

My cultural and ethnic traditions are rooted in Europe and Western Christianity. Hinduism isn’t part of my ancestry, any more than Buddhism or Islam. I can appreciate the beauty and spiritual potency within each of those traditions but the connections for me will never be as strong as Christianity. The Baha’i Faith affirms my heritage.

Hinduism has just as many fundamentalists and extremists as any other religion as far as I can see.

 

[paarsurrey]

That may be true but it’s not the way its played out. Despite its age, its much less ethnically diverse compared to Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. It appears to have become inseparably enmeshed in Indian politics.

Hinduism is arguably the oldest of all the religions and that may contribute to its origins being largely obscured.

The most dominant historic character as far as I can discern is Krishna but then a reasonable case could be made that He never existed at all.

My cultural and ethnic traditions are rooted in Europe and Western Christianity. Hinduism isn’t part of my ancestry, any more than Buddhism or Islam. I can appreciate the beauty and spiritual potency within each of those traditions but the connections for me will never be as strong as Christianity. The Baha’i Faith affirms my heritage.

Hinduism has just as many fundamentalists and extremists as any other religion as far as I can see.

I agree with most of the contents of one's post.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree with most of the contents of one's post.
Regards

What do you disagree with, Paar?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Muslim population in India is 180 million. Christian is 28 million. This out of a total about a billion. Baha'i numbers hover around 10 000 if you trust the Indian census, but 2 million if you trust Baha'i sources. One can hardly consider Baha'i as having any significant effect at all, being so small. Atheism, capitalism, and probably 50 or more Indian Guru based organisations like ISHA foundation have more influence. Calling the Baha'i a third Abrahamic faith is exaggeration to the extreme. One temple designed as a tourist attraction for evangelising purposes, and a few rural classes are nothing compared to the millions of dollars Christian 'aid' pours into the country in its attempt to dilute dharma. But when the anti-proselytising laws come, and that is already happening, Baha'i efforts will be affected right along with the Christian groups.

Edit ... Added link: BAHA'I CENSUS: Baha'i Population in India - A Report

A paper that explores the actual Baha'i population in India.

There's obviously a huge discrepancy between the census figures and those reported by the Indian Baha'i community.

I have never travelled to India. I do know a number of Baha'is of Indian descent though so will be interested to hear their thoughts the next time we meet up. There is one in my community and on our local assembly.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess it did play out that way, and that is actually odd, all things considered.

Hinduism takes itself seriously and is reliant on some combination of intellectual dedication and access to qualified instructors that, apparently, make it more of a challenge than the Abrahamics (which I agree that the Bahai Faith is a member of) even in India.

To me, all that means is that it is careful and slow to spread because it has checks and balances which the Abrahamics only barely manage to have. Every time I hear of the numbers and growth of the Abrahamics I feel that it is a bit of a shame how they attained it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I guess it did play out that way, and that is actually odd, all things considered.

Hinduism takes itself seriously and is reliant on some combination of intellectual dedication and access to qualified instructors that, apparently, make it more of a challenge than the Abrahamics (which I agree that the Bahai Faith is a member of) even in India.

To me, all that means is that it is careful and slow to spread because it has checks and balances which the Abrahamics only barely manage to have. Every time I hear of the numbers and growth of the Abrahamics I feel that it is a bit of a shame how they attained it.

Aggressive beats non-aggressive every time, Luis. Whoever said 'the meek shall inherit the earth' was a liar, unless the aggressive forces all kill each other off, leaving only the non-aggressive to pick up the pieces.

 

[paarsurrey]

That may be true but it’s not the way its played out. Despite its age, its much less ethnically diverse compared to Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. It appears to have become inseparably enmeshed in Indian politics.

Hinduism is arguably the oldest of all the religions and that may contribute to its origins being largely obscured.

The most dominant historic character as far as I can discern is Krishna but then a reasonable case could be made that He never existed at all.

My cultural and ethnic traditions are rooted in Europe and Western Christianity. Hinduism isn’t part of my ancestry, any more than Buddhism or Islam. I can appreciate the beauty and spiritual potency within each of those traditions but the connections for me will never be as strong as Christianity. The Baha’i Faith affirms my heritage.

Hinduism has just as many fundamentalists and extremists as any other religion as far as I can see.

"Hinduism is arguably the oldest of all the religions"

"The most dominant historic character as far as I can discern is Krishna but then a reasonable case could be made that He (Krishna) never existed at all."

It is like saying that a reasonable case could be made that Moses and Jesus never existed at all.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Hinduism does not particularly need the existence of a historical Krishna. Not even in the Krishna-based Sampradayas, I assume.

For that matter, Jesus and even Moses are not all that crucial for their respect creeds either, although I am certain that many will fiercely disagree.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I guess it did play out that way, and that is actually odd, all things considered.

Hinduism takes itself seriously and is reliant on some combination of intellectual dedication and access to qualified instructors that, apparently, make it more of a challenge than the Abrahamics (which I agree that the Bahai Faith is a member of) even in India.

To me, all that means is that it is careful and slow to spread because it has checks and balances which the Abrahamics only barely manage to have. Every time I hear of the numbers and growth of the Abrahamics I feel that it is a bit of a shame how they attained it.

It would be interesting to do an analysis of the ethnic and race composition of the different religions. I understand that of those who consider themselves Hindu, 80 - 90% would be predominantly from an ethnic group that makes up part of the Indian subcontinent.

I have met many wonderful people from India and who are Hindus. I would be uncomfortable being part of a Faith that did not acknowledge some of the roots of that spirituality. In that regard, it makes sense to include Krishna and Buddha as Manifestations of God, not to mention the constellation of outstanding individuals that have contributed to the spiritual and intellectual life of the peoples of India.

There is however, an undeniable exclusivity and attitude of superiority, from a sizeable proportion of those who identify themselves as Hindu. I wonder what its like for those who aren't Hindu living in India and how much prejudice exists beneath the outward appearance of tolerance.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hinduism does not particularly need the existence of a historical Krishna. Not even in the Krishna-based Sampradayas, I assume.

For that matter, Jesus and even Moses are not all that crucial for their respect creeds either, although I am certain that many will fiercely disagree.

I can't speak for Jews but Christians, Muslims, and Baha'is would all strongly advocate for the historicity of Jesus and Moses, though would dispute key events such as the crucifixion and resurrection. I suspect many Jews would take exception with being told that Moses wasn't a real person.

It would be interesting to hear from Vaishnavite Hindus as to how many believe Krishna was a real person and how important they regard that belief.

If you mean it doesn't really matter much as to what the scientific or archaeological evidence can tell us about these characters, then I agree with you.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is however, an undeniable exclusivity and attitude of superiority, from a sizeable proportion of those who identify themselves as Hindu. I wonder what its like for those who aren't Hindu living in India and how much prejudice exists beneath the outward appearance of tolerance.

There is a small minority who believe you have to be born in India to be a Hindu (I guess Sri Lankans and Nepalese don't count) and there are some that are racist against white people, but in my experience they are few and far between.

But speaking of exclusivity and attitudes of superiority, I see no faith that is immune to that.

 

[LuisDantas]

It would be interesting to do an analysis of the ethnic and race composition of the different religions. I understand that of those who consider themselves Hindu, 80 - 90% would be predominantly from an ethnic group that makes up part of the Indian subcontinent.

Probably. I don't think much about that, though. All of my life I thought of myself as a mongrel of sorts, originated in a land that is proud to be anything but well delimited ethnically.

I don't think any amount of awareness will ever make me think of communities as being defined mainly by their ethnic makeup. It is just too odd an idea for me to take at all seriously.

I have met many wonderful people from India and who are Hindus. I would be uncomfortable being part of a Faith that did not acknowledge some of the roots of that spirituality.

The roots of Hinduism are Dharma, therefore I have no idea of what you mean here.

In that regard, it makes sense to include Krishna and Buddha as Manifestations of God

You are probably already aware of the ironic situation that this causes with Buddha, but I guess you can do as you want.

not to mention the constellation of outstanding individuals that have contributed to the spiritual and intellectual life of the peoples of India.

Indeed. That is the true wealth of any doctrine or religion, IMO.

There is however, an undeniable exclusivity and attitude of superiority, from a sizeable proportion of those who identify themselves as Hindu. I wonder what its like for those who aren't Hindu living in India and how much prejudice exists beneath the outward appearance of tolerance.

Those points I freely grant - not that I am particularly qualified to do so.

Still, Hindus are just people when the chips are down.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is a small minority who believe you have to be born in India to be a Hindu (I guess Sri Lankans and Nepalese don't count) and there are some that are racist against white people, but in my experience they are few and far between.

But speaking of exclusivity and attitudes of superiority, I see no faith that is immune to that.

There is a whole spectrum of attitudes though that range from overt racial superiority to more subtle manifestations of the same.

During my three months in Fiji it became apparent how poorly many of the Indians (45% of the population) had really integrated with their Indigenous Fijian countryman (just over 50%). Intermarriage after 4 - 5 generations was uncommon. The Indians often kept to themselves and viewed the Indigenous Fijian's as lazy and uncivilised. They seemed to really like me though as a supposedly rich doctor from New Zealand lol.

I agree that every faith can have attitudes of exclusivity and superiority.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't speak for Jews but Christians, Muslims, and Baha'is would all strongly advocate for the historicity of Jesus and Moses, though would dispute key events such as the crucifixion and resurrection. I suspect many Jews would take exception with being told that Moses wasn't a real person.

Moses probably was an actual person. Jesus, I don't think so. The evidence that I know of strongly hints against it.

But either way, the doctrines are - and should be - greater than their own founders' hypothetical literal existence.

It would be interesting to hear from Vaishnavite Hindus as to how many believe Krishna was a real person and how important they regard that belief.

I quite agree. I am curious about that myself.

If you mean it doesn't really matter much as to what the scientific or archaeological evidence can tell us about these characters, then I agree with you.

No, I mean the doctrines.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a whole spectrum of attitudes though that range from overt racial superiority to more subtle manifestations of the same.

During my three months in Fiji it became apparent how poorly many of the Indians (45% of the population) had really integrated with their Indigenous Fijian countryman (just over 50%). Intermarriage after 4 - 5 generations was uncommon. The Indians often kept to themselves and viewed the Indigenous Fijian's as lazy and uncivilised. They seemed to really like me though as a supposedly rich doctor from New Zealand lol.

I agree that every faith can have attitudes of exclusivity and superiority.

Poverty is a scourge, and so is ethnical egocentrism, IMO.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is a whole spectrum of attitudes though that range from overt racial superiority to more subtle manifestations of the same.

During my three months in Fiji it became apparent how poorly many of the Indians (45% of the population) had really integrated with their Indigenous Fijian countryman (just over 50%). Intermarriage after 4 - 5 generations was uncommon. The Indians often kept to themselves and viewed the Indigenous Fijian's as lazy and uncivilised. They seemed to really like me though as a supposedly rich doctor from New Zealand lol.

I agree that every faith can have attitudes of exclusivity and superiority.

I know quite a few Indian Fijians. The British took the Indians to Fiji and elsewhere in the sugar diaspora days. (I just learned the other day that the major reason it was Indians, not Africans, was because Indians already knew the ins and outs of growing cane.) The indigenous population felt threatened, no doubt, and the Indians most likely regretted their capture and forced movement. So yes, it was a disliking from the onset. There have been troubles, but for the most part, the locals on both sides keep out of it.

Eventually all the Fijian Indians will leave.

Land, Life and Labour: Indo-Fijian Claims to Citizenship in a Changing Fiji on JSTOR