Anti-Hindu sentiment: Difference between revisions
→Academia: removing text that is not substantiated by the accompanying citation. 1. the congressman is unnamed. 2. cited article only claims that Malhotra claims that unnamed cngrssman said such |
Bakasuprman (talk | contribs) Revert to revision 87018495 dated 2006-11-10 21:43:38 by Hkelkar using popups |
||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
Historians have noted that during the British Empire "evangelical influence drove British policy down a path that tended to minimize and denigrate the accomplishments of Indian civilization and to position itself as the negation of the earlier British [[Indomania]] that was nourished by belief in Indian wisdom."<ref> Trautmann 1997:113</ref>. |
Historians have noted that during the British Empire "evangelical influence drove British policy down a path that tended to minimize and denigrate the accomplishments of Indian civilization and to position itself as the negation of the earlier British [[Indomania]] that was nourished by belief in Indian wisdom."<ref> Trautmann 1997:113</ref>. |
||
The contemporary academia in the [[United States]] has been criticized for portraying a biased interpretation of Hinduism and Hindus<ref name="Bagal pt 1">[http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_040912.htm Biases in Hinduism Studies Pt1] by Abhijit Bagal</ref>. The portrayal of the Hindu God [[Rama]] and the Puranic text [[Ramayana]] by academics such as [[Susan Wadley]] has been criticized by other academics such as David Gray as "partisan and political readings of the epic, as well as outright inflammatory 'cheap shots' at a sacred text". Wadley's works have been criticized for portraying Rama as "an invading-outsider, imperialist, oppressor, misogynist, and a racist and that the workbook sounds more like the rant of an over zealous racist than that of an objective and neutral scholar"<ref name="Bagal pt 1"/>. |
The contemporary academia in the [[United States]] has been criticized for portraying a biased interpretation of Hinduism and Hindus<ref name="Bagal pt 1">[http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_040912.htm Biases in Hinduism Studies Pt1] by Abhijit Bagal</ref>. United States congressmen who are members of the India Caucus have commented that several works published by the "Religions in South Asia" (RISA) subgroup of the "American Academy of Religion" have a systemic anti-Hindu prejudice that "borders on hate-speech"<ref name="Bagal pt 1"/>. The portrayal of the Hindu God [[Rama]] and the Puranic text [[Ramayana]] by academics such as [[Susan Wadley]] has been criticized by other academics such as David Gray as "partisan and political readings of the epic, as well as outright inflammatory 'cheap shots' at a sacred text". Wadley's works have been criticized for portraying Rama as "an invading-outsider, imperialist, oppressor, misogynist, and a racist and that the workbook sounds more like the rant of an over zealous racist than that of an objective and neutral scholar"<ref name="Bagal pt 1"/>. |
||
In addition, RISA scholars are accused of holding the Hindu disapora in the United States with contempt and making derogatory remarks about Hindus and Hinduism that are "patently false"<ref name="Bagal pt4">[http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_041121.htm Biases in Hinduism Studies Pt6] by Abhijit Bagal</ref>.RISA is also ctiticized for stressing on obscure practices within Hinduism that were never widely implemented (such as the [[Ashwamedha]] horse sacrifice) in a deliberate ploy to mis-portray Hinduism as a "repulsive religion" while almost completely ignoring normative Hindu scripture and normative Hindu practices<ref name="Bagal pt4"/>. |
In addition, RISA scholars are accused of holding the Hindu disapora in the United States with contempt and making derogatory remarks about Hindus and Hinduism that are "patently false"<ref name="Bagal pt4">[http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_041121.htm Biases in Hinduism Studies Pt6] by Abhijit Bagal</ref>.RISA is also ctiticized for stressing on obscure practices within Hinduism that were never widely implemented (such as the [[Ashwamedha]] horse sacrifice) in a deliberate ploy to mis-portray Hinduism as a "repulsive religion" while almost completely ignoring normative Hindu scripture and normative Hindu practices<ref name="Bagal pt4"/>. |
||
Revision as of 21:53, 10 November 2006
Anti-Hindu prejudice is a negative perception against Hinduism, Hindus and Indian or Hindu culture. Such prejudice is a form of religious intolerance. While stereotyping of Hindus in the west has decreased somewhat as a result of social, academic and financial success of the Hindus, it is possible to cultivate a negative perception of Hinduism by carefully portraying Hinduism as evil. Western stereotypes of Hinduism do exist in academia and society[1], and hate-crimes against Hindus have risen in some European countries.
Because Hinduism tends to naturally accepting of non-Hindu philosophies and practices, it can be hard to arise passions against Hinduism. However it has been possible to persuade tribals and poor communities in India that their problems are due to evils inherent in Hinduism.
There are several group within India and many working in western countries that are specifically anti-Hindu. In addition, anti-Hindu sentiments have been expressed by fundamentalist Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Fiji, leading to significant genocides against the Hindu population.
Anti-Hindu stereotypes
| Part of a series on |
| Hinduism |
|---|
 |
Many anti-Hindu personalities, organizations, and even several academics in India, as well as in western countries often use the "Caste, Cows and Curry" stereotype against Hindus [2] [3], deliberately ridiculing Hindu beliefs as incompatible with the predominant beliefs of some Abrahamic Religions [3]. Historically, such stereotypes were promulgated during the British Raj by several Indophobes in South Asia as a means to aggrandize sectarian divisions in Indian society, part of the divide and rule strategy employed by the British.
The Indian Caste System, a social stratification system in South Asia which has been criticized for it's discriminatory problems, is uniquely blamed on Hindus and the religion of Hinduism. This is a common stereotype, as adherents of other religions such as Islam and Christianity also practice Caste segregations in India (for details, see Indian Caste System#Caste System among Indian Muslims) and is generally regarded in India as a social issue, rather than a religious one. Anti-Hindu polemicists often deliberately muddle or confuse this distinction in order to defame and denigrate the Hindu people. Several organizations in India and abroad have been criticized by Hindu advocacy groups for these types of attacks.
The devotion to bovine animals (regarded as holy in Hinduism) is also used as a pretext to mock the Hindu people by many in the west. In addition, the Hindu tradition of cremating their dead is used to mock the people.
Anti-Hindu attacks often accuse Hindus of being "Blasphemers" for committing "idolatry" and "polytheism" (Hinduism is more accurately described as henotheistic than polytheistic). Some Anti-Hindus have a mistaken interpretation of Hinduism, relating it more to Ancient polytheistic religions as opposed to one that relates to enlightenment or moksha. This accusation is prevalent among adherents of monotheistic religions like Islam and Christianity. Many Christian missionaries, particularly those of Fundamentalist Christianity, denigrate Hindu deities as "evil" or "demonic". Many advocacy groups in the west, such as the Hindu American Foundation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center have spoken against anti-Hindu bigotry and prejudice.
Historical instances of anti-Hindu views
See Also:Persecution of Hindus
During Islamic Rule in the Indian Subcontinent
Several Islamic scholars, theologians and Emperors held virulently anti-Hindu stances during the Islamic invasion of India. They regarded Hindus as "infidels" who had to be slaughtered with no mercy. In particular, the Arab invaders in the 8th century held anti-Hindu attitudes, such as the testament of the superior of Muhammad bin-Qasim, Hajjaj, who quoted the Quran to justify the slaughter of Hindus[4].
During the rule of the Sultanate of Delhi, several Islamic clerics and scholars were known to tout anti-Hindu views and prejudices.
The first ruler of the Islamic Mughal Empire, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur expressed anti-Hindu views in the Bāburnāma:
Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks.[5]
The comments made by the Emperor Babur, echo in the slighest terms the disparaging and often hateful opinion that some of the Mughals had towards Hindustan and in particular Hindus.
In addition, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb was known to be a fanatical anti-Hindu and destroyed many Hindu temples and other places of worship, as well as the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Hindus.
During the Christian Invasion of Goa
During the Goa Inquisition, thousands of Goanese Hindus were massacred by Christian missionaries, starting from the year 1560. The inquisition was proposed by St. Francis Xavier, who held the anti-Hindu view that Hindu temples and places of worship had to be destroyed [6].
During the British Raj
During the British rule of the Indian Subcontinent, several evangelical Christian missionaries spread anti-Hindu propaganda in India during the 19th century. In particular, journalist and writer Rudyard Kipling was known for his intensely disparaging views against Hinduism. The same was true for several Englishmen such as Macauley, whose anti-Hindu views created a negationist social mindset in India that prevails to this day.
In Charles Grant highly influential "Observations on the ...Asiatic subjects of Great Britain" (1796),[7] Grant criticized the Orientalists for being too respectful to Indian culture and religion. His work tried to determine the Hindu's "true place in the moral scale", and he alleged that the Hindus are "a people exceedingly depraved".
Lord Macaulay, who introduced English education into India, claimed: "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia." [8] He wrote that Arabic and Sanskrit works on medecine contain "medical doctrines which would disgrace an English Farrier - Astronomy, which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school - History, abounding with kings thirty feet high, and reigns thirty thousand years long - and Geography made up of seas of treacle and seas of butter".[9] He advocated to create a middle Anglicised class that was "Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect"[9]. This class of anglicized Indians would then in turn anglicize the Indian people.
One of the most influential historians of India during the British Empire, James Mill was criticized for being prejudiced against Hindus. His work "History of British India" (1817) may be the "single most important source of British Indophobia and hostility to Orientalism".[10] The Indologist H.H. Wilson wrote that the tendency of Mill's work is "evil".[11] Mill claimed that both Indians and Chinese people are cowardly, unfeeling and mendacious. Both Mill and Grant attacked Orientalist scholarship that was too respectful of Indian culture: "It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in the pursuit of truth, and so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted the hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia"[12]. Karl Marx's writings were also prejudiced against Indians[13].
Contemporary instances of Anti-Hindu views
In the West
Elements in the Western Academia have also been criticized for defaming and denigrating Hinduism with the purpose of a political agenda to meant to segregate and marginalize the growing Hindu communities in the west, in much the same way that anti-Semitism has evolved in the same part of the world. Cases of alleged slander and racist libel against Hindus such as those of Wendy Doniger and Michael Witzel have achieved relative prominence in recent years. Several journalists in the West, such as Celia Dugger [14] of the New York Times and others such as Barbara Crosett and Molly Moore are regarded as anti-Hindu [15]. In addition, writer Francois Gautier comments that "There is an unconscious militant dislike of the Christian world towards Hindu India".
Academia
Claims of Bias against Hindus in South Asian Studies have often been made. Such real or perceived bias can imply old-fashioned and prejudiced outsider interpretations of Eastern cultures and peoples:
- Biased interpretation of Indian history. For example James Mill's History of India downplays Indian history.[16].
- One-sided, unfair, exaggerated or exclusively negative presentation of some aspects of Hinduism or Indian culture. For example exaggerations or misrepresentations about Hindu theology, misrepresentations about the status of women in Hinduism, etc.
- Claims that the Indological scholarship of Indians themselves is not scientific or that it is motivated by political motives, i.e. by Marxist, nationalist, Hindu, Muslim, Dravidian separatist or other motives.
- Claims that India has not produced any worthwhile literature[9].
- Claims that Indian languages are not scholarly languages (a more contemporaneous example of such attitudes is the case of the linguist Michael Witzel who wrote about the Indian linguist Shrikant Talageri that he "cannot read any scholarly language besides English").[17]
Historians have noted that during the British Empire "evangelical influence drove British policy down a path that tended to minimize and denigrate the accomplishments of Indian civilization and to position itself as the negation of the earlier British Indomania that was nourished by belief in Indian wisdom."[18].
The contemporary academia in the United States has been criticized for portraying a biased interpretation of Hinduism and Hindus[19]. United States congressmen who are members of the India Caucus have commented that several works published by the "Religions in South Asia" (RISA) subgroup of the "American Academy of Religion" have a systemic anti-Hindu prejudice that "borders on hate-speech"[19]. The portrayal of the Hindu God Rama and the Puranic text Ramayana by academics such as Susan Wadley has been criticized by other academics such as David Gray as "partisan and political readings of the epic, as well as outright inflammatory 'cheap shots' at a sacred text". Wadley's works have been criticized for portraying Rama as "an invading-outsider, imperialist, oppressor, misogynist, and a racist and that the workbook sounds more like the rant of an over zealous racist than that of an objective and neutral scholar"[19].
In addition, RISA scholars are accused of holding the Hindu disapora in the United States with contempt and making derogatory remarks about Hindus and Hinduism that are "patently false"[20].RISA is also ctiticized for stressing on obscure practices within Hinduism that were never widely implemented (such as the Ashwamedha horse sacrifice) in a deliberate ploy to mis-portray Hinduism as a "repulsive religion" while almost completely ignoring normative Hindu scripture and normative Hindu practices[20].
The influence of such scholarship in American schools has also been criticized, with studies showing systemic bias against Hindus in the social studies curricula of American schools[20].
Society
In addition, Christian televangelists such as Pat Robertson in the United States has made remarks that are regarded as anti-Hindu, if not racist[21], denouncing Hinduism as "demonic" and evoking similar canards against Hinduism. These remarks were widely condemned and rebutted by Indian Americans and many non-partisan advocacy groups[22].
In 2001, an American talk show host Tony Brown, made several derogatory anti-Hindu remarks in his talk show on WLS 890 AM that began with the concern among American workers about the influx of software engineers from India. he evoked anti-Hindu canards such as exaggerating the importance of the Caste System in Hinduism, and made patent falsehoods about Human Rights in India. Protests by Indian-American community leaders led to the radio host publicly apologising for his remarks against Hindus and Hinduism. In his apology, Brown said:
The statements I made were derived from either books or articles that I read. Still, I had not considered the possibility of bigots using the information to persecute the Hindu minority in this country.That does not excuse me from the pain that I have caused by not being more circumspect [23].
After his apology, Brown also invited Swami Atmajnanananda of the Washington branch of the Ramakrishna Mission and an Indian journalist based in Chicago, J V Lakshmana Rao, to participate in the talk show. Atmajnanananda said one must draw a distinction between caste and casteism. He said:
The assumption that Hindus are inherently racists is dangerous.Caste does not play a role in one's occupation any more. One should not use the pitfalls of the Indian culture to attack Hinduism[23].
Refuting Brown's statement that lower castes were being persecuted in India, Rao spoke of affirmative actions in favor of the lower castes by the Government of India.
On April 28,2004, an article on the Denver Post, authored by thoracic and general surgeon and a commentator on National Public Radio in USA Pius Kamau, portrayed the entire Indian community and the Hindus with "bigoted views". Widespread letter-writing and protests from the Indian American community, the Denver post responded by conveying the writer and editor's apologies [24].
On May 6 of that year, Denver Post also published a strong rebuttal to the original article By P.K. Vedanthan titled "Healing ethnic wounds"[24].
In 2005, The Hindu American Foundation protested against the defamation of Hinduism in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle alleging the false anti-Hindu canard of rape being a "just punishment for criminal behavior". The author removed the statement following the protest[25].
In the same year, HAF also protested against an anti-Hindu article published in the Los Angeles Times where the writer, Paul Watson also equates Hinduism with the worship of cows and snakes[26].
It has been alleged that Hindus are mis-represented and stereotyped by other Indian non-Hindu organizations in the United States, such as the Friends of South Asia. Many such organizations that have been accused of spreading hate-literature against Hindus have been criticised by Hindu Advocacy groups of being ideologically biased in favor of Liberal Socialism, which has been identified by many to be in opposition to religion in general. However, it has also been alleged that South Asian organizations in the US that defame Hinduism are funded and supported by several Islamist organizations prevalent in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir, as well as Christian Missionary organizations. These organizations have generally an anti-Indian, pro-Communist agenda.
The Russian Orthodox Church has recently endorsed several anti-Hindu remarks, referring to the Hindu deity Krishna as an "evil demon". For details, see Hinduism in Russia.
In South Asia
Afghanistan
The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was known for it's extremist attitudes and views on Islam, including their strict enforcement of Islamic sharia law in the society. The Taliban regime declared that Hindus would be required to wear badges in public identifying themselves as Hindus, ostensibly to "protect them". This was part of the Taliban's plan to segregate "un-Islamic" and "idolatrous" communities from Islamic ones[27].
The decree was regarded as an anti-Hindu one by several lawmakers and congressmen in the United States, as well as by the Indian Government[28]. There were widespread protests against this decree in both India and the United States.In the United States, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman compared the decree to the practices of Nazi Germany, where Jews were required to wear labels identifying them as such[29]. In the United States, congressmen wore yellow badges on the floor of the Senate during the debate as a demonstration of their solidarity with the Hindu minority in Afghanistan[28].
Pakistan
In Pakistan, anti-Hindu sentiments and beliefs are widely help among many sections of the population. Hindus are often regarded as "Kaffirs" and blamed for "causing all the problems in Pakistan"[30].Islamic fundamentalist groups operating within Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan have broadcasted or disseminated anti-Hindu propaganda among the masses [31], referring to Hindus as "Hanood" and blaming them for "collaborating with the foreigners" against the people of the region.
The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a coalition of Islamist political parties in Pakistan, calls for the increased Islamization of the government and society, specifically taking an anti-Hindu stance.The MMA leads the opposition in the national assembly, held a majority in the NWFP Provincial Assembly, and was part of the ruling coalition in Balochistan. However, some members of the MMA made efforts to eliminate their rhetoric against Hindus[32].
The public school curriculum in Pakistan was Islamized during the 1980s. This included the adoption of a number of textbooks that included derogatory remarks against minority religious groups, particularly Hindus and Jews, and the generalized teaching of religious intolerance as acceptable. The government of Pakistan claims to undertake a major revision to eliminate such teachings and to remove Islamic teaching from secular subjects[32]. The bias in Pakistani textbooks was also documented by Y. Rosser (2003). She wrote that "in the past few decades, social studies textbooks in Pakistan have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours”, and that as a result "in the minds of generations of Pakistanis, indoctrinated by the 'Ideology of Pakistan' are lodged fragments of hatred and suspicion." (Rosser 2003)
The bias in Pakistani textbooks was studied by Rubina Saigol, Pervez Hoodbhoy, K. K. Aziz, I. A. Rahman, Mubarak Ali, A. H. Nayyar, Ahmed Saleem, Y. Rosser and others.
A study by Nayyar & Salim (2003) that was conducted with 30 experts of Pakistan's education system, found that the textbooks contain statements that seek to create hate against Hindus. There was also an emphasis on Jihad, Shahadat, wars and military heroes. The study reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased stereotypes. Some of the problems in Pakistani textbooks cited in the report were: “Insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation”; "Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat”; a “glorification of war and the use of force”; "Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history"; “Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other towards nations” and “Omission of concepts ... that could encourage critical selfawareness among students”. (Nayyar & Salim 2003)
The Pakistani Curriculum document for classes K-V stated in 1995 that "at the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to "Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan." [pg154]
The Government of Pakistan does not restrict religious publishing; however, the Government restricts the right to freedom of speech with regard to religion. Ameer Hamza, a leader of the banned terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba, wrote a highly derogatory book about Hinduism in 1999 called "Hindu Ki Haqeeqat" ("Reality of (a) Hindu"); he was not prosecuted by the Government[33].
Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, the ruling Bangladesh National Party is regarded as an anti-Hindu party, and reportedly encourages anti-Hindu views and sentiments among the Muslim majority. Prominent political leaders frequently fall back on "Hindu bashing" in an attempt to appeal to extremist sentiment and to stir up communal passions. In one of the most notorious utterances of a mainstream Bangladeshi figure, the current Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, while leader of the opposition in 1996, declared that the country was at risk of hearing "uludhhwani" (a Hindu custom involving women's ululation) from mosques, replacing the azaan (Muslim call to prayer) (eg, see Agence-France Press report of 18th November 1996, "Bangladesh opposition leader accused of hurting religious sentiment").
Even the supposedly secular Awami League is not immune from this kind of scare-mongering. The current leader of the opposition, Sheikh Hasina, while Prime Minister, was alleged to have accused Bangladeshi Hindu leaders in New York of having dividied loyalties with "one foot in India and one in Bangladesh". Successive events such as this have contributed to a feeling of tremendous insecurity among the Hindu minority[34].
The fundamentalists and right-wing parties such as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jatiya Party often portray Hindus as being sympathetic to India, making accusations of dual loyalty and allegations of transferring economic resources to India, contributing to a widespread perception that Bangladeshi Hindus are disloyal to the state. Also, the right wing parties claim the Hindus to be backing the Awami League[35].
As widely documented in international media, Bangladesh authorities have had to increase security to enable Bangladeshi Hindus to worship freely[36] following widespread attacks on places of worship and devotees.
India
In India, personalities such as Kancha Ilaiah and Udit Raj are often accused of anti-Hindu sentiments,as are Islamist organizations such as the Students Islamic Movement of India and terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, and Christian organizations such as the Dalit Freedom Network.
In 2006, a Kerala based Christian evangelist named M.G. Mathew released an anti-Hindu book titled 'Haqeeqat' (Hindustani for 'reality') and had Christian Fundamentalist organizations like the All-India Christian Council distribute the text in the Indian state of Rajasthan. The book attacked Hindu and Jain beliefs and practices and was widely criticized as a propaganda tool created for missionary purposes. The book is presently banned by the Indian government (for details see: Haqeeqat).
In addition, extremist fringes within the broader movement for the legitimate emancipation for the Dalits, such as Dalit Voice have expressed anti-Hindu views and sentiments, demanding the eradication of Hindus and expressing support for various Islamist groups around the world, as well as support for anti-semitic ideologies such as holocaust denial.They have also alleged that Indian Jews, together with Jews in the west, are engaged in a systematic conspiracy with Hindu Brahmins in India to "crush Muslims, Blacks and India's [ largely Hindu ] Dalits" [37].
Anti-Hindu crimes
See Also: Persecution of Hindus
Recently, hate crimes against Hindus have risen in European countries such as the United Kingdom and Russia. In the UK, many Hindus have been assaulted and killed. However, a strong undercurrent of deliberate Hinduphobia does exist in many radical fringe elements of British society, for example, certain members of the British National Party and various Neo-Nazi groups that have been classified by advocacy organizations such as the anti-defamation league as hate groups. In Russia, hate crimes against Hindus has risen both due to racial ideologies perpetrated by rising Neo-Nazi factions, as well as religious intolerance exhibited by some elements of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Hate crime statistics against Hindus in North American countries are unavailable. However, it is believed that sporadic bouts of communal and institutional hatred against Hindus have occurred, though their frequency may have decreased in recent years. In the late 1980's a Jersey City street gang calling themselves the "Dotbusters" targeted, threatened and attacked South Asians, specifically Hindus [38].
On July 20, 2006, The Hindu American Foundation represented Hindus as a part of a coalition of civil rights, educational and religious submitting comments to the Department of Justice on its implementation of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA). Enacted by Congress in 1990, the HCSA requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual report of its the findings[39].
HAF report
The Hindu American Foundation, an advocacy group for Hindus, released a report in 2005 on the status of the human rights of Hindus, mainly in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Kashmir valley. The report attempts to increase awareness of anti-Hindu views propagated and used to justify violations of the human rights of many Hindus in the region. The report introduces as:
Human rights are by definition universal. Hence, in an ideal world there would be no need to write a separate report on the human rights of Hindus, or for that matter any other group. In the real world, unfortunately, there is a gaping hole when it comes to the awareness of human rights for Hindus, mainly in Bangladesh, Pakistan and in the Kashmir valley [40].
The 71-page report compiles media coverage and firsthand accounts of human rights violations perpetrated against Hindus because of their religious identity. The incidents are documented, often quoting from well-known international human rights organizations [40].The Hindu American Foundation presented the report to the co-chairs of the US Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, and Gary Ackerman, a Democrat. Both of these members of Congress endorsed it[41].Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean and co-founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, praised the HAF for the report.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center welcomes this report which will help the international community and Non-governmental Organizations to have a broader understanding of the human rights situation in that important region of the world[41].
Several academics on campuses around the U.S. also reviewed this year’s report. Florida International University Professor of religious Studies, Nathan Katz, remarked on the promulgation of various anti-Hindu sentiments recorded in the report:
“This report by the Hindu American Foundation…is a real eye-opener”.“As a minority in Islamic societies that consider them to be ‘idolaters,’ Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan face unimaginable persecution routinely[41].
The report documents the long history of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, a topic that many Indians and Indian governments over the years have preferred not to acknowledge. Such atrocities, including targeted attacks against temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women and enticements to convert to Islam, have increased sharply in recent years after the Jamat-e-Islami joined the coalition government led by the Bangladesh National Party.
The report concludes with:
Some Indians may feel uncomfortable with this report because they do not want to be reminded about the problems of Hindus outside their milieu. And for some in the Indian intelligentsia, it is a badge of honour to distance themselves from these pogroms as a mark of their supposed enlightenment, oddly trashing their own ethos in the process. Many more Indians are reluctant to speak out against atrocities committed against Hindus for fear of being labeled "communal". Merely speaking about human rights for Hindus is for them a form of communalism
The people whose persecution is amply documented in this report are being persecuted because they are Hindu, not because they are poor or because of their political views. Human rights activists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, many of whom are not Hindus, have painstakingly documented the violations of basic human rights of Hindus in their country.
Anti-Hindutva
Many Anti-Hindu groups and organizations prefer to call themselves Anti-Hindutva, claiming to oppose the alleged ideology of Hindu Nationalism in India. Although some organizations discuss legitimate issues and sectarian problems with the Hindutva movement, others use the criticism of Hindutva as an excuse to attack Hindus in general. The criticism of Hindutva often goes beyond the criticism of a political/religious movement and degenerates into anti-Hindu rhetoric and hatemongering[42]. This is similar to the concept where Holocaust deniers prefer to call themselves Holocaust revisionist. Publications such as Dalit Voice have routinely conflated Hinduism with Hindutva[43] and have been criticized for anti-Hindu and anti-semitic attacks[44][45].
See also
Notes
- ^ Stereotyping Hinduism in American Education
- ^ "Let India Develop"
- ^ a b The interpretation of gods, Uchicago.edu
- ^
Trifkovic, Serge (Sept. 11, 2002). The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World. Regina Orthodox Press.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Thackston, Wheeler (2002). The Baburnama (p352).
- ^ Rao, R.P (1963). Portuguese Rule in Goa:1510-1961 P43. Asia Publishing House.
- ^ Grant, Charles. (1796) Observations on the state of society among the Asiatic subjects of Great Britain, particularly with respect to morals; and on the means of improving it, written chiefly in the year 1792.
- ^ First Indologists A Tribute to Hinduism
- ^ a b c Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 1835:242-243, Minute on Indian education.
- ^ Trautmann 1997:117
- ^ H.H. Wilson 1858 in James Mill 1858, The history of British India, Preface of the editor
- ^ Mill, James - 1858, 2:109, The history of British India
- ^ Suniti Kumar Ghosh (1984). "Marx on India online". Monthly Review.
{{cite journal}}: External link in|title= - ^ Old habits die hard, rediff.com
- ^ Interview with Francois Gautier, rediff.com
- ^ Mill 1858
- ^ Michael Witzel, 2001, Westward Ho, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies Vol. 7 (2001), issue 2 (March 31)
- ^ Trautmann 1997:113
- ^ a b c Biases in Hinduism Studies Pt1 by Abhijit Bagal
- ^ a b c Biases in Hinduism Studies Pt6 by Abhijit Bagal
- ^ CHRISTIAN PAT ROBERTSON DENOUNCES HINDUISM AS "DEMONIC"
- ^ Using TV, Christian Pat Robertson Denounces Hinduism as "Demonic"
- ^ a b US radio host apologises over anti-Hindu remarks, rediff.com
- ^ a b Denver Post / Author "regrets" for the "Racially Hateful" article, Indiacause.com
- ^ HAF Protests DefamaTion of Hinduism in San Francisco Chronicle, Hindu American Foundation
- ^ HAF Responds to Hinduphobic Article in LA Times, Hindu American Foundation
- ^ Taliban to mark Afghan Hindus,CNN
- ^ a b US Lawmakers Condemn Taliban Treatment Of Hindus,CNSnews.com
- ^ Taliban: Hindus Must Wear Identity Labels,People's Daily
- ^ Why democracy didn't take roots in Pakistan?, Kashmir Herald
- ^ Military drops leaflets in Waziristan, jang.com.pk
- ^ a b International Religious Freedom Report 2006 Published by the US Department of State
- ^ International Religious Freedom Report 2004" Published by the US Department of State
- ^ A Bleak Future for Bangladesh Hindu's, hinduismtoday.com
- ^ Amnesty International Report
- ^ Security fears for Hindu festival, BBC
- ^ Dalit Voice, 16-1-1993##
- ^ U.S. Racial Attacks Evoke Self-Scrutiny, hinduismtoday.com
- ^ Hindu American Foundation Comments on Hate Crime Statistics Act Report
- ^ a b Human Rights Report from HAF
- ^ a b c [1] Second Annual Report On Hindu Human Rights Released, Pacific Magazine
- ^ Puzzling Dimensions and Theoretical Knots in my Graduate School Research by Yvette Claire Rosser, The Infinity Foundation
- ^ Dalit Voice, vol.25, No.1
- ^ [2] Ayodhya and After, Koenraad Elst (Chpt 14)
- ^ Heuzé, Gérard (1993). Où va l’Inde moderne? (p 87). L’Harmattan.