Seems like the fact of a large India-Egypt trade link via the red sea was known atleast a year back, and specifically this evidence from Berenike. This [0] link describes the author William Dalrymple talking about it and also about his book [1] which is already out, which presumably covers this in more detail. A lot of Indian scholars are (re)discovering Indic history and we can expect much more of ancient India specific history to come out, which was unknown or has been forgotten over the ages, given the ancient nature of the Indian civilization.
Slightly OT, but if you are interested in this sort of thing, William Dalrymple and Anita Anand co-host the Empire podcast, which has many episodes and guests and recommended reading covering lots of ancient history.
> A lot of Indian scholars are (re)discovering Indic history and we can expect much more of ancient India specific history to come out, which was unknown or has been forgotten over the ages, given the ancient nature of the Indian civilization.
This, there are also very real links connecting famous civilizations of the Ancient Near East such as the Sumerians with the Dravidians of South India.
Tbf we have no clue if the Harappa valley civilization was dravidian. I think current consensus edges towards a lost austronesian language rather than a dravidian one (albeit certainly coexisting with dravidian cultures), but we'll likely not have good answers without archaeological evidence of cultural comparison (like a rosetta stone)
I don’t know about the Dravidians. But in English (UK/US) “chai tea” does not just mean any tea. It is commonly used to refer to to black tea spiced with specific mix of spices.
It is true that “chai” means tea in many languages, but the meaning in English is more specific. (At least in the usage i have encountered.)
It’s not that straightforward because every Indian is a healthy mix of ANI+ASI+. In fact there’s no ASI ancient DNA sample available annd it’s a proposed phenotype. ANI/ASI also goes thousands of years before these empires arose so again back to the original claim that none of these empires called them Dravidian.
Another month, another article falsely claiming that these trade routes haven't been known for years. It's also not limited to India-Egypt. The Greeks traded with Ancient Ethiopia. As did the Romans, who also traded with India and even as far as China. That sea route through the Arabian Gulf has been well established for millennia.
While a lot of these finds are new and wonderful, especially that sanskrit inscription, the connections between the civilizations weren't exactly hidden. There are references to Hindus and Buddhists sprinkled throughout Greek histories, there were Greco-Buddhist kingdoms in what's now Afghanistan, Ashoka sent missionaries with his Buddhist edicts far west and had them translated into Greek and Aramaic.
I think the development of Christianity and later Greek philosophy has _clear_ signs of influence from Buddhism, and I'm sure the influence was bidirectional. These people talked to each other and they argued with each other and learned from each other. Egypt in particular was a wildly religiously inventive melting pot, and the Hermetic and Gnostic texts _especially_ have signs of influence from eastern religion, and if there were active Buddhist communities in Berineke that were presumably proselytizing, that makes a lot of sense.
I think a lot of people sort of make the assumption that because there are core differences between the religions that there is no influence, but sometimes doctrines only become settled through opposition. It's not always "Yes, and", sometimes it's "yes, but", and the popularity of certain ideas (for example the idea of salvation through personal enlightment) could force various sects to adapt and find similarities, while also differentiating themselves. Christianity is obviously not buddhism or an offshoot of Buddhism, but that doesn't mean that aspects of it weren't a reaction to encounters with Buddhist ideas.
It’s humbling to think of how the pathways of accepted history get blinded by the suppression, or more likely disregard for information that doesn’t align with the framework of religious or cultural belief. Makes you wonder about what things that are crucial and important to us now will be in the dustbin 500 years from now!
I was hooked to “Age of Empires” as a kid. I remember asking a teachers and others if Alexander the Great invaded India, and the Romans were building walls in Scotland, why didn’t they bother visiting anyone in India, Ethiopia, etc.
The answers were always unsatisfactory to me… I’m glad people are pursuing this knowledge.
The Romans were actively involved in the Indian trade. St. Thomas practically started preaching in Tamil Nadu since the beginning of Christ. Even near my hometown, Roman coins are often found regularly every few years or so. If I remember correctly, each peppercorn was equivalent to one Roman gold coin.
Truly great article, and surprisingly lives up entirely to the very click-bait sounding title. The writer has a great mix of anecdotes, facts, and images.
I feel like we don't often hear about times where these civilizations and religions mingled and worked together. The Isis temple would have been something to see.
> [Marchant] has a PhD in genetics and medical microbiology from St Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College in London, and an MSc in Science Communication from Imperial College London. She previously worked as a senior editor at New Scientist and at Nature, and her articles have appeared in publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian and Smithsonian magazine.
Fun fact, if anyone else noticed the spelling of pottery "sherds" and thought it was a typo for "shards", apparently it's an alternatively spelling favoured in archeological circles.
History is fascinating. It's fairly common knowledge in academia there are sites in East Africa derived from Buddhist use with Indic names. The article touches on south-west subcontinental trading ports, mentioning Pattanam just north of modern Kochi in Kerala. I traveled there in 2011 (shortly after accidentally experiencing the start of the Arab Spring revolution in Tunisia!) when we were starting Kraken, and with a background in ancient Chinese history and many years in China, I was impressed to see many active cantilevered fishing structures erected in bamboo[0]: just the same as you can see today in some parts of China. There's also a theory that the monk who introduced Kung Fu in China was actually teaching an established martial art from this same region of Kerala (of course this is not entertained in China for political reasons, it makes a lot of sense). Most of Southeast Asia owes heavy cultural debts to southern Indian seafaring, as typified by the Borobodur bas-relief boat carving showing outriggers associated with southern India ("katthu-maram" = "two sticks tied together" = catamaran = technology which powered Austronesian seafaring)[1]. Incidentally, the very name China itself was asserted by a prominent historian to be possibly derived from an Indic name for a tribal confederation in Yunnan/Guizhou/Guangxi, Yelang.[2]
> He became friendly with the local tribespeople, who showed him ruins that archaeologists didn’t know existed. “They’ll take you to places—the last Westerner was some Roman guy,” he jokes.
I guess one good thing about being an archeologist must be that history is added one year per year. You get to a ruin which has been messed up by Roman archaeologists, and their stuff is also artifacts.
You get to a ruin messed up by Indiana Jones’s in the 1940’s or whatever, just note the location, your great^10 grandkids can come back and collect his hat as an artifact.
> You get to a ruin which has been messed up by Roman archaeologists, and their stuff is also artifacts.
In the case of Egypt, the chief culprits are usually ancient Egyptians. Not just common thiefs mind you, but also officials from later dynasties using grave goods as their treasury.
Archaeologists make a point of taking to locals all around the world. In most cases, you simply won't excavate if the locals don't want to talk.
I had a British farmer once locate a medieval path through his land. The documentary evidence already suggested it was in his field and he knew where his plow had found a lot of rocks. We dug a trench and found a beautiful cobblestone path inside.
Raoul McLaughlin in The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean estimates that customs taxes on trade through Red Sea ports could have accounted for fully _one third_ of all Roman income in the first century AD. It’s always been fascinating to me what might have happened if Rome tried to play tall instead of wide.
>Its value, after payment of the Roman Empire’s 25 percent import tax, was nearly seven million sesterces, which scholars have calculated was easily enough to buy a luxury estate in central Italy, or, if you prefer, to pay 40,000 stonecutters for a year. That translates into some vast fortunes.
Aparrently this value from one ship, and it's reported to have 100 ships per monsoon season to Indian Ocean, it means per year since you need to have two monsoon for departing and returning. This report is for the first century AD, before the trade route reached its peak.
What I love about this perspective is that one can imagine production plans based on catching the monsoon season. The Indian ocean is also no joke to sail through anytime much less monsoon season. This took sophisticated thought and cultural focus to pull off.
> With the tech and scales of the times, it's mind-blowing and a testament to how badass humanity already was.
At the scale of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Antiquity is yesterday. A good rule of thumb in History is that people were and will be exactly the same as we are.
There are two words in Hindi today, Kohl and Kajaal, which refer to black makeup, often made with lead, worn under the eyes. If you look for the etymology of Kohl, you'll find that it is from Akkadian[0]. The Sanskrit word, from where the Hindi word is descended, shares the exact same meaning as the Akkadian word[1], and they sound almost the same. How is this possible, if not for a connection between Bronze Age Indic and Near Eastern cultures?
It is quite probable that the modern categories by which we divide religions, nations, cultures, people, are all flawed when brought into relief as this article does. Social interchange is far more complex than 19th century definitions of national identity.
Well written article. I was surprised by the lengths the author went to avoiding the use of the word Hindu. Those "Indic" deities are Hindu gods. The "undeniably Buddhist" reference to universal happiness is also likely the Hindu Upanishad chant of "सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः".
Anyone have insights on what would motivate an otherwise well informed author to do that?
Not directly related, but that whole area of the Red Sea in southern Egypt is gorgeous (Berenike aka Berenice, Marsa Allam, etc). Far away from the more crowded spots of Egypt. Scuba diving that in my opinion rivals or exceeds the Great Barrier Reef. Great for kitesurfing as well.
The title changed and this comment makes no sense. The title was "...reveals connections () distant civilizations" where the word 'between' was replaced with '()'
Hidden in temple basements across India are manuscripts, undeciphered, some of which speak to this ancient era. Preserve them before they rot! Archaeological and historical preservation in India needs attention and resources.
What’s the current state in the field? I suppose there must be some preservation attempts already going on, even if they need more resources.
I’m surprised at the response you got, which seems like… skepticism bordering on hostility. Is there a reason this should be a hot button issue? (Please excuse my ignorance, if it is at all redemptive, it isn’t India-specific I just don’t know anything about archeology in general, haha).
Politics. A lot of items of archeological significance was looted by the British and many were smuggled out.
During Mughal invasions, the priests buried the idols and inscriptions and many were drowned for safe keeping. As many rural areas are being developed, these are all coming out.
Current state is politics ( at least in the southern states) is such that all Hindu temples are under the control of the state. The corrupt ruling parties have claimed all the revenues and have appropriated land that used to belong to temples and were rented out for services. Temples used to run schools and fed the needy population as the land donated by the rulers and they were essentially outsourcing the work to the temples. This was interrupted during the 250 years of colonial rule when the British eliminated kingdoms.
Further complicating the issue are the other religionists of Islam and Christianity who have strong conversion agendas and are being funded by foreign interests.
For example. The issue of the WAQF board of Islam. Recently this came up in the news : [..]The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the 1500-year-old Manendiyavalli Chandrashekhara Swami temple land. The temple has 369 acres of property in and around Tiruchenthurai village in the Tiruchi District of Tamil Nadu.[..]
How is it possible that a 1500 year old temple can be owned by a religious board that is younger than the temple?
[..]The very literal meaning of Waqf is detention or confinement and prohibition. As per Islam, it is the property that is now available only for religious or charitable purposes, and any other use or sale of the property is prohibited. As per Sharia law, once Waqf is established, and the property is dedicated to Waqf, it remains as Waqf property forever.
Waqf means that the ownership of the property is now taken away from the person making Waqf and transferred and detained by Allah. As per Sharia, this property is now permanently dedicated to Allah, making Waqf irrevocable in nature.
‘Waqif’ is a person who creates a waqf for the beneficiary. As Waqf properties are bestowed upon Allah, in the absence of a physically tangible entity, a ‘mutawalli’ is appointed by the waqif, or by a competent authority, to manage or administer a Waqf.
The history of Waqf and Waqf Boards in India
In India, the history of Waqf can be traced back to the early days of the Delhi Sultanate when Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor dedicated two villages in favour of the Jama Masjid of Multan and handed its administration to Shaikhul Islam. As the Delhi Sultanate and later Islamic dynasties flourished in India, the number of Waqf properties kept increasing in India.[..]
I am still diving into that rabbithole. And I don’t think it’s relevant to post here.
Back to the topic.. I would prefer if Hindu artifacts and texts and ancient Indian history remains hidden. It is not a safe space out there because even though India is allegedly a Hindu majority country, there are strong interests to wish to erase the Hindu identity of India and weaken the only polytheistic faith that managed to survive millennia.
In the article, there were artifacts that depicted Hindu Gods(Krishna, Balaram and Ekanamsa)but the word Hindu did not occur even once. Sadly, it only confirmed my suspicion that western academia wants to erase Hindu history.
"I would prefer if Hindu artifacts and texts and ancient Indian history remains hidden. It is not a safe space out there because even though India is allegedly a Hindu majority country, there are strong interests to wish to erase the Hindu identity of India"
So to preserve "the Hindu identity of India" important parts of that story should remain hidden, rather than scanned and distributed more? (we were talking about documents here)
That does not make much sense to me. Also when you say "the Hindu identity of India" it sounds a bit absolutistic to me. Hinduism is no doubt a important part of india, but maybe not the only one?
The temples are places of worship for Hindu deities. If that’s not Hindu identity, what is?
India is Hindu. Hinduism was a term coined later for Sanatana Dharma that was based on Vedism, the study and worship of Vedas.
It included all forms of worship under one umbrella. It worked out well as a diverse society with one identity until monotheistic Abrahamic faiths and their adherents came as invaders and colonizers.
For most of the rest of the world, a few hundred years ago is ancient history. For India, it goes back thousands of years. And that is the identity of India. Everything else is imported and new.
So Buddhism is included in Hinduism in your perspective?
Because I know many disagree to that. I also know it is not one of the "monotheistic Abrahamic faiths".
And the muslims might have come as invaders, but the islamic faith is still present in india since over 1200 years. You might not like it, but most think that qualifies as being part of that land by now.
Same im europe. Christian faith came mostly by the sword. It is still part of european culture now.
No. Buddhism is not Hinduism. Buddhists are not Hindus.
Perhaps what you say is true. But Hinduism came from India and most of the world’s Hindus live in India.
One would expect India will declare Hinduism as their official religion as they should.
When a nation’s religious majority is unable to defend its rights, then it’s an invasion. It can be by the sword or by conversion. It’s still a displacement and replacement strategy. Indian Hindus are waking up to it. About time.
There is no country in the world where Hinduism is the official religion. Even India where 79% of the population are Hindus.
Nepal used to be the only Hindu nation in the world but that changed recently during the Maoist insurgency.
Yes, there are people who want many european states to become officially christian again. But they are a minority and hopefully stay that.
I am fine with small states choosing a official religion. People can then more easily choose to also get away.
But not a big continent, or a country as big as whole india. Because that creates tension as many do not want their life dominated by a religion they do not believe in.
I am from Norway, and we don't have an official state religion, although christianity is the largest religion. We used to have a church that was administered by the government (statskirke), but was separated from the government. The King is no longer the (symbolic) leader of the church, although he is a member of it still.
Even when Norway had an official state church, other religions were free to practice and was even sponsored by the government. All religions and faiths get the same financial support based on the number of members.
There's even at least one Hindu temple that I know of that receive financial support on equal terms.
[…]Christianity is the largest religion in Norway and Norway has historically been called a Christian country. A majority of the population are members of the Church of Norway with 64.9% of the population officially belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2021.[..]
FACT: if the majority of the population OFFICIALLY follows the Christian faith, then the DOMINANT religion is Christianity.
[..]Special relationship with specific religion means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but establishes a special relationship with one specific religion. Types of special relationships include referencing a traditional religion, acknowledging the historical influence of a specific religion, or stating that the state is founded upon values or principles from a single religious tradition
Privileges religion over nonbelief means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but includes provisions to support religious practice over non-belief, such as granting tax exemptions to religious organizations, allowing religion in public schools, or recognizing or partnering with religious organizations in certain areas.
God included in oath of office means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but has certain officials swear before God in the official oath of office included in the constitution. The constitution does not provide for a further role for religion.
References God in preamble means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular, but references or thanks God in the preamble of the constitution. The constitution does not provide for a further role for religion.
No role for religion means that the constitution explicitly states it is secular and provides no role for religion. The constitution may explicitly place limitations on the role of religion.[..]
[..]The overlap of religion and state, through Concurrent List structure, has given various religions in India, state support to religious schools and personal laws. This state intervention while resonant with the dictates of each religion, are unequal and conflicting.
For example, a 1951 Religious and Charitable Endowment Indian law allows state governments to forcibly take over, own and operate Hindu temples, and collect revenue from offerings and redistribute that revenue to any non-temple purposes including maintenance of religious institutions opposed to the temple;
Indian law also allows Islamic and other minority religious schools to receive partial financial support from state and central government of India, to offer religious indoctrination, if the school agrees that the student has an option to opt out from religious indoctrination if he or she so asks, and that the school will not discriminate any student based on religion, race or any other grounds.[..]
FACT: India is officially a secular state being the seat of Hinduism where a billion Hindus live. It is a pseudo secular state when the majority are being subjected to special rules to appease the minority.
[..]The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures.[..]
FACT: Personal laws cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance.
[..]Personal laws were first framed during the British Raj, mainly for Hindu and Muslim citizens.
UCC emerged as a crucial topic of interest in Indian politics following the Shah Bano case in 1985. The debate arose on the question of making certain laws applicable to all citizens without abridging the fundamental right to practice religious functions. The debate then focused on the Muslim Personal Law, which is partially based on the Sharia law, permitting unilateral divorce, polygamy and putting it among the legally applying the Sharia law.
Relevant to the parent here, Indian temples are managed by the state and every other religious institution is managed by their adherents despite Hinduism being the dominant religion in an officially secular state.
This gives special privileges to minorities while being extractive and punitive towards the Hindu majority adherants.[..]
It's a lot to process, but I'll try to condense my reply.
All religions in Norway are treated equally. Yes, there are Tax exemptions and financial support, but all religions, faiths and even humanistic organizations get the same benefit. There is no special treatments.
We still have some remnants due to historical and cultural reasons, as is natural (public holidays based on christian traditions), but if you follow a different religion, you have the right to extra days off in addition to the traditional holidays.
The only constitutional remnant is that the King should mention "so help me God" in his oath. But the King is strictly symbolic.
Let's remember the context for my reply. You stated that you saw no reason why India could not have an official religion, because European countries (Norway) had Christianity as an official religion.
My point is what you want is actually a huge difference from what Norway has and it is misleading to include it and many other countries (like Sweden) as examples.
Personally, I would be concerned if religion was mixed with politics. History has shown that it often does not work well.
1. I think it is wrong to compare Norway with India.
[..]Early Norwegians, like most Scandinavians, were once adherents of Norse paganism; the Sámi having a shamanistic religion.[13] Norway was gradually Christianized by Christian missionaries between 1000 and 1150. Before the Protestant Reformation in 1536/1537, Norwegians were part of the Catholic Church.[..]
Norwegian pagans lost their ancestors faith. Hindus did not.
As a democracy, Indians have the right to establish a Hindu nation through fair elections.
The colonial Brits left behind a system after The Partition when they departed. Pakistan and Bangladesh were cut off to create the Muslim nations.
Most Hindus wants a Uniform Civil Code in India. Not a separate legal system for Muslims(Shariat Law) and another system for the rest of the population.
2. Population of Norway is 5.5 million. Population of India is 1400 million.
3. [..] Religion in Norway is dominated by Lutheran Christianity, with 63.7% of the population belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2022.[1][2] The Catholic Church is the next largest Christian church at 3.1%.[3] The unaffiliated make up 18.3% of the population. Islam is followed by 3.4% of the population.[4][..]
5. India does not have a Uniform Civil Code as in there are different laws for different religionists: there is Hindu Personal Law(Buddhists/Jains/Sikhs are included), Christian Personal Law and Muslim Personal Law(Shariat Law) even though the majority of the population are Hindu by faith.
>Most Hindus wants a Uniform Civil Code in India. Not a separate legal system for Muslims(Shariat Law) and another system for the rest of the population.
Sources? Not just a thousand sampled survey, but something asked with nearly 1billion of the population?
Why a personal law of one be the point of contest with the other? Care to explain?
>Hinduism (79.8%)
Here is the problem, the different tribes and sects which were not explicitly belonging to other religions are classified as Hinduism. While the customs and laws were different. Also a large part of the said population were considered as untouchable and subhuman by the agrarian elite of the same. They only categorise all as Hindus for power, but not willing to share any of the resources without a fight. The agrarian elite wants to control everything on behalf of Hindus. And the constitution is in their way. That's the only explanation for the hate the Secular notion gets from these section of the society.
You said that India does not have an official state religion, then to support your own point you listed European countries with majority religions implying they are officially state religions then you backtracked.
I don't know whether others are able to see your real intentions through your posts, and maybe Westerners are too politically correct to call a spade a spade, but I know a Hindu extremist when I see one. Tell me you're a staunch supporter of BJP without telling me you're a staunch supporter of BJP.
Let me explain: there is State religion, Dominant religion, Secularism.
1. Western Europe has a dominant religion but not officially secular.
2. Only 5 nations(please correct me with source material) that are secular by constitution.
3. The secular nations are : India United States, France, Japan and Australia.
4. Exceptions: Russia for example has no religion. Vietnam is officially atheist. But the dominant religion is Buddhism.
5. Nepal was the only Hindu nation until recently before the Maoist insurgency and Hindu as official state religion was struck off.
6. India is officially a Secular State. The dominant and majority religion is Hinduism, but principles of secularism is not practiced as Muslims and minorities enjoy more religious privileges than the majority Hindus.
7. This makes India secular in name only. It penalizes the majority of the religious citizens by denying them equal rights and privileges under law.
8. My opinion is that Hindus should have a Hindu nation where they are a majority at one billion especially because there is no other Hindu nation in the world and India is civilisationally Hindu and all Hindu shrines and holy places and sacred texts have ancient India or Bharat as its origin site.
All of this information with supporting evidence and official state dictates is available in the public domain and official state records.
I am going to ignore your second paragraph. It was an attack, unnecessary and personal.
Why do they NEED to have a religious state? I come from a country that has a majority from a particular religion and I've never heard such passionate stance to make my country's official religion as theirs.
Feel free to ignore the second paragraph, it wasn't intended for you, it's intended for those who can't identify extremism easily.
Like the fact, that apart from Hinduism, there is no no non abrahamtic religion in India (ignoring Buddhism) and 1200 years do not count as long enough and the fact that you despise secularism as colonism, yet claim we in europe have mainly religious states, like you also want in india?
I have to say, yes, I also do find that extremist.
[..]The Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 continues to be the law of land of modern India for Indian Muslims, while parliament-based, non-religious uniform civil code passed in mid-1950s applies to Indians who are Hindus (which includes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Parsees), as well as to Indian Christians and Jews.[..]
Is this a secularism?
All I am saying is that if Muslims are allowed to practice their religious laws, Hindus should also be allowed to hold their religious law as Personal law.
The state cannot discriminate between two faiths and call itself secular.
I want Muslims (and Christians and Buddhists and everyone)to have the freedom to practice their faith. I want the same for Hindus, Saying Hindus should have the same freedom and rights is causing me to face accusations of ‘extremism’.
Not a Hindu at all, but to me the idea that an ethnicity should be able to draw lines around itself to defend itself seems self-evident. Self-determinism and all that. And I that is a place where we can come together--come together to agree to follow separate paths and stop trying to force everyone into a generic govt that has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
"Does me as a Hindu having an opinion about my faith offend you and strike you as extremist?"
No. I believe, you may believe whatever you want.
But I also believe, that when you define India as a Hindu Nation only, you do exclude all the other faiths and non faiths. That is my definition of extremism. In this case, going in the direction of a theocracy.
"I want Muslims (and Christians and Buddhists and everyone)to have the freedom to practice their faith. I want the same for Hindus"
Because when you want India defined as a Hindu state, like you stated elsewhere many times, you do not want equal terms for all religions, you want a privileged position for Hinduism, integrated into the state.
I do understand, that you want to live in a Hindu state - the laws shaped by your believe. But why must it be as big as whole India? Because many Indians do not believe in Hinduism - and they will eventually fight, if they have to submit to laws, they do not agree with.
Can't there be a compromise, where the big state is somewhat neutral, but some local state/districts are more Hindu and some others maybe more Muslim or whatever?
I think this would be more peaceful for everyone. Live and let live.
Otherwise a big percentage of the population will never really identify with the Nation. And not fight for it, but against.
You see some of the results in this thread here.
edit:
This thread started with:
"Hinduism is no doubt a important part of india, but maybe not the only one?"
to which you replied with:
"India is Hindu."
Which seems at odds with freedom and equality for all religions.
Hindus might like a nation of their own when they are a billion in strength and India was where Hinduism was born and grew.
Hindus are a majority in India. 80% are Hindus and 94% of the world’s Hindus reside in India.
There is thousands of years of history of Hinduism in India. It was the colonial Brits who created a ‘secular’ India after they orchestrated the partitions of Pakistan and Bangladesh (as Muslim countries).
As a democracy, the nation has the right to choose a Hindu Nation/Rashtra over secularism. This is true for every nation in the world. As the only non abrahamic polytheist nation in the world, there seems to be some unfair expectations of India and what Indians want. Why?
The Abrahamic nations have split the whole rest of the world amongst them. Hindus have only one nation. Why can’t their have their spiritual land as a Hindu nation if it’s democratically desired and achieved?
It is the spiritual land for over a billion Hindus(whose rights and places of worship are being trampled upon in the name of secularism while other religions are not required to follow the law of the land)
Israel is a Jewish nation. There are many Christian and Muslim nations. Why wouldn’t Hindus want a country where they have civilizational roots to be a Hindu Nation?
Are all the countries of the world ‘secular’? Why do we expect India to be constitutionally secular? There are only 5 countries that have secular baked into their constitution, India, USA, France(Laïcité), Australia and Japan.
India is only secular by name. Currently, there is the nation’s law and then there is the Shariat Law for Muslims.
These laws especially impact women as it relates to marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession etc. the Christian and Hindu Personal Law are not at odds with the constitutional law.
To this end, BJP, the current ruling party wants a Uniform Civil Code where the law applies equally for every citizen.
It would nullify Shariat Law. It is a mockery of the word ‘secular’ when different laws and rights are allotted to different religions. It is against democratic principles. And fundamentally wrong.
India gained its independence only in 1947. It has not even been a hundred years and the country is still grappling with how to do damage control over the mess left behind by the colonial British.
Look, I am not in favor of (british) colonialism and the problems it created. I am also not in favor of what Hungary is doing, the only country in europe(apart from Vatican), that is activly pushing christianity as a state dogma. We europeans mostly left the abrahamtic religions as state religion behind us and most want to get rid, of what is left.
So I am also not happy for Hindu Nationalists pushing for India to implement Hinduism as a state dogma. Because that is the same principle to me: a strong power dictates life for everyone else below them. That always means ignoring the needs of minorities. And the way you consistently leave out all the non Hindu indians in your lectures about Indias great history, indicates that this will be their fate in a Hindu India. Ignored and forgotten and supressed. The same fate you lament for Hinduism. There you care, but you don't care, when it affects others.
Sincere query: Why are you ‘not happy for Hindu Nationalists pushing for India to implement Hinduism as a state dogma’?
It’s not your religion. It doesn’t affect you. India is a democracy. It would involve an election.
Should there be foreign interference in a democratic nation’s elections and how the citizenry want to run their country ?
It’s very strange. Why is everyone bothered about India? Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country. There are over 50 countries in the world that are Muslim and follow Muslim law. What are your thoughts on that?
India was invaded and then colonized by outsiders. First with guns and then trade and then by religious conversions. This is history. Many Indians don’t like that.
It has barely been 80 years since India was released from the clutches of 250 years of colonial rule. India has the right to define herself and find her own identity using the chosen democratic process.
I find it very strange that so many non Hindus of the world are so upset about a country of one billion Hindus wanting the remains of their splintered partitioned and battered country to remain Hindu in identity.
One billion Hindus. Thousands of years of civilizational history and people who embraced new abrahamic faith in the past thousand years after giving up their pagan roots want India to give up her roots.. for what? India has resisted the cultural and civilizational and religious assaults and that is only due to lthe tenacity of the unified Hindu identity and faith. It won’t be weakened.
Our ancestors did not fight and resist invasions and assault for us to give up on our civilisational inheritance and Hindus have a duty to honor those sacrifices and generational trauma by keeping Hinduism and Hindu homeland and Hindu identity intact for our future generations.
Many gave up and embraced new faiths. Our ancestors did not. Hindus exist today because our ancestors thought Hindu identity was worth protecting. And we will. For our descendants.
Why do you think "everyone is bothered about India"?
India was the subtopic here, so we are discussing India. And specifically your thoughts about India.
"Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country. There are over 50 countries in the world that are Muslim and follow Muslim law. What are your thoughts on that?"
And my answer is pretty much the same. I am not in favor of any authorian nationalistic theocraties/monarchies. But if they are small and not aggressive, then it is not such a big deal, as "people can get away more easily".
Also, India has 1400 million people.
Saudi Arabia has 30 million.
So Saudi Arabia is big and because of ther oil quite rich and powerful and yes, due to their system a constant problem and gets attention.
Still, India is waaay bigger. And "we" in "the west" are concerned, whether you will slip more into authorian religious nationalism, or if we share enough values to remain or become stronger partners against other authorian regimes (and yes, yes, "the west" is far from perfect and the freedom wars in iraq etc. is not something I supported, germany, where I am from, did not take part in that btw)
"Hindus exist today because our ancestors thought Hindu identity was worth protecting. And we will. For our descendants."
And you absolutely can. I have no problem with that. I am not anti Hindu. I was often singing Bhajans and will do so again.
But I do have a problem if you would supress other religions and ethnicities who also just want to protect their culture. That is my point. And maybe this is not at all what you want. But it very much sounds like it. At least implicit.
>Why do you think "everyone is bothered about India"?
India was the subtopic here, so we are discussing India. And specifically your thoughts about India.[…]
Perhaps you are mistaken. I was speaking about India and Hinduphobia. Everything else is the subtopic.
>And my answer is pretty much the same. I am not in favor of any authorian nationalistic theocraties/monarchies. [..]
But if they are small and not aggressive, then it is not such a big deal, as "people can get away more easily".[..]
How many wars have been fought in the past hundred years and how many in India?
>Still, India is waaay bigger. And "we" in "the west" are concerned, whether you will slip more into authorian religious nationalism, or if we share enough values to remain or become stronger partners against other authorian regimes (and yes, yes, "the west" is far from perfect and the freedom wars in iraq etc. [..]
Ahh.. so you contradict your first comment. Everyone IS bothered about India and you say it’s because of its size?
India has a democratically elected government. Asking that all the religions in a secular nation follow the same Uniform Civil Code is not ‘Religious nationalism’.
>And you absolutely can. I have no problem with that. I am not anti Hindu. I was often singing Bhajans and will do so again.
Why do you sing Bhajans if you are not Hindu. They are in praise of Hindu Gods. Bhajans are an expression of Bhakti and devotion to Hindu Gods. Singing something because of its musicality has nothing to do with how you relate to or understand a religious identity or affiliation.
>But I do have a problem if you would supress other religions and ethnicities who also just want to protect their culture.[..]
That is not possible in a democratic secular nation. India cannot claim to be secular if Muslims have their own personal law and Hindus have their own personal laws. And the courts are expected to treat them differently.
Regardless, none of this affects anyone on an international level as in wars or terrorism. It is India’s internal matter.
>That is my point. And maybe this is not at all what you want. But it very much sounds like it. At least implicit.
I am a Hindu. I am interested in the survival of my faith in its spiritual homeland. Just like Jews, Christians, Muslims and others revere their spiritual spaces.
Hinduism is more inclusive and tolerant than any of the other predominant monotheistic faiths, but a secular democratic nation cannot treat citizens differently based on their faith.
If India is a Hindu country, minorities would still thrive as they did for thousands of years. Indian history is full of unequal treatment of Hindus and Muslims during Mughal rule and British colonization.
Hindus do not want to convert other religionists to Hinduism and only want a Uniform Civil Code to right the wrongs of the British meddling in our legal system through fair democratic elections.
To call this ‘extremism’ or ‘religious nationalism’ is somewhat disingenuous and untrue. Muslims enjoy far more religious freedoms and are considered equal citizens in India than Hindus in Islamic countries.
All of this can be fact checked through reputable sources and I leave it to you do your own research.
I think we have to come to the end of our conversation. I don’t believe I have anything more to share with you. Thanks for engaging in this discussion. Take care.
>There is thousands of years of history of Hinduism in India.
And Buddhism, and Jainism. Sikhism too. You could learn a little about how was the treatment of Jains in the past.
>India is only secular by name. Currently, there is the nation’s law and then there is the Shariat Law for Muslims.
Personal law is not at odds with the secular nature of a state. Secular does not mean all behave the same, rather the state does not grant any unequal rights. The marriage and inheritance laws are still subject to Judicial scrutiny as and when needed. Also it is a poor understanding of India as a whole to throw these at Muslims, because there are different tribes with their own customs as well.
>It is the spiritual land for over a billion Hindus(whose rights and places of worship are being trampled upon in the name of secularism while other religions are not required to follow the law of the land)
The places of worship law does not give any more rights to any specific religion.
>Why wouldn’t Hindus want a country where they have civilizational roots to be a Hindu Nation
Did you forget Nepal?
>Christian and Hindu Personal Law are not at odds with the constitutional law.
On Christian inheritance, please read up on Mary Roy.
On Hindus laws, the Hindu marriage act are applicable to Hindu, but special marriage act also can be chosen for the marriage. There are a lot of customs across sects and tribes, which are not codified. They continue to apply. If Hindu laws were to be applied, then the wife will have to kill herself when husband dies. See Sati practice. Besides Hindu Unified Family is a tax entity which can not be used by other religions to effectively reduce the tax on a family. I see no mention about that when Uniformity and equal treatment is demanded.
>There are only 5 countries that have secular baked into their constitution, India, USA, France(Laïcité), Australia and Japan
The country is plagued with such misinformation and misrepresentation of facts, now deemed as whatsapp university. The above line makes it quite clear that where you get the information from. Could you add Azerbaijan to the list? A majority Muslim country in the caucuses with secular constitution?
https://web.archive.org/web/20070928103752/http://www.un-az....
>And Buddhism, and Jainism. Sikhism too. You could learn a little about how was the treatment of Jains in the past.[..]
I am very aware of the history. It has been disproved.
>Personal law is not at odds with the secular nature of a state. Secular does not mean all behave the same, rather the state does not grant any unequal rights. The marriage and inheritance laws are still subject to Judicial scrutiny as and when needed. Also it is a poor understanding of India as a whole to throw these at Muslims, because there are different tribes with their own customs as well.[..]
Secular means no religion has a special status over any other. Currently that is not true due to Shariat Law operating in India.
UCC or Uniform Civil Code implementation will resolve the issue.
>The places of worship law does not give any more rights to any specific religion.[..]
There are one billion Hindus and India is the spiritual center of Hindus. That it is even questioned and denied is interesting.
And yes, Hindus have a right over India. This is my opinion. Yours might be different.
>Did you forget Nepal?[..]
Nepal is no longer a Hindu country after the 2008 Maoist insurgency. Hindus have no official nation of their own even though there are one billion of them.
Hinduism was practiced all over Asia from Cambodia to Thailand to Nepal to Indonesia and beyond.
Hindu texts talk about Gandhari from the land of Gandhara(Khandahar Afghanistan) and the most sacred place of worship for Hindus..Mt.Kailash is in China. Pakistan was carved out of India by the British. Lanka was also Hindu.
The Hindu homeland lost a lot of territory and has been split and other faiths have become their dominant religions. What remains is the country known as India where 94% of the World’s Hindus reside.
And it is a democracy. If the people of India vote for a Hindu nation, it will be so.
>On Christian inheritance, please read up on Mary Roy. On Hindus laws, the Hindu marriage act are applicable to Hindu, but special marriage act also can be chosen for the marriage.[..]
Special marriage Act can only be chosen if a Hindu marries a person of a different faith. If a Hindu woman marries a Muslim man under the Special Marriage Act, then in the event of divorce, it has to be granted by the law. If she converts to Islam before getting married to a Muslim man, she can be divorced by triple talaq. This has recently been challenged and banned by the Supreme Court.
This is important because inheritance laws are also different for children of converted Muslims vs children of parents married under the Special Marriages Act.
>If Hindu laws were to be applied, then the wife will have to kill herself when husband dies. See Sati practice.[..]
This is not true.Sati was practiced by certain Hindus.. Rajputs who were warrior tribe. The women jumped into the funeral pyre when their Hindu warrior husbands were defeated in battle by the Mughal invaders. They preferred death by suicide to capture and rape by Muslim soldiers.
This is not a Hindu practice. Hinduism is highly decentralized with each community defining their way of life.
>Besides Hindu Unified Family is a tax entity which can not be used by other religions to effectively reduce the tax on a family.[..]
You are probably thinking about HUF or Hindu Undivided Family. This is a tax filing as a family. The karta is the head of the family. And members of four generations are co parceners. I am very familiar with this section and have filed many returns for clients under HUF.
Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are also included even though it says HUF. Legally, the Unifed law applies to all. The corpus is formed by joint ownership of inheritances, family gifts etc.
If Muslim personal law and Christian personal law are scarped, everyone can come under the same
Umbrella. This is why UCC is important.
According to Muslim law, the heirs are the successors of the deceased who are legally recognized by the Shariat to inherit his estate, given that they are not impeded from inheritance. The heirs succeed to the estate as tenants-in-common in specified shares. There is no joint tenancy in Muslim law and the heirs are only tenants-in-common.
Similarly, Christians have to follow Indian Succession Act of 1925. The UCC will make everything level for all. The Shariat was based on the Anglo-Muslim Law crafted by the British which was done without their understanding of the texts. All of this requires an overhaul. This will also include WAQF Act.
UCC will make Muslim Indians true and equal citizens of the democratic India but that would necessarily involve giving up Shariat Law.
India has many religions but Muslims should want to be part of a unified democratic nation. UCC is the path forward.
>The country is plagued with such misinformation and misrepresentation of facts, now deemed as whatsapp university.[..]
I am not sure what to make of this statement or how I should respond to it??
>The above line makes it quite clear that where you get the information from. Could you add Azerbaijan to the list? A majority Muslim country in the caucuses with secular constitution? https://web.archive.org/web/20070928103752/http://www.un-az....[..]
A secular state is a country that officially maintains a separation between religion and government. It ensures that no religion is given preferential treatment or support by the state, and religious beliefs do not influence governmental decisions or laws. Examples of secular states include France, the United States, and India, where the government operates independently of religious institutions.
Historically, the process of secularisation typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds being used for religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leaders to come to power regardless of their religious beliefs.
[..] Islam is the majority religion in Azerbaijan, but the country is considered to be the most secular in the Muslim world.[5] Estimates include 97.3% (The World Factbook, 2020)[6] and 99.2% (Pew Research Center, 2006)[7] of the population identifying as Muslim. Of these, a majority belong to the Shia branch (55-65%), while a significant minority (35-45%) are Sunni.[a][1][9] Traditionally, the differences between these two branches of Islam have not been sharply defined in Azerbaijan.[..]
[..] Islam arrived in Azerbaijan with Arabs in the seventh century, gradually supplanting Christianity and pagan cults.[8]
In the sixteenth century, the first shah of the Safavid Dynasty, Ismail I (r. 1486-1524), established Shi'a Islam as the state religion,[8] although a portion of people remained Sunni. The population of what is nowadays Iran and what is nowadays Azerbaijan were converted to Shia Islam at the same moment in history.[9]
As elsewhere in the Muslim world, the two branches of Islam came into conflict in Azerbaijan.[8] Enforcement of Shi'a Islam as the state religion brought contention between the Safavid rulers and the ruling Sunnis of the neighboring Ottoman Empire.[8]
[..] Freedom of religion in Azerbaijan is substantially curtailed.[1][2] The Azerbaijan government, which follows a strictly secular and anti-religious ideology, represses all religions.[1]
The majority of the population in Azerbaijan is Muslim, mainly Shia. According to Michigan State University political scientist Ani Sarkissian, "the Azerbaijani government attempts to control religious practice to keep it from becoming an independent social force that might threaten the nondemocratic nature of the regime."[1]
The government censors religious literature and closes down religious institutions that it considers objectionable.[1] Political speech by religious institutions is forbidden and clerics are not allowed to run for political office.[1] The display of religious paraphernalia, flags and slogans, is forbidden, except in places of worship, religious centers and offices.[3] Ashura festivities in public are forbidden.[4] The wearing of the hijab in public institutions and schools is forbidden.[5][6]
The government uses mosque closures to repress independent Muslim groups that act independently of the state.[1] Clerics that act in ways objectionable to the state face dismissal and arrest.[1] The government does not restrict religious conversion, but it does forbid proselytizing.[1][..]
All of this begs the question: Is Azerbaijan a Secular state?
Clearly your use of Abrahamic faiths is not fair in this context when the root of Abrahamic faith is Judaism and it is also an old religion as Hinduism.
Hinduism is a new term. We follow Sanatana Dharma and our basis is Vedism.
Judaism..as it is now.. wasn’t always monotheist. And it evolved over time. And not as old as Hinduism.
Texts and inscriptions and temples from the Vedic period are much older. And that’s why there has been a systematic purge, revisionism, faulty translations and suppression of civilizational history. Hinduism..as it’s known now..is and was decentralized giving it the ability to survive and thrive millennia.
While it can be called many names and has been co opted, our source text is common to all who call themselves Hindu and that is the Vedas…our religious text.
The context of my answer is that you cannot include Abrahamic religions in your comments without separating the root, which is Judaism, to your claim.
You said: "It worked out well as a diverse society with one identity until monotheistic Abrahamic faiths and their adherents came as invaders and colonizers.".
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all ‘People of the Book’. Hindus scriptural texts are the Vedas.
Abrahamic faiths are monotheistic and against idol worship. While not all Hindus worship idols and multiple gods, these practices are not blasphemy or apostasy.
There is a binary criteria amongst Abrahamic religions about what constitutes membership.
The adherents of the Jewish faith did not come as invaders or colonizers but the other monotheists faiths came to evangelize and convert the native population as polytheism was an affront to their religious sensibilities.
Having said that, they are all covered by the Hindu Personal Law. And there is a separate Muslim Personal Law aka Shariat Law in ‘secular’ India.
For the purposes of the law, they are all Hindus. But from a faith based perspective, they are all separate religions whose congregations are considered a minority.
Vast majority of those manuscripts were either burned or destroyed during the Islamic invasion during Middle Ages.
Also can you at least point out to some temples which house these and archeological survey of India have not already done steps to preserve those temples?
The main preservation of greek texts was the byzantine empire not the Arab world. If you take a second to think about it was the Greek Roman Empire. Until it fell it was the heart of the knowledge of Rome and Greece.
"Muslim empires preserved Greek learning" is a half-truth, because the medieval Latins traded more with the Arabs than they did with Byzantium. Thus when they got Aristotle etc. it tended to be from Arab sources, even though Constantinople had much better copies.
I have been to a few museums and libraries where the palmyra manuscripts and texts are still preserved. They should remain with people who value them instead of handing them over to the govt.
In our home library, we lost so many books where the pages were so brittle that they would break like biscuits. But the religious palm leaf scripts that have been in the family for generations were well preserved as they were wrapped in cloth. We also had some inscriptions on copper plates or some other kind of alloy metal. They were at the altar in the prayer room and kept submerged in water always. I don’t know what language it was but it was none of the known modern languages.
Even today., in the deep south, there are palm leaf astrologers whose lineage have owned Nadi astrology palm leaf manuscripts that is supposed to relate everything about you life and past lives including when you will visit the astrologer. There are some authentic lineages.
“…also requires knowledge of genuine Nādi texts, most of which are unpublished, and the custodians do not allow others to see the manuscripts. The same is the case with Samhitā texts in north India, such as Bhrigu Samhitā or Rāvana Samhitā.”
They used to be sealed. HR&CE is the govt arm that is controlling Hindu Temples. It is infiltrated by anti Hindu interests who have been selling temple artifacts and manuscripts by smuggling them out of the country for hundreds of thousands of dollars.. many have been taken out of the humidity controlled vaults built by the Kings.
They have been drilling and building within temple stone walls that are hundreds of years old and installing ceilings fans and lights.
1,200 Ancient Idols Stolen From Tamil Nadu Temples In 25 Years: Audit
All of these Hindu Temples are managed by the HRCE and they are responsible for its security and yet untold artifacts have been smuggled and despite repeated legal writs and petitions and legal cases against them, nothing is moving ahead.
Hindu Temples can be managed by non Hindus. Meanwhile, every other religion in India..Xianity, Islam, Sikhism.. their places are worship are run independently and the state has no control over it or its assets or resources.
Sure, perhaps they are not your gods and artifacts that are hundreds of years old as I don’t know anything about your faith. I think a billion other Hindus would disagree with you.
There are 79000 temples in TamilNadu alone. Most of the churches and mosques are built upon temples destroyed by the invading hordes and conversion mafias. Many of the existing temples are hundreds of years old and are heritage buildings.
The rest of the abrahamic monotheistic faiths do not have idol worship and are barely two thousand years old compared to ancient Vedic Hinduism. Their wealth is looted wealth while ancient India is millennia old.
Christies and Sothebys and the British museum is full of looted treasures.
The tweets literally quotes the problematic issues with the HRCE Act.
Which part do you find ‘not reputable’ source of facts?
[..] The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act
The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act has been a point of contention due to various issues highlighted by critics. Lets see some significant problems associated with the Act and its implementation, with actual examples from newspapers in Tamil Nadu.
1. Control Over Temples
Government Control: The Act allows the government to take control of any Hindu temple under the pretext of 'a reason to believe' there has been an irregularity, even if no actual wrongdoing is proven (Page 14, Clause 2 & 4).
Example: In 2021, the Tamil Nadu government took control of the Nataraja Temple in Chidambaram citing irregularities. This action faced backlash from the Dikshithars, the traditional custodians of the temple, who claimed it was an unjustified takeover .
Non-Hindus Managing Temples: Non-Hindus, including the Chief Minister and state HR&CE officials, can manage temples despite not practicing Hinduism (Page 20, Sec 6-7a; Page 21, Sec 6-23).
Example: In 2017, controversy arose when it was revealed that non-Hindu officials were involved in the management of several temples in Tamil Nadu, leading to protests by Hindu groups demanding that only practicing Hindus should hold such positions .
2. Fund Management and Financial Control
Payments to HR&CE Officials: The Act mandates that salaries and pensions of HR&CE officials be the first expenditure from temple funds, questioning the secularism of such a provision (Page 23, Sec 12).
Example: In 2021, it was reported that significant funds from the Madurai Meenakshi Temple were being used to pay HR&CE officials' salaries, diverting resources away from temple maintenance and services .
Asset Mismanagement: There are numerous issues with how temple assets are managed, including missing asset registers, undervaluation of leases, and questionable audit practices (Page 18, Sec 17; Page 35, Sec 29; Page 41, Sec 34-A).
Example: The Hindu reported in 2020 about the undervaluation of temple properties leased at rates far below market value, particularly concerning lands belonging to the Tiruchendur Murugan Temple .
3. Vagueness and Ambiguity
Undefined Terms: Key terms like 'professing Hindu religion' and 'acting in public interest' are not clearly defined, leading to potential misuse (Vagueness of Terms section).
Example: An article in The Times of India highlighted the ambiguity of the term 'public interest' being used to justify the removal of trustees from the Kapaleeswarar Temple in Chennai without clear evidence of wrongdoing .
4. Temple Services and Personnel
Stifling Temple Services: The Commissioner has the power to limit spending on temple services such as salaries for archakas (priests) and annadanam (free food distribution), citing financial reasons (Page 66, Sec 61).
Example: In 2022, the HR&CE department's decision to cut down on annadanam services at the Palani Murugan Temple due to 'financial constraints' was heavily criticized by devotees, leading to protests .
Appointment and Dismissal of Archakas: The Act allows the appointment of archakas by the HR&CE and their dismissal by trustees for vague reasons such as 'disobedience of orders' (Page 61, Sec 55; Page 62, Sec 56).
Example: The dismissal of an archaka from the Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai in 2018, allegedly for disobedience, sparked a debate on the arbitrary use of this provision .
5. Trustees and Governance
Trustee Appointments: The criteria for becoming a trustee are minimal, leading to potential mismanagement. Trustees must merely declare faith in Hinduism without any mechanism to verify their adherence (Page 32, Sec 25-A; Page 33, Sec 26-i-1A).
Example: In 2020, it was reported that several trustees appointed to the Srirangam Ranganathaswamy Temple had minimal experience in temple administration, leading to administrative inefficiencies .
Board of Trustees: The government can appoint a significant portion of the board of trustees, potentially undermining the autonomy of the temple administration (Page 52, Sec 47).
Example: The appointment of politically affiliated individuals to the board of trustees of the Srirangam Temple in 2021 raised concerns about political interference in temple affairs .
6. Asset Management Issues
Asset Registers: There are inconsistencies in the maintenance and publication of asset registers, leading to mismanagement and loss of temple properties (Page 35, Sec 29-D & E).
Example: The Deccan Chronicle reported in 2019 that several valuable assets of the Madurai Meenakshi Temple were not properly recorded, resulting in losses and mismanagement .
Leasing Issues: The Act allows for the leasing of temple properties at undervalued rates and provides insufficient mechanisms for lease recovery (Page 42, Sec 34-B; Page 39, Sec 34).
Example: In 2018, a major controversy erupted when it was discovered that prime land belonging to the Kumbakonam Temples as well as Agastheeswara Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal temple at Nungambakkam was leased at extremely low rates to private parties, leading to significant revenue losses .
Conclusion
The TN HR&CE Act, while intended to regulate and manage Hindu temples and charitable institutions, has several provisions that lead to government overreach, mismanagement, and potential misuse of temple funds and assets. These issues highlight the need for a thorough review and amendment of the Act to ensure transparency, accountability, and respect for religious autonomy. The call to #FreeTNTemples reflects a growing demand for reforms to protect the interests of Hindu temples and their devotees.[..]
> Which part do you find ‘not reputable’ source of facts?
The complete lack of any supporting links, and the general vagueness of the claims; "potential misuse", "potential mismanagement", "sparked a debate" are not particularly strong claims.
Where's the reputable source for "infiltrated by anti Hindu interests" or "drilling and building within temple stone walls that are hundreds of years old and installing ceilings fans and lights"? Why is Modi's Hindu nationalist BJP permitting such a thing?
A major, well-respected news source supporting your very specific claims.
Not YouTube, not a right-wing mouthpiece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarajya_(magazine)) alleging what sounds like pretty run-of-the-mill corruption, not a website with a Gmail account (https://hindupost.in/about-us/) (which I'd note is complaining about a single security camera being added at a temple... maybe to address the thefts you decry), and not a search engine result for `hr and ce doctypes: judgments` that could literally contain anything.
I understand that you have good reasons to feel strongly about this topic, and probably also to feel frustrated with HN users who aren't as acquainted with it as you are. But I still need to ask you to stop posting flamewar comments to HN (and especially religious flamewar—that's one of the worst sorts).
I'm sure it isn't your intent to do that, but we have to go by effects, not intent, and that is the effect that posts like this tend to have (and are having, in the current case). You've posted more than 30 comments in this thread, in the "ideological battle" style that the HN guidelines ask you to avoid here*. It's far from the curious, respectful conversation that this site is supposed to be for.
Also, it's important to edit out swipes like "I can see you are determined to dimiss [etc.]", "Your beliefs have nothing to do with facts [etc.]", and so on. Your posts have included a great many of those, and that's definitely against the site guidelines.
Inherently? Nothing... but if I cite a far-left source to support something I'm arguing you will, justifiably, scoff at it. Heavily partisan sources are rarely reputable by themselves.
> I can see that you are determined to dismiss anything that would criticize the destruction of a non Abrahamic polytheistic faith that is older than all of the civilizations that exist today.
I simply have a hard time believing a 90% Hindu state in an India run by a Hindu nationalist government intends to do such a thing. Your lack of reputable sources certainly doesn't shake that belief.
> You haven’t offered one single citation of any feather.
That's correct; I cannot prove a negative. You're making assertions that something is happening; you should support them. Your evidence for your positive assertions has been drastically lacking.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
>Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
>Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
Your comments here confirm my suspicion about the way the Indian government is handling the Hindu past.
Sometimes I watch the YT channel of Praveen Mohan who is visiting ancient temples of the area and has difficulties to understand the dating of those, which the Indian government has a hand on and does not allow any other point of view.
There is a strong likelihood that some of the those temples are much older than the date there given.
[0] https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/economy/story/indias-anc... [1] https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Road-Ancient-India-Transformed...