Kiran, Semantics aside, is India Hindu dominated or not? If you hear an announcer on the BBC saying "Pakistan and India have been to war three times over the status of Kashmir, which is the only Muslim majority state in Hindu dominated India", would say that is a fair description of what you see as the truth?
shiv On Thu September 7 2006 5:08 pm, Kiran Jonnalagadda wrote: > On 07-Sep-06, at 4:08 PM, sastry wrote: > > If that is so then would you say that the description "Hindu > > dominated India" > > is wrong? > > Let's define "dominated", shall we? Does it refer to being a > numerical majority, or politically dominant, or economically > dominant, culturally dominant, or in the media? Each of these is > different. > > Second, what exactly is "Hindu"? If you lay aside the definition of > being a religion distinct from other religions, is it not plausible > that Christianity is a sub-caste of Hinduism, thus allowing for the > concept of "Dalit Christian"? (For those unaware, yes, it exists.) > Such a definition of Hinduism would accommodate just about anyone in > India -- whether Sikh, Jain or Buddhist -- while excluding Islam. > Such a definition is also too broad to be a stable identity, > resulting in regional identity factions. > > If you define "Hindu" as the (mostly urban I bet) definition of a > religion that is distinct from all other religions, then no, there is > no "Hindu dominated India" because most of the country does not > recognise that definition of "Hindu". For proof, try asking a Jain if > he has any trouble explaining that he or she is not a Hindu.
