Why do post-modern Leftist scholars in India separate Islam from terrorism but not Hinduism from the caste system?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So if there is the ethos of social justice among the postmodern, then why is it that the leftist scholars they separate Islam from terrorism but they don’t do the same with Hinduism, they blame say the caste system itself as bad, they because of say caste discrimination they blame all of Hinduism itself as bad see in general the postmodern idea of social inclusion is that the minorities are always favored so if you consider the Christians in America they feel that the media always discriminates against them that they always highlight the fringe elements of Christianity which are doing some extreme things and the good that Christianity is doing they don’t talk about it, so the whole idea is that it is assumed that that which is in majority, they already have power and that which is in minority they will be persecuted, they will be sidelined, so the ethos of social justice they focus on their idea is to empower the minorities now having said that it is also true that many Hindus have not taken responsibility for studying and presenting their tradition appropriately many of the most prominent scholars of Hinduism in the world are actually not Hindus now if you consider most of the text books on Hinduism which are written, which are considered like the authoritative text books on Hinduism, they are written by western scholars now why is that? because Hindus have not entered into that into that academic study of religion so much so if we don’t explain who we are others will explain who we are so people have to gain some understanding especially in the western world this matters a lot, because in India Hinduism is a lived religion but in the west, yes people may meet some Hindus but if people want to know something about Hinduism, they will go to wikipedia or they will look at some encyclopedia and those are written by academic scholars so what has happened is, if we don’t speak for ourselves then people want to have some knowledge and then they will go to academic scholars so there are a good number of devotee scholars who have also entered into academics especially in the west and they are at least changing the conception of Hinduism because in the mainstream, the conception of Hinduism was Hinduism means impersonalism that was their idea because most of the prominent modern Hindu teachers were impersonalists so they changed that and there is a very strong personal personalist tradition in Hinduism also that is now being that is at least being established now so we need to work towards presenting our perspective and the practitioner’s perspective not in a not in a sentimental or fanatical way but in a rational way so sentimental way means you know, you know, everything religious is good, feel makes me feel so good, it is so nice fanatical means, you dare to blaspheme my god, I will kill you you dare to criticize my form of worship I will have your book banned now that sort of approach only alienates people today it makes people label us as as fanatics so there has to be a rational presentation of the tradition and rational non-fanatical presentation which will be intelligible to the mainstream so things are changing gradually so basically once scholars adopt a particular view it’s very difficult for them to change their view because their whole career depends on their view so scholars once they adopt a view, they are not likely to change it I read an article in one scientific journal they said that science progresses one funeral at a time what it means is that if there is one prominent scientist who has got one particular idea then that scientist is maybe the head of department or the editor of a big journal then if somebody has another idea, you just can’t propagate that because that scientist controls the journals what gets published in the journals so it’s only when that scientist dies after that scientists who have opinions different from that scientist they can present their theories the same applies to the study of religion also so that’s also an academic field so if we as if say those who are practitioners they also can give a scholarly presentation of the tradition it may not change things immediately but gradually the traditional perspective the insider perspective the practitioners perspective of the tradition will also be heard it will be included so it’s more a because we neglected to do that so we now have to accept others depiction of ourselves and as we start doing that more and more then gradually the misrepresentation of our tradition that is there in the mainstream that will gradually change does that answer your question?