Reply to a point raised by Ravish on India-Forum

Ravish said:

Your comment as to whether I have taught mother tongue to any child, yes I have but that has no bearing and relevance in the topic under discussion. My personal contribution to the cause we are discussing has not much relivence. Give positive suggestions, face the problem straight, there is no point dodging the issue.

Given the fact that, we are not going to be able to overthrow or capture the GOI anytime in the near future, the only thing that matters is really our personal contribution.

We must understand this fact:
1. Our aim (for a more traditional and less universalist practice of Hinduism) is primarily religious.
2. Many Hindus are quite comfortable with the current situation, and do not wish to disturb the status quo. The consequences of our collective blindness are not apparent to them.
3. Even if we were able to capture power and impose our religious preferences on the current lot of Hindus, they will find a way to escape these preferences.

So, I see only three ways to go from here to where we want to be:
1. Teach our children the religious tradition and the linguistic traditions of our ancestors.
2. This is the era of unlimited choice. So, consciously choose our engagement (or disengagement) with each and every aspect of the modern world. So,

• we can choose to not watch TV,
• we can choose to not become addicted to the Web,
• we can choose to perform religious worship and rituals in-home,
• we can choose to keep our homes cleansed of influences from other religions,
• we can choose to hire a priest (alone or with others) to teach our children about Hinduism.
  

Or, we can choose not to.
3. Persuade others to do (1) and (2).

As far as (3) is concerned, I see no alternative to systematic religious schooling, in the form of pAThaSAlAs before/after normal school. Perhaps, lasting as long as 12 years, like secular schooling. Other religions have done this:
Islam has its Madrasas. In some of these, young students go to Madrasas in the early morning, and go to secular schools later in the day.
Orthodox Judaism has its "Orthodox Day Schools" in the US. I understand that secular and religious instruction is taught here for 12 years.

Before I forget, here is point (4): Accept that we will not be able to persuade all people.

Reply to a point raised by Bharatvarsh on India-Forum

the solution is not to tie up Hindu kids with other Hindus, they should be self confident enough to mix with non Hindus and even then retain their religion, after all if Jews could keep their identity intact then why can't we?

Bharatvarsh,
Actually, not all Jews have been doing a good job keeping their identity in the US. Remember, there are at least 2 different types of Judaism practised in the US.

One is the orthodox/ultra-orthodox variety. These Jews do limit their interactions with the non-Jewish (actually non-orthodox Jewish) world. They run their own schools for the Orthodox (called the Orthodox day schools), where their children are immersed in their religion, its history and its rituals, along with the usual secular education. And, because they have drawn a sharp line between themselves and the "Other", their religion, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism is more likely to survive in the future. That sharp line will keep their religion alive and thriving. They also have one of the highest population growth rates in the US,along with the mennonites, in accordance with the dictates of their religion.

The rest of the Jews are basically reform Jews. This larger section of the community regularly loses large numbers of adherents to Christianity by marriage and subsequent conversion. Many of the other Jews are atheists, or even Jews only in name, basically "ethnic" Jews.

Here are some links about what is happening with the Jews:

Will Your Grandchildren Be Jews?
Extract from the above link:

In summary, the most recent analyses of Jewish population indicate two distinct trends in American Jewry. During the period from 1945-2000 -- and particularly from 1960 to 2000 -- the Orthodox have steadily increased the duration and intensity of their children's education, their birth rate, and the percentage of those raised Orthodox and remaining Orthodox. At the same time, their intermarriage rate has been reduced (see above). Also, for the first time in American history, significant number of Jews who were not raised Orthodox are becoming so. During the same period (1960-2000), intermarriage among other denominations of Judaism has evidenced different trends. The level of education among Secular, Reform and Conservative Jews has (with a few notable exceptions), remained about the same; their birth rate has declined, and their rate of intermarriage has multiplied. Once a Jew intermarries, he or she as an individual remains Jewish, of course, but the likelihood of that person having any Jewish descendants is close to nil.

Jews and the Jewish birth-rate
Extract:

In the meantime, the outlook of the organized Jewish community has been characterized mostly by denial. Faced with irrefutable evidence of demographic decline, communal leaders have worked to “reframe” the discussion. The reframing goes like this: the Jewish population should be seen not as hemorrhaging, but rather as evolving new forms of expression. Yes, today’s Jews are choosing to behave differently from Jews in the past, but, if treated with dignity and respect, they will surely return to play a positive role within the community. Yes, Jews are intermarrying at high rates, but if intermarried couples are offered a more welcoming environment, they will participate gladly in Jewish activities and both they and their offspring will come to identify strongly with Jewish life. Yes, Jews are producing fewer children, but what counts is quality, not quantity. Yes, fewer Jews are affiliating with synagogues and other communal institutions, but eliminating exclusionary and inhospitable attitudes will cause the situation to reverse itself.

The challenge of demographic decline, then, is to be met by inclusiveness, pluralism, and a welcoming atmosphere. The worse the decline has grown, the more fervently has this mantra been invoked—and not just invoked, but acted upon.

One of my posts on India-Forum

There is something here that we have to understand.
1. Typically, the way we have been informed by education is that Hindus are approximately 75-80% of India's population. However, religious Hindus are less than a majority in India. I don't think they form even a plurality. That should be our working assumption.
Most urban people have very little connection to either the Hindu understanding of God and life, or the normal detail of day-to-day Hindu ritual. And, as people migrate to urban areas, this number will increase.
I think we should start with the following number: the percentage of lay religious Hindus in India is about 25% of the population, or less.

2. Of the remaining, most adults have kept religion very far away from their ordinary lives - except marriage and the death ceremonies, no actual Hindu ceremony is performed for/by these people. Celebrating Diwali with firecrackers does not count. In effect, since most adults have kept their lives and their children away from actual religious activity, the children grow up without any emotional investment in the faith of their forefathers. They find the marriage ceremonies weird and hugely inconvenient, and the death ceremonies very traumatizing - because they don't know the significance of either. Even these ceremonies they see less and less of, because they have smaller families. So, really, in most cases, the first person to actually have a long talk with them about God, is usually a missionary.

3. Education in Convent schools: Education in convent schools causes two problems:
a) The student's dominant view of religion comes from Christianity. As if, that were the default religion of the world. His understanding of Christianity is usually much better than his understanding of Hinduism. (it was true, atleast then, in my case). And his understanding of Christianity and its traditions comes from those uniquely equipped to teach it, the trained corps of missionaries. He becomes used to seeing these people as naturally deserving respect, and as fundamentally good people. And this attitude of respect to these missionaries will naturally meet with approval from his parents.

b) Even if he doesn't convert, he develops a broad-mindedness to the concept of religion that is debilitating to Hinduism. He sees all religions as the same, except that he sees Christianity as fashionable and as the "in" thing. I will talk about this broad-mindedness in my next point.

4. For a religion to survive as a living and vibrant tradition, it requires a certain level of narrow-mindedness in its adherents. Usually, the ultra-modern set make a fetish of their broad-mindedness. This makes sense, in a way. A broad-minded person is likely to flourish in a globalized world, but not the ideas he is so broad-minded about. A good example are the Parsis. Most Parsis are urbane, tolerant and broad-minded. They have done very well for themselves. On the other hand, their religion in India is close to extinction. So, one must be broad-minded about most other things, but not about the things that one values - in this case, Hinduism and the Hindu lifestyle.

A true, traditional Hindu should be narrow-minded - in the sense that he dismisses other religions completely, is intolerant of Islam and Christianity, and is openly hostile to its proselytizers. This does not mean that he has to react violently, but he should be so hostile that a missionary should find it an unpleasant experience to meet with him.

A good example is a religious Muslim. He is pretty narrow-minded. He will normally do slightly less well in life than a "broad-minded Hindu", but his religion is likely to be the one that will survive any civilizational conflict. A jihadi is extremely narrow-minded, so the ideology of Jihad has a distinct likelihood of being destroyed, but not the religion of Islam - and that is because of the religious Muslim, who is consistently more narrow-minded than most religious people.

Also, perhaps, having family friends among members of other religions is not a good idea. An adult may feel free to have friends among Muslims or Christians, but a watching child may get the idea that mixing with people belonging to other religions is just fine, and they are just like us. This tends to give the wrong sort of ideas to young children. So, limiting one's contact to members of one's own community, especially at home, is a good idea. Leave "inter-religious dialogue" to those who have the time, inclination and maturity to do a good job.

My first post

*admin*