Thoughts on economics and liberty

Islam has much innate viciousness but so do ALL religions. Let’s demand the rule of law and punish all criminals.

My advocacy for the INNOCENT and attacks on CRIMINALS – regardless of their "religion" – is often taken by readers to be a defence of Islam.

The problem is such readers are superficial and haven't read my scathing criticism of ALL religions (plus also recognition of the good arising from them). An example would be the chapter on tolerance in The Discovery of Freedom. I am keenly aware that ALL religions have passages in their scriptures that are extremely hateful and – if followed strictly – will lead to certain obliteration of the human species. Christianity, Judaism, Islam are the most vicious of all.

Hinduism's texts are far less vicious in the way they attack non-Hindus, but they are defective in many other ways (e.g. by advocating atrocities against the lower castes). 

Violence is the hallmark of ALL organised religion. It is up to us to take the good (if any) out of them and reject the rest.

I agree that Islam has an extremely violent history – and many of its current advocates are even more violent. But the fact that someone (Babur) demolished a key temple and built a mosque out of it is NO REASON for "Hindus" to go about demolishing the mosque and taking the law into their own hands. In a constitutional republic, the RULE OF LAW must reign supreme. Past crimes – hundreds of years old – must necessarily be taken out of the equation, and the situation evaluated on merit according to the law prevailing today. There is no law passed by the Indian parliament to authorise random demolitions/ killings by "Hindus" – in retaliation of what someone did hundreds of years ago.

It is the tendency of BJP to incite people to take the "law" into their own hands that is the reason BJP must be rejected. BJP has no respect for justice. No respect for law.

I'm posting an email I received today – which raises important points. While I agree with the author, we need a lot more research to establish a balanced and TRUTHFUL situation regarding the role of Islam in India. We should not forget the DELIBERATE ROLE OF THE BRITISH in dividing India based on cooked up stories stories of religious hatred.

The hatred we see in India today amongst religions can be attributed in large part to the British.

See this.


Dear Mr Sabhlok,

I have been a follower of your blog for a while now, and really admire your work, as well as your mission of bringing in Classical Liberalism in India. I really identify myself as being compatible with the values of individualism, pragmatism and freedom with accountability that Liberalism espouses.

I don’t want anyone to misinterpret my response as an Islamophobic rant (which it isn’t). Firstly, I would like to clarify that I am DEAD AGAINST ideals like the RSS version of Hindutva and turning India into a Hindu Pakistan. Like you, I respect (NOT worship) the Advaita, Charvaka and Kautilya’s capitalist traditions of Hinduism, and although not engraved in stone, identify myself as a “Hindu agnostic”. I believe in researching both sides of an argument before arriving to my own conclusion (one of the hallmarks of critical thinking).

I did read the article, and yes, it does make sense that the British might have forged history textbooks in order to propagate their ideal of “Divide and Rule” in the subcontinent. 

But there is overwhelming academic and physical evidence of:

1)   Islamic brutality against Hindus – In the Koran, Hindus were (at the time of Muslim conquests) considered “pagan” and not even accorded basic traits of forgiveness allowed for defeated populations of Christians and Jews (whom the Koran considers “people of the book” or “Dhimmi”) ( [Sanjeev: The actual practice of this was far less aggressive. The jazia is applied on people of the book. That was applied to Hindus, as well – please check. I speak from memory, and have not re-checked this fact.]

2)   Iconoclasm – some famous examples being Somnath (, Nalanda (, Martand Sun Temple ( and Babri Masjid (not 100% on this one though). [Sanjeev: At the same time, other Muslim rulers FUNDED TEMPLES. Ghazni's loot – he wanted Somnath's gold- purely driven by greed – can't be compared with Babri Masjid.]

3)   Forced conversions of Hindus, Jizya taxes on non Muslims, and the general propagation of Persian over Sanskrit as the language of courts, administration and royalty (one notable exception being the rule of Akbar).   [Sanjeev: Forceful conversion is highly exaggerated. The economic factor – jazia was, I think, very important. Also, the fact that you were more likely to get good jobs if you were Muslim. Note that economic factors generally trump others. Of course, any such economic incentives are also problematic. Please note that Sanskrit was NEVER am Indian language of the court.]

4)   India being one of the very few countries where Islamic rule did not annihilate the indigenous civilization/religion (famous examples being ancient Egyptian and Zoroastrianism in Iran). I guess it is a testimony to the bravery of Indians that the Indian subcontinent was not completely Islamized. [Sanjeev: India was never one nation but hundreds of kingdoms. Things kept changing. Most battles were TERRITORIAL. Almost none were religious]

5)   The ancestor of Indian Mughals, Timur ( (, while being one of the greatest conquerors of all times, would today be definitely considered as a genocidal sociopath.

A very good resource that I came across that explains the history, tribulations and implications of Islamic rule in India (

Also,   [Sanjeev: You've got be really careful with one sided websites]

Moreover, as someone who strongly believes in liberalism as a political ideal, I have more than enough reason to believe that fundamental Islam (including the Sharia) is in direct opposition of the most basic tenets that defines Classical Liberalism like freedoms of speech, action, and thoughts, capitalism, equality of opportunity, democracy, critical thinking and free markets. [Sanjeev: I disagree with this. Neither was Christianity compatible with liberalism. But it changed. It took those bits that were compatible, and now is broadly liberal. Islam has MANY aspects that are compatible with liberalism. Do read The Discovery of Freedom.] Hence, I cannot respect such a religion/political ideology. Sad to see that the Hindutvawadis are joining this bandwagon of ignorance as well, just replaced by saffron robes instead of green. Hence, I firmly decline to identify myself as just Hindu. [I don't "respect" ANY religion – but I tolerate EVERYONE so long as they don't perpetrate violence]

However, as Gandhi so aptly put it “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, so also harbouring feelings of resentment towards the current generation of Muslims in India for historical reasons is nothing but ignorant and nonsensical, and just perpetuates the vicious cycle of hatred amongst the society. But I really wish that Indian Muslims (as all other groups) would put good governance and national development as the forefront agenda, instead of fighting obscure medieval battles and championing myopic interests. [Sanjeev: Agreed. I'd say the same to Indian "Hindutavas", as well.]

 As an OCI living in Australia, I have seen what good governance and free markets can do for a society, and really despair that the people of India might not have the choice to vote for a party like SBP in 2014, whose policies are the need of the hour.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
15 thoughts on “Islam has much innate viciousness but so do ALL religions. Let’s demand the rule of law and punish all criminals.
  1. Rakesh Pujari

    Dear Mr Sabhlok,

    Thank you for publishing your views on my reply to your post. I am in the process of reading DOF (already read BFN), hence I wish to clarify that I know that you are not a defender of Islam; rather, you champion the effects that religious fundamentalism can have in degenerating a society. The main point that I intended to make with my post was that in any form, religious fundamentalism is not only undesirable, but destructive to a civilized society (a very unfortunate and glaring example being Pakistan). Hence, ideologies like Sharia and Hindutva must be vehemently opposed, and critical thinking/Advaita/Charvaka/scientific Hinduism traditions must be re energised in Indian society. What I ideally wish to see is the dawn of an Indian “Age of Enlightenment” that freed Western society from the shackles of religious bigotry towards the scientific age (also gave birth to fathers of Classical Liberalism like John Locke and Adam Smith).

    One more example of religious subversion of a concept originally meant as a life-saver for Muslims living under fear of persecution in Non Islamic societies is “Taqiyya”

    I need to research this more, but there have been allegations wherein some Mullahs in Indian Madrasas and mosques have urged the followers to observe Taqiyya and feign religious tolerance towards non muslims, till India’s Muslim populace is increased to a suitable level that the true intention of introducing full Sharia in India is realized. Although I personally feel it to be too ambitious and exaggerated a claim, if true, this is a highly insidious concept that can prevent true inter faith harmony ever being achieved in India. (I must again re iterate that these are just based on conjectures). A very interesting thing to note from this is the blog post you put up a couple of weeks ago wherein Praveen Togadiya has asked his followers on Twitter for patience till the true intention is revealed once Modi becomes PM. Again an example of religious fundamentalism mixed with subversion in changed garbs… same principles, different gods.

    I do believe that there are thinkers in the Muslim world who wish to bring about such changes in Islamic society eg. Hassan Nisar (, Taslima Nasrin and Wafa Sultan ( but unfortunately such voices are few and far between, as the fundamentalists threaten them with their lives. India MUST NOT spiral into this same situation where free thinkers live under the fear of death. Fortunately, the situation is not as bad, but there are increasing cases of the same happening and these MUST BE NIPPED IN THE BUD.

    I do believe that if India had continued with the Advaita/Charvaka traditions, it would have naturally evolved into an Age of Enlightenment-like era for Indian society. However, colonisation and internal bigotry wrought by the Varna Vyavastha stunted these movements (I remember that you have hypothesized the same principles in your blog, not sure exactly which one). However, now Indians have the opportunity to reject these ideals and embrace free thinking and good governance as a way of life. I wish all the best for SBP for future elections after 2014, and would like to help, in my capacity, achieve this goal.

  2. AD

    Sir, you say you are no apologist of Islam, but that is exactly what you are. Your comments are absolutely ridiculous and highly insensitive.

    Maybe you should read a bit of Islamic history in India:
    This is what foreign historians say about the Islamic rule in India:
    – That it was one of the most brutal & bloodiest events in history (Will Durant, historian)
    – Over 80 MILLION people were killed in the 1000 year rule
    – Ex of Tamerlane – who killed over 100000 in a single day
    – Over 3000 temples demolishes and mosques built on those very locations, with those very stones of the demolished temples (which you can still see today. Prime ex – the babri built on the original Ram temple – at the birthplace of Lord Ram and using those very stones of the original temple as proven by ASI)
    – Women kidnapped & converted everywhere. Men tortured brutally. Horror stories from across India. Accounts of mass-immolation by women in many places to avoid getting kidnapped or raped
    – Read the history of Kashmir (how young hindu women were routinely kidnapped, so much so that hindu pandits used to shave the heads of their young daughters & keep them indoors)
    – The accounts of Guru Nanak ji & what he said about the brutality of Islam (he said ‘men were skinned alive, fed to dogs, young women taken and kept in muslim houses’). How Guru Teg Bahadur was tortured & beheaded publicly for trying to protect Kashmiri punndits
    – Accounts of babies of sikh women killed in front of their own eyes who refused to convert
    – Accounts of Tipu Sultan’s barbarity against hindus & christians of the south. How they were looted, their women taken, and almost the entire community wiped out
    – The statements of these invaders who clearly proclaimed they were doing it in the name of Islam
    – Renaming one of the holiest hindu cities of Prayag as Allahbad purely as an insult to hindus

    Funny thing is – these things are STILL happening – to this day, but you wouldn’t know.
    – Did you know that villages in Syria & Egypt are subjecting their christian population to jizya even today?
    – Did you know that pakistani hindus returning from there have told a similar narrative? Did you know that
    – Did you know that sikhs in Afganistan were being forced to wear yellow bands as a sign of dhimnitude & made to pay jizya?
    – Did you know that hindu women in Pakistan & christians in Arab countries are being kidnapped & taken away every day? Thousands of such cases. Rinkle Kumari who even the supreme court refused to let her meet her parents, openly declared ‘there is no justice for non-muslims in pakistan’
    – Have you seen how minorities are threatened, blamed, attacked & killed in uprisings in muslim countries? (attack on hindus during Shahbag in Bangladesh, on Christians in Egypt, Syria – over 100,000 christians have already fled Egypt since MB had taken over – but no world media considers that as imp news. MB islamists openly threatening to kill all christians in Egypt – but you wouldn’t care)
    – In Nigeria, Boko Haram trying to install an Islamic Republic & shariya rule – in front of the entire world, in the 21st century. But you wouldn’t care. Over 2000 have been killed, tens of thousands fled already. The brutality of it, mind boggling (chopped hands of a man caught smoking, then put it in boiling water & then the bent piece of flesh reattached with needles in his arm again)
    – Sane, educated muslims too making outrageous anti-semitic comments all the time (be it in Turkey, Pakistan or elsewhere). The sheer volume of anti-semitism in their conversations, news, discussions, TV shows – mind boggling. Yet nobody is bothered

    How fair is it when you don’t even spend 1/10th of the time talking about the far greater & more serious issues of Islamic violence & barbarism – as you do splitting hairs about Modi/RSS/BJP. When every criticism of yours against Islam must be tempered with equivalents from other communities.

  3. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    You are a confused man, AD.

    I DON’T DENY that Islam has many violent votaries. But I demand that ONLY THOSE individuals be punished. 

    Similarly, Modi should be punished – for abetting violence.

  4. Kishan

    1-Jizya is for non-Muslims, for Muslims it is Zakat. Rate of Jizya is double that of Zakat.
    2-If attack on Somnath was only for loot, why were the idols & the building destroyed?
    3-The last Mughal emperor Aurangzeb went even further in targeting temples for destruction.Their own historians have recorded destruction of temples.
    4-Kashi Vishwanath was one of the most famous temples targeted for destruction by Aurangzeb. Similar is the story for Janmabhumi temple at Mathura.
    5-Even the recent and current history of Islam is no better.Look at the condition of minorities in Pakistan (from more than 20% at independence to less than 5% now), or in Bangladesh (Not as bad as Pakistan but percentage of minorities has reduced very substantially), or even our own Muslim majority Kashmir from where lakhs of Hindus have been driven out.By the way, percentage of Muslims in India is going up.
    6-Ask a typical Indian Muslim.For him Islam comes first, nation only after religion. Their religious leaders forbid their followers from singing Vande Maataram. An average Hindu doesn’t give much importance to the utterances of their religious leaders but Muslims are not like that.
    7-Christians target the poorest in tribal areas for conversion by allurement.Hardly any conversion takes place at free will.
    You can call me a Hindu bigot for stating facts but that does not change the facts of past,recent or current history.
    White washing of history only creates more Hindu bigots.

  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Kishan, the idea is not to whitewash history but to leave it to the scholars.

    Our job should be to demand the rule of law and justice. If A commits a crime, then A should be punished regardless of religion. And we should NEVER pre-judge someone because of their religious belief.

  6. Kishan

    Sir, even so-called scholars also have their own biases. Majority of Indian historians were heavily influenced by Nehru’s idea of secularism.That influence is still clearly visible in their hostility towards anything that has anything to do with Hinduism. In their view it is also necessary to bend backwards to please Muslims which in turn is necessary to get a certificate of being secular.They have even influenced the Indian govt to do many stupid things to prove their secularism.Shah Bano case was one example. PM’s statement 3/4 years back that Muslims have first right on all national resources was another example. Keeping Uniform Civil code in indefinite cold storage is yet another example.Rahul Gandhi’s statement to a US diplomat that a non-existent Hindu terror is a greater threat than Muslim terror is a fourth example. On & on …. they keep going on the path of their idea of secularism. That Hinduism survives and even flourishes in spite of such acute hostility of an entire class of Hindu intellectuals is nothing short of miracle.

  7. Sandeep

    Rule of law is fine Mr Sanjeev, but EQUATING Islam with Hinduism is intellectual dishonesty. I am afraid you have fallen into the typical trap of the Marxists/Jihadis.

    Abrahamic religions like Islam, Judaism and Christianity talk about the final truth as revealed in their books. As opposed to this, Hinduism encourages every individual to seek truth. It is a decentralized religion. Multiple gods and reincarnation has meant that Hindus are far more acceptable to the idea of other Prophets like Muhamad or Jesus. Vice versa is not true.

    That is incorrect. This is the typical way how history in India taught. I too used to believe that Hindu Muslim conflict was started by the British, but this is totally wrong.

    For instance, Aurangzeb vs Shivaji was a totally Hindu-Muslim conflict. Until then, earlier Mughals were more tolerant. Shivaji rose after Aurangzeb turned pious and started ruling as per Sharia, imposed Jizya, a tax on Hindus. He ruthlessly killed Hindus, destroyed temples including many of the holiest temples like Somnath Temple and Kashi Viswanath Temple. Aurangzeb ordered beheading of Guru Teg Bahadur after he refused to convert to Islam. He was executed in public in Chandni Chowk, Taliban style.

    Vivekananda wrote “Shivaji is one of the greatest national saviours who emancipated our society and our Hindu dharma when they were faced with the threat of total destruction”.

    That is incorrect. If he only wanted gold, why did he destroy the temple. As I understand, a mosque was built over Somnath temple. Somnath temple has been destroyed 6 times by Muslim invaders. It has been rebuilt 6 times. That is the brutality of Islam .

    This is again wrong. Tipu Sultan did it. Infact, he forced Brahmins to eat beef. Aurangzeb did that too. Thousands of Hindus were killed.

    India was culturally united. Our scriptures like Ramayan and Mahabharat spoke about the sub-continent. These mentioned specific places in India. Surely these sages were aware about the geography. The word Mahabharat means “Greater India”. The word nation is a western construct that came in 18th-19th century.

    Applying this definition for India in the middle-ages is completely wrong. Culturally, India was a nation.

    What do you mean by TOLERATE. Tolerate means “accept something that is unpleasant”.

    I have serious issues with the TOLERATE or TOLERANCE that is often used to define secularism. This is again western construct. The correct words must be “Mutual respect”. Does Islam respects or does it tolerates? Infact it does neither, Islamic countries are a classic example of that.

    The same question can be asked to Hinduism or Christianity as well. As said earlier Hinduism believes in mutual respect. We dont need western constructs on secularism, our native ones are good enough. Vivekananda said “I am proud of being born in India which gave refuge to Parsis who have been abused world over”.

    Native Indian philosophy of mutual respect and keeping religion as a private affair is good enough. Dont need westerners to teach us what we always knew.

    An obvious question comes to mind, “What Aurangzeb did was past, how is this relevant today? Present day Muslims cannot be held responsible for the act committed by Aurangzeb or Tipu Sultan”. Fairly logical argument, I completely agree, present day Muslims should not be held responsible for those acts.

    But still there is a problem. Muslims celebrate and eulogize these mass murderers. In 2007, on the 300th death anniversary of Aurangzeb, more than a lakh Muslims gathered to pay homage. There was a exhibition on the destruction of Hindus and Hindu temples by Aurangzeb. Muslim organizations forced closing down of the exhibition. Muslims celebrate their rule as their golden era.

    Islamic fundamentalists like Owaisi regularly eulogize them as great Islamic icons. Urdu media does it as well. In the psyche of Muslims, they remain heroes. Have you seen Muslims protest against say Shariah, Burqa, women empowerment as they do for their so called Islamic heritage?

    Please tell me why do we need a road in Delhi after the mass murderer called Aurangzeb? Why should a university in Karnataka be renamed after Tipu Sultan. This was an issue raised by so-called SECULAR forces. If you want re-conciliation, why does it have to start with 1947 or 2002. It must start by acknowledging the history. Why don’t our history books mention this barbarity.

    Here is what Ambedkar said about Muslims:

    “While Hindus too have their share of social evils, some Hindus at least acknowledged them and a few others militated against them. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realise that they are evils, and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices

    Every Musalman in India feels that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterwards. It is this sentiment which explains why the Indian Muslim has taken so small a part in the advancement of India but has spent himself to exhaustion by taking up the cause of Muslim countries and why Muslim countries occupy the first place and India occupies a second place in his thoughts. This desire to be part of a greater Dar-ul-Islam, he argues, is the basis of pan-Islamism. ”

    In 2012, last July-Aug, Muslims organizations gave a call to protest against riots against Muslims in Burma. The protests were organized in Mumbai. The protests turned into riots, that too for Muslims who are not Indians.

    – Muslims attacked police.
    – Women constables were molested
    – Amar Jawan Jyoti was vandalized
    – A women constable wrote poem criticizing the incident. She was called communal for this and made to apologize.

    Vandalism is done by many others like Shiv Sainiks or Bajrang Dal. But do they ever vandalize symbols of our nationhood, like Amar Jawan Jyoti. Are they Indian first or Muslim first?

    Further, every vandalism of Shiv Sainiks or Bajrang Dal is covered and mocked by media, as it should be. But why was this incident not covered. A hindu women constable does not even have the right to write a poem when the rioters had molested women and destroyed national symbols. Even Javed Akhtar, himself a poet called her communal.

    On May 22nd, 2013, a British soldier was brutally killed by two Muslims in Woolwich, London. The attackers were of Nigerian descent. They shouted “Allahhu Akbar” and beheaded the soldier. The attackers said this was revenge attack for Iraq and Afghanistan. The attackers were not from Iraq or Afghanistan but from Nigeria. Are they Muslim first or British first?

    EDL or English Defense League is opposes spread of Islamism in Britain. It organized protests against Woolwich. EDL is often called racist, Islamophobic. It is often equated at par with Islamists, disregarding the fact that Islamists have cause far bigger damage and EDL is a reactionary force. I am just back in India from Philippines. Philippines, it is a catholic country, with a very small Muslim population of 5-7%. Even there, there was a blast during the month of Ramzan. My client said he did not understand what do they want.

    RSS was founded in 1925 by Keshav Hedgewar. He was earlier a member of Congress. He even took part in Khilafat movement and went to jail. He revolted after seeing Congress appeasement politics after a Hindu-Muslim riot. Like EDL, Hindu Nationalism was a reactionary force which is aimed at countering the threat of Islamism.

    Islamism relies on raising emotive issues like insult to the prophet or their past heritage which was essentially spread by sword. Hindu Nationalists have also tried to counter this by raising emotive issues. Ayodhya is one such issue. Ayodhya should not be seen in isolation and must always be seen in light with the politics of that era. Blatant minority appeasement coupled with Mandal politics which divided Hindus. While those who call themselves secular see Hindutva as divisive, Hindu nationalists see Hindutva which unites Hindus. Mandir politics, even though for a very short duration, tended to break caste lines and unite Hindus.

    In 1960s, it was quite common for SECULAR Muslims to organize mass namaaz on the Mumbai roads bringing down the cities traffic to a standstill. Of course they were not touched in the name of secularism. COMMUNAL Bal Thackeray started organizing mass aartis daily on roads. The police acted. This is how unfortunately politics works. Appeasement leads to counter-mobilization. Thackeray started Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism well before BJP did in the 80s.

    BJP started Hindu Nationalism only in the 80s. It was Bal Thakrey who spoke about Hindutva in the 60s and 70s. Mumbai was under the control of Muslim mafia who were not touched in the name of secularism. He got rid of them. Ofcourse he also spread hatred against south indians.

    Empirical studies have shown that there is a direct relation between poverty and women empowerment. World over, the condition of women in Islamic countries is far worse. Even in India, female participation in workforce and education of Muslim women is abysmal.

    Why dont you raise this? Agreed Hindus also have their share of issues. Christianity had its middle-ages when women were accused of being witches and burnt. But all these have moved ahead. Hindus abroad are forward looking. Those in India are also moving ahead. On the contrary, Muslims are moving in the opposite direction. For instance Kerala is turning into a land of Jihadis. Muslim groups have demanded marriage age of women be lowered.

    Muslims dont even want to recognize these issues. They are not even prepared to criticize Jihad. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, several Muslim scholars refused to accept that he was a terrorist. How do you expect things to change if this is the attitude and behavior?

    Hindus are also spread world over, so are Christians. Do we see them violent in the manner in which Muslims are. They have not just created trouble in middle-east or west, but in India, Burma and countries like Philippines where they are barely 5% of population. Why dont we see Hindus and Christians do the same? Intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge this basic fact.

    When in minority demand special privileges, when in majority demand Sharia, that’s the standard modus of operandi.

  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Sandeep, by no means am I “equating” Islam and Hinduism. I’m merely making two claims:

    a) Almost all religions have a violent core. The Abrahamic religions have a strong core of violence. Reading their religious texts is enough to confirm that. The actual practice of these religions has also been extremely violent. Christianity was the most intolerant and violent of all. Hinduism has its own forms of violence – the caste system is nothing a form of brutality – particularly as it affects the Dalits. And Manusmiriti is peppered with significantly violent thought. One of the more ghastly forms of violence in recent years was perpetrated in Modi’s Gujarat in 2002 by some Hindus.

    b) I don’t really care whether someone belives in a religion that is violent or not. All I care is that IF someone perpetrates violence, that the legal system clamps down hard and punishes the violent person.

    You are welcome to (as a scholar) review history or current affairs. All I’m saying is that ALL religions have a tendency for intolerance/violence (see extensive details in DOF –, but we shouldn’t care about whether someone believes in X religion or Y religion. All that we need is the firm rule of law.


  9. Kishan

    Sanjeevji you say you don’t want to equate but the next thing you do is equating Hinduism with violent religions.And the example you give is violence against SC’s. But are the two kinds of violence same in nature? The violence by Islam & Christianity was for subjugation of followers of other religions to fulfill their expansionist designs. Violence in the name of Islam still continues. But Hindus themselves have made laws to eliminate violence against SC’s.And this kind of violence has been almost eliminated even in the countryside.
    The problem with Manu Smriti (as with other oral/unwritten texts) is that a majorities of its shlokas had been added by the ruling Brahmin class with the selfish motive of perpetuating its rule. In Sanskrit I think it is called ‘Prakshep’.Dr Surendra Kumar has done research on this and he has concluded that of the total 2685 shlokas of Manu Smriti only 1214 are from the original text and 1471 have been added on later dates. The violence that you mention may be contained in the ‘Prakshipt’ shlokas. I have read Manu Smriti but, after reading Dr Surendra Kumar’s introduction, stuck to reading only the 1214 original shlokas. That is why I was surprised by your comment about violence in Manu Smriti.

  10. Sandeep

    Dear Sanjeev,

    BR Ambedkar publically burnt Manusmiriti. I read somewhere that Gandhiji also said something similar, “burn those texts”. I willing to myself come forward and burn Manusmiriti in public.

    Would even moderate Muslims come forward burn/tear away those portions from Quran which spews hatred against jews and non-Muslims.

    Agreed sir. What is the way forward? To me, one of the critical things that can change the game, both for Hindus and Muslims is empowerment of women.

    Amongst Hindus, it is already happening. Participation of women in education and workforce is increasing. Once women are independent, society will change, this is my firm belief particularly looking at western history. There are many issues still remain. Khaps are a nuisance. So is declining gender ratio. But atleast there is acknowledgment in the Hindu society about these.

    But why are those who claim to be liberals afraid of pointing out misogynistic tendencies of Islam and Islamic nations. I would like to know if you have written on this specific subject on your blog. If yes, please share the link.

    If Individual Liberty is supreme, the same should apply to females of all religions. If there are laws, whether religious or constitutional which impinge upon the liberty of females, then those laws need to publicly mocked, criticized and opposed.

  11. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks for the tip re: Manusmriti. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter whether the source of the violence is genuine or fake. The end result is the same: violence against the Dalits and tribals. Every week more than 10 Dalits are killed by “caste Hindus” even today. The number of beatings and assault goes into the thousands each year. I don’t see ANY evidence that violence in Hinduism has abated. If not Dalits, then they kill newly wed women in the name of dowry. Or Khap panchayats kill people who marry outside caste/religion.

    Let’s not forget that in communal violence it is Hindus who take the lead. Barring a very few exceptions, in all communal riots, a vastly greater number of Muslims is killed than Hindus. Modi’s February 2002 actions were 100 PER CENT violent. Instead of defending law and order, he provoked, incited, and abetted violence. And if not killing, then rape is widely practiced. Many Hindu religious leaders have been implicated in rape – leave alone the massive incidence of rape on the streets in India.

    I’m not saying Islam doesn’t have violence, but sorry, Hinduism is almost equally violent. And Christianity was FAR MORE violent. All religions are political parties that want supremacy over others. Let’s adopt the best ideas from all religions (and there are many good things) but let’s be honest and admit that all religions are basically political, and engage in massive violence.


  12. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “But why are those who claim to be liberals afraid of pointing out misogynistic tendencies of Islam and Islamic nations. I would like to know if you have written on this specific subject on your blog. If yes, please share the link. “

    You can search my blog. Ther are tens of articles condemning Islamic violence. And I gave you details of DOF. Do read it.

    I see both the good and bad OBJECTIVELY. There is both good and bad in all religions. Let’s take the good and discard the bad. 

    I can only say this: we all must be good and not harm anyone. And let the law punish anyone who harms anyone. That’s all we need in this life. We don’t need to know each other’s religion. That should remain a private matter. Unfortunately, most religions are more known by their penchant for violence than its blessings on humanity. (Btw, if you go through Togadia’s speeches promoting violence, you’ll know what Hinduism stands for today. After all, he is a key leader of Vishwa HINDU Parishad. I can’t distinguish him from any fanatic Muslim).

  13. Aditya Kadambi

    Mr.Sabhlok, The problem is with the contrived comparisons and equations of radical Islam, at this point of time in history with other radical religions.
    It is simply not accurate to say all religions are *equally* barbaric or even *equal*. They are not. They never have been. Religious people notice these differences, sadly we irreligious people don’t.
    Just compare the behaviour of different religious groups persecuted through politics and society in these times. Where are the Palestinian Christian terrorist squads?
    This is a like for like comparison. Where are the Kashmiri shaivite hindu pundit terrorists? Where are the Tibetan Buddhist, Bangladeshi hindu and atheist, Pakistani Christian terrorist squads?
    Same or worse political and social persecution but different reactions. The only distinguishing factor left, is culture which if often linked to religion.
    It is not mutually incompatible to desire reduction or elimination of dogma from the non muslims, *and* the muslims. However we must acknowledge that the love for theocracy, as per reputed institutes like Pew and personal experience with muslims, exists in a simple majority.
    Gallup polls by muslim apologists suggest that 35% of the global muslim population believes intentional killings of non combatants in perceived defence of the faith is justified partly or completely. That’s almost 500 million people.
    We have sharia in India for civil law. Hindus thankfully don’t get smriti laws. That law is humanistic.
    Secular democracy and individual liberty, equal liberties for the different sexes, for the different races & religions(or irreligious people) are essentials.
    When you don’t even buy into this, how will you even start your journey to a civil libertarian life? This contrived equation of radical Islam with radical jews, Christians, Buddhists, hindus ensures that muslims are continued to be misled about the compatibility of some of their ideas with 21st century liberal democratic life. Reforms are necessary for everyone, but some people are more willing than other religious groups to buy into the essentials as mentioned above. Their Socio-economic backwardness in *every single nation state where muslims live in decent numbers with non muslims* in comparison with other religious groups in the same region, is often blamed on persecution.
    Yet jews, koreans, Indian non muslims are socio-economically above average. The primary, though not exclusive, cause of their ghettoisation and socio-economic backwardness would be certain aspects of their religion which lend themselves to radicalism. Just like Indian non muslims esp. Hindus need to accept that we have been culturally inferior to the ‘west'(even with their imperialism and fascism) at least for a few centuries, if not the entire last millennium which was horrendous for us.
    I endorse the side arguing *for* the superiority of western values(which to me are the enlightenment values and core human values) here –
    They’re called western values because they developed and nurtured them and they deserve credit for that. We intellectually dominated the world in the ancient times and even until 1.5 millennia ago. Then we gradually sunk into becoming experts in BS mongering(pardon my language). I think and type this with a poker face and no anger. Just saying.

    Oh and Yeah sir, Non Muslims did indeed live as Dhimmis.
    The mistake most people make which leads them into negationism(wrt Islam in India up north) is that they link the culturally central asian descent muslims with the locals who were nto much better than the local non muslims. They came/come from the same 3900 castes and tribes that non muslims in south asia come from. Rameez Raja a strange Pakistani commentator, is a rajput. Waqar Younis, that fast bowler(yeah, him) is a Jat. British-Pakistani icon, boxer Amir Khan is a Rajput like MS Dhoni. In fact it is ironic when the India-Pak wars happen since both sides are partly the same castes fighting because of a religious difference. BTW the killings and lootings? Not restricted to north India. My maternal ancestors suffered Tipu Sultan’s massacres. They survived by fleeing. You can still see the devastation of temples with heads chopped off for example. Catholics in the same region also suffered. He was no freedom fighter.
    The Islamic ruling classes that claimed central asian descent and culturally were clearly central asian, were different to people like Khusro Khan. Buddhism was eliminated, Hinduism survived because of the sheer numbers advantage even after multiple conversions whcih is why Bangladesh and Pakistan + Kashmir are Islamic now, terrible infighting among the turco-mongol & other muslim elite, cultural softening illustrated best by dara shikoh, laziness and ‘harem-baazi’ by them, and the resistance from the Sikhs, some Rajputs, Ahom Kings, Vijayanagara kings, STs/OBCs as they’re referred to today.
    The destruction of universities of higher learning which were frequented by people from every civilised part of the world, and imposition of high taxes on the infidels forcing people to leave civilization and flee into the wilderness, using practically *any* woman(or man in some cases) as a sex slave at *any* time including princesses(there is massive literature on harems, the central asian rulers of India documented their existence quite well). What did they use these taxes for? How many universities did they create, as Farrukh Dhondy asks? I’ll tell you what was created. Lavish tombs and gardens where they could indulge themselves. Ek Pen bhi bana ke dikhaya inhone?
    Koi vishvavidyalaya banaya?
    Note, I am referring to the ruling classes, and most, not all of them. I know the sufis(even though some of them were not as nice as you’d think) were and still are the hippies. I have no problem with muslims as such. It is certain core tenets, core beliefs that are still not reformed, and I have already explained the consequences of this earlier in politics and socio-economic backwardness/ghettoisation.
    No nation can afford to be ahistorical. First Fascism went, then Communism, now Islamism has to go.
    P.S. I was incredibly sleepy when I typed this out at a rapid pace, so forgive any typos.

  14. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    You should study a bit of history. There was never a more barbaric religion than Christianity. That it has somewhat reformed is only in recent times. Even Hitler was (at least partially) driven by Christian hatred for Jews and killed millions of them.

    Hinduism is FAR LESS murderous than Islam and Christianity. But it is getting more savage in the recent years.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial