Posted by someone in BR Forums who got it in an email. Couldn’t find a source on net too. So here is it:The beauty of being a Hindu lies in your freedom to be who you want to be. Nobody can tell you what to do, or what not to do. There is no initiation and or baptism. Hinduism is a way of Life. There is no central authority, no single leader of the faith. No one can pass an order to excommunicate you, or like in some countries, pass a decree that orders ‘death by stoning’ for walking with a ‘strange’ man.

We don’t appreciate our freedom because we can’t feel the plight of others who aren’t free. Many religions have a central authority with awesome power over the individual. They have a clear chain of command, from the lowliest local priest to the highest central leader. Hinduism somehow escaped from such central authority, and the Hindu has miraculously managed to hold on to his freedom through the ages. How did this happen?

Vedanta is the answer. When the writers of Vedanta emerged, around 1500 BC, they faced an organised religion of orthodox Hinduism. This was the post Vedic age, where ritualism was practiced, and the masses had no choice but to follow. It was a coercive atmosphere.

The writers of Vedanta rebelled against this authority and moved away from society into forests. This was how the ‘Aranyakas’ were written, literally meaning ‘writings from the forest’. These later paved the way for the Upanishads, and Vedanta eventually caught the imagination of the masses. It emerged triumphant, bearing with it the clear voice of personal freedom.

This democracy of religious thought, so intrinsic to Vedantic intelligence, sank into the mindset of every Indian. Most couldn’t fathom the deep wisdom it contained, but this much was very clear, they understood that faith was an expression of personal freedom, and one could believe at will. That’s why Hinduism saw an explosion of Gods. There was a God for every need and every creed. If you wanted to build your muscles, you worshiped a God with fabulous muscles. If you wanted to pursue education, there was a Goddess of Learning. If it was wealth you were looking for, then you looked up to the Goddess of weath — with gold coins coming out of her hands. If you wanted to live happily as a family, you worshiped Gods who specially blessed families. When you grew old and faced oncoming death, you spent time in contemplating a God whose business it was to dissolve everything — from an individual to the entire Universe.

Everywhere, divinity appeared in the manner and form you wanted it to appear, and when its use was over, you quietly discarded that form of divinity and looked at new forms of the divine that was currently of use to you. ‘Yad Bhavam, tad Bhavati’… what you choose to believe becomes your personal truth, and freedom to believe is always more important than belief itself.

Behind all this — was the silent Vedantic wisdom that Gods are but figments of human imagination. As the Kena Upanishad says, “Brahma ha devebhyo vijigye…” — All Gods are mere subjects of the Self. It implies that it is far better that God serves Man than Men serve God. Because Men never really serve God — they only obey the dictates of a religious head who speaks for that God, who can turn them into slaves in God’s name.

Hindus have therefore never tried to convert anyone. Never waged war in the name of religion. The average Hindu happily makes Gods serve him as per his needs. He discards Gods when he has no use for them. And new Gods emerge all the time — in response to the current needs. In this tumult, no central authority could survive. No single prophet could emerge and hold sway, no chain of command could be established.

Vedanta had injected an organised chaos into Hinduism, and that’s the way it has been from the last thirty five centuries. Vedanta is also responsible, by default, for sustaining democracy. When the British left India, it was assumed that the nation would soon break up. Nothing of that kind has happened. The pundits of doom forgot that the Indian had been used to religious freedom from thousands of years. When he got political freedom, he grabbed it naturally. After all, when one can discard and/or change Gods why can’t one discard leaders? Leaders like Gods are completely expendable to the Indian, predomonantly Hindu mindset. They are tolerated as long as they serve the people, and are replaced when needs change. It’s the triumph of people over their leaders, in true democratic manner. Strange how the thoughts of a few men living in forests, thirty five centuries ago, can echo inside the heart of the Indian, majority of whom profess Hinduism. That’s a tribute to the resurgent power of India, and the fearlessness of its free thinking people.

“Hinduism is a Way of Life, and Life tends to be Organised Chaos !”

Some people I came accross in various forums have a lot of doubts regarding Hindu religion. I’m not an expert on religion. Am an atheist and I can’t even remember when was the last time I visited a temple. But the text I’ve typed out below is true to best of my knowledge . Some things could be wrong,. You”re welcome to point them out. But keep in mind that custom followed by Hindus of North India might differ from those followed by South Indian.Similarly somethings can be different for different sects and school of thoughts.

1.) There are 14 Crore ( 140 Million) Hindu gods, but not all are worshipped. Hindu gods of heaven are no different than Greek gods. Just a different entity for different things.. for example:
Indra for rains (King of Gods)
Varun for water
Pawan for air and so on.
They are just divine beings, same a Djinns are for Muslims and Angels are for Christians. Worshipping these heavenly gods might get you some favours on earth, nothing more than that.

Then there is the Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu & Mahesh.
Brahma is the creator
Vishnu the nurturer and
Mahesh/Shiv the Destroyer.

These are most powerful divine beings, but even they are not supreme. They can’t help you attain salvation.

2.) In Hindu philosophy, heaven isn’t the last stop. True aim of a soul is to merge with ultimate god, source of all souls..called by various names, Brahman, Pramatma, Omkar . All the divine beings mentioned above are creations of this supreme Pramatmaa. Becoming one with this supreme God is called Nirvan.
Untill a soul is able to do so, its forced to go through cycles of birth, death,heaven/hell and rebirth (in different forms).
Hindus don’t worship idols. Idols for Hindus no more significance than Macca Medina hold for Muslims and Cross for Christians. Idols are just a way to visualise the god and channelise the devotion. Nobody in his right mind would say, ” This stone idol is my god”. The idol is just a representation.

3.) Hindu religion can be considered animist as they hold natural sources like rivers, mountains, sun, moon, trees etc. sacred. In my opinion that was a way of conservation of natural resources. If a communtiy holds something say a lake sacred, its less likely to pollute it. I see this thing almost daily.

4.) Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are separate religions which trace their origins to Hinduism. They are considered sister religions, not Hindu sects.

Bajrang Dal’s head talks to Some excerpts

What is it you are alleging Muslims and Christians are doing in India?

It is in front of you to see! Under whose shelter are the terrorists in India operating today? Who were the Muslims who gave patronage to the terrorists in Batla House (in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi)? They are not from Pakistan or Bangladesh, they are people born out of this very land. You tell me, why can’t the Muslims of this country forge a collective forum and speak against terrorism? Who is planting Pakistan’s flags on Kashmiri soil? During the Amarnath yatra issue, who were the people shouting, “Jo Bharat ka yaar hai, samjho woh gadaar hai” (Those who befriend India are traitors)? Who are advocating allegiance to Pakistan? Even if the Kashmiris were upset with the Jammu road blockade – I don’t concede it was a blockade – but if they felt it was one, why not march towards Delhi, why march towards Muzzafarabad? I believe Muslims have to come out and take on these questions frontally. Until they do, this question will remain in people’s minds: true, not all Muslims are terrorists, but why are all terrorists Muslim? Read the India Today story where three terrorists were interviewed. Hear the Sahara TV interview with Abu Bashr and note all their talk of jihad. Why do Muslims feel they have to stake all of India and the world with Islam’s flag before they can rest in peace? They have to give up this way of thinking. As Hindus, we tolerate everything. But you tell me, where in the Bible is it written – “Sarve bhavantu sukhinaha” – The universe should be happy. The Bible divides the whole world into believers and non-believers. So does the Koran. But not our shastras.

(Good one)

If that is the case, why do you want to change this tolerance among Hindus?
Who is trying to change it? I am saying they can be happy here because Hindus tolerate everything. But they don’t want peaceful coexistence, they want to instate Islamic rule. That is why their community rises up to defend terrorists like they have in Azamgarh and Batla House. See, Hindus believe god can have any name, and the paths to god can vary. We have 32 crore gods and goddesses; it won’t hurt us if one more Mohammaden or Christian is added to the ranks. So what difficulty do Indian Muslims have in saying they are “Mohammamed panthi Hindus” or Indian Christians have in saying they are “Christ-believing Hindus”? After all, this is a Hindu nationality.

You just said another path to god should not bother Hindus. Converting is an act of choice, Christians aren’t forcing it.

Choice? How can there be choice where there is deceit. And, of course, there is force. You tell me, what is so special about Christianity that the entire Hindu population of a district will convert to it? The proof is in your face. When Gujarat, MP, Orissa and Rajasthan brought in the Anti-Conversion Bill, why was there such uproar among Christians? If you are not robbing, why should you fear a law against robbery? People call us communal; it is the Christians who have communalised education, not us. 95 percent of Hindus pay fees and study in missionary schools, but just because the management was Christian, they closed schools across the country to protest the incidents in Kandhamal! Did they ask whether Hindu students wanted that protest?

Maybe that is because recently it has been proved that too many innocent Muslims are being falsely arrested. But let’s get back to your ideal society. Does it have any place for people of other faith?

I have already told you — we want a society in which everyone is prosperous. Our chant is, may the righteous prevail, may the unrighteous be destroyed. What is the anti-Muslim sentiment in this? Are we saying Muslims or Christians should be destroyed? We are only saying all traitors should be destroyed. Those who live on this land and kick its womb, those who live on this land and praise Sadaam Hussein –

You brought up Kashmiri Muslims leaning towards Pakistan, but that has a complex history. Why mix Indian Muslims with Kashmiris?

It is not at all a separate issue. When the Amarnath land transfer issue came up, did any influential maulvi or Muslim leader issue a statement saying this pilgrimage is a centuries-old tradition going on from a pre-Islamic time, so what is the problem if a mere 100 acres of land is given for two months to build temporary constructions that will make the yatra smoother? And this is not new. In 1996, terrorists had threatened to stop the yatra itself. It is because of the Bajrang Dal’s determination that 50,000 Bajrangis went for the yatra despite that.

But it is local Muslims who help the yatra as well.

What helping! It’s just a source of income for them. If there was no yatra, they would have no income. (Don’t mind me shouting – I am from the Bajrang Dal, so my voice automatically becomes loud.)


Your action-reaction theory has no end. By that logic, the Muslim girl eve-teased on the platform can excuse the burning of the Sabarmati. And if Muslim radicals are behind the blasts, one can excuse it by saying they are reacting to the Babri Masjid demolition, and Bombay 1992 and Gujarat 2002 riots.
There is a big and fundamental difference between action-reaction at a personal, local level and one that seeks revenge at a national level. If in reaction to what happened in Gujarat, Muslims want to create Islamic rule at a national level, there is a huge difference in the two reactions. The karsevaks were returning home, some locals burnt them, the reaction happened locally. If in revenge you use Pakistani money and guns, there is a huge difference.

You spoke with pride about our 32 crore gods and myriad ways of life.
No, no, it is because of conversations like this that our families and values are breaking down. Elopements are on the rise. Licentiousness has never been tolerated in our culture and this holds true for men and women. You talk of Valentine’s Day – do we have to import a foreign concept to teach ourselves how to love? There is love and love and only love everywhere in this country. Mother’s Day! Father’s Day! Are we going to learn how to love our parents from a culture that dumps its parents in old people’s homes?

(What happened to famed Hindu tolerance here??)

Let us move away from specific incidents. Which three or four big issues would you pick which, if addressed, would create peace in your eyes?
There is the Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath issue. There was a lot of discussion with the Muslims over this. They should have understood then that no Indian Muslims have come from outside of this soil. Several generations back, everybody’s ancestors were Hindu. So Ram cannot be compared with Babur; Krishna and Shiv cannot be compared with Aurangzeb. I think the Muslims squandered a big opportunity to create an atmosphere of goodwill at that time. If they had compromised over these three things, many issues today would have lost their teeth. Of course, we can still discuss things, but do any maulvis have the guts to come out and say vande mataram is not idol worship, merely an invocation to this land, Bharatmata? Do they have the guts to say, what is the need for Islamist jihad? Do they have the guts to say, everyone should respect the Indian flag unequivocally, especially Kashmir which enjoys special status under Article 370? We are ready to meet them halfway. I am ready to invite them to offer namaaz in the most holy temple of India. Our Ram or Krishna will not mind. But do they have the guts to invite us to read the Hanuman Chalisa alongside them reading the namaaz in any of their mosques? Where is the fight? Let them widen their hearts, our hearts are not small.

(Still stuck in old temples, cow issues? Grow up)

What are your other issues?
They must not challenge India’s sovereignity. They are welcome to pray and live in any way, but why must Indian Muslims take their directional cues from Arab countries? If Hindus live in America and look towards India for their cues, I will deem that wrong as well. If they are citizens of that country, they must abide by the norms of that country. Why do they revere Osama and Sadaam? Why was the ruling on Shah Bano subverted? All encounters are probed as a matter of routine to find out if the police made a mistake, what was the need to make Batla House a pilgrimage spot?


The posts are copied from Bharat Rakshak Forums;=4336

Its a “Consortium of Indian Defence Websites” with respected members from defence, services, journalists among other fields. In this thread they are discussing “The Fake Hindu Liberal”. Please read throught the posts. You’ll probably find them interesting
Click on link to read whole discussion


Every self goal scored by a Hindu liberal trying to create equivalence where equivalence is non existent or incredible is a goal in favor of Hindu extremism. If Hindus who consider themselves moderate and secular also choose to be partial liars where they ignore one crime and talk of another crime – they and the people they support have it coming.

Let us see where the intelligence and rhetoric of the Hindu liberal takes him. The most pathetically contemptible aspect of the Hindu liberal is that his viewpoint could be respected if he just converts to another faith and argues or appeals as a Christian or Muslim.

But you won’t find Hindu liberals doing that . they remain Hindu and try to lie their way through. He thinks that his Hinduness will act as a balm and please non Hindus as an example of great secularism.

This is a joke that will end soon. The liberal will have to learn to face up to the truth and the truth is unless he can acknowledge that bigotry exists outside Hinduism in great doses, Hindus will will be quite happy to act like bigots because that is a reputation they already have – without anyone doing anything. Hindus lose nothing by being called bigots – they only need to add violence to their bigotry.

The Hindu liberal spends his life being apologetic to shake of the pre-existing reputation of bigotry that Hindus have and hastens to chasten Hindus who he sees as bigots by great sacrificial acts of self flagellation.
That defines the Hindu liberal

the behavior of the Hindu liberal is the behavior of a person who has been taught that he is of an inferior civilization that is full of bigots who discriminate against their own in “a caste system”, who burn widows and do not have the egalitarianism of Islam.

he does not believe that his background is that bad and seeks to put on good behavior to prove that he’s a jolly good fellow – not a bigot and spends his life cricitcising Hindus whom he feels are causing the bad reputation that Hindus and Hinduism have been given.

The fact is that no amount of Hindu good behavior and apology is going to change anything because as long as the Hindu behaves it is business as usual for everyone else.

What is happening now is that Hindus other than self flagellating “liberal Hindus” are beginning to realise that they have been astounding jackasses and that nothing they do will ever give them a good reputation. they will always come under attack from Islamic, Christian and Liberal Hindu groups.

Once the Hindu realises this he is no longer anxious about being called a bigot. He is called bigot no matter what he does. Better to be that bigot rather than a lifelong apologist. It gets things done in a way that no other tactic can do

A Brief History of Hindu Liberal

It may be remembered that Pandit Nehru was by no means a unique character. Nor is Nehruism a unique phenomenon for that matter. Such weak minded persons and such subservient thought processes have been seen in all societies that have suffered the misfortune of being conquered and subjected to alien rule for some time. There are always people in all societies who confuse superiority of armed might with superiority of culture, who start despising themselves as belonging to an inferior breed and end by taking to the ways of the conqueror in order to regain self confidence, who begin finding faults with everything they have inherited from their forefathers, and who finally join hands with every force and factor which is out to subvert their ancestral society. Viewed in this perspective, Pandit Nehru was no more than a self alienated Hindu, and Nehruism is not much more than Hindubaiting born out of and sustained by a deep seated sense of inferiority vis a vis Islam, Christianity, and the modern West.

Muslim rule in medieval India had produced a whole class of such self alienated Hindus. They had interpreted the superiority of Muslim arms as symbolic of the superiority of Muslim culture. Over a period of time, they had come to think and behave like the conquerors and to look down upon their own people. They were most happy when employed in some Muslim establishment so that they might pass as members of the ruling elite. The only thing that could be said in their favour was that, for one reason or the other, they did not convert to Islam and merge themselves completely in Muslim society. But for the same reason, they had become Trojan horses of Islamic imperialism, and worked for pulling down the cultural defences of their own people.

“Dhimmi-liberal” – the Hindu liberal

The Hindu liberal is a cowardly species who misuses existing Hindu liberalism to malign Hindus and avoids taking a stand on murder when it’s done in the name of Islam.

An English education in India teaches on the word “liberalism” but does not teach the liberalism that was represented by the word “Hindu” when it was coined by people who saw the peculiar life and practices of the populations living in the lands east of the Indus river.

Liberalism today can only exist in the space provided for it by conservatives. Liberals who push the envelope too far are rapidly taught how far they can go in every society except in Hindu society.

I believe Hinduism originally expanded into a mass of liberal practices until faced with religions that restricted the space that Hindu liberalism could act in. This gave birth to Hindu conservatism that is offended by the space taken up by liberals. But Hindu conservatism has still not learned the top most trick in the book – the Brahma-astra of all conservatism – the death sentence.

the death sentence is used well in Islam and serves as a beautiful barrier to prevent liberals from stepping on conservative space. Maybe Hindu society too will evolve the robust conservatism of the death sentence – difficult to tell.

But the reason why Hindu liberals are so lopsided in their views is because their Hinduness allows them to be critical of Hinduism without the conservative backlash that organized religions have developed from the start to keep people within the boundaries of a flock.

Picture 1 is the behavior of a true liberal. When faced with Hinduism he may have something to criticise and something to praise. Similarly, when faced with Islam, he may have something to criticise and something to praise.

Picture 2 shows the behavior of a dhimmi liberal. Fear of Islam (Fatwas, riots, a history of making and carrying out death sentences) makes him afraid of being critical of Islam

One thing you will find is that world over, these liars always go after the majority religion. If it is Hinduism in India, it is Christianity in US. The reason for this is the simple 80-20 rule. You go after the 80% not the 20%. This also provides a convenient camouflage of being ‘pro-minority, progressive, liberal’ etc. though the main objective is to clear the ground, or ‘format the disk’ so they can install their virus much more easily.

But I have to say their tactics as well as strategies are failing in big ways. The pseudo-rational camp has failed in big ways. Good example again is TN today. After 40+ years of so called ‘rational’ rule (their rationality is a joke that is a subject of another thread) religion is so strong today as it has never been, certainly much stronger than these rowdies found it when they started their campaign.’


The Hindu Fake-Liberal is a type of human found in abundance in India and other countries. The modern term, pseudo-liberal (or fake-liberal) refers to those who call themselves liberals but really are conservative. Pseudos pay superficial tribute to the liberal concepts that they in reality undermine. An example might be someone come by at an interfaith meeting and suggest, “your religion, with all these gods and goddesses, is so exotic! Must be exciting! “

A Hindu might (by mistake) take that to be a compliment; in reality the other person whilst not lying had chose not to use the word false, in a pseudo interfaith demonstration.

The Hindu Fake-Liberal operates in reverse gear. Instead of undermining the opponent, he undermines his own as an apologist for faults that lay elsewhere. He is the master of what is known here as self-goals.

In the old days, we saw such fake-liberals in movies, perhaps. “Welcome to my humble home, Mr. Smith,” then turn around and say, “Abe Raju, b*h*nch*d, khana jaldi laa too badzaat.” That was a kind of Hindu fake-liberal, because their openness extended only to the suck-madi.

But it is far more sinister today than this old-style sucker.

It turns out that modern day islamism is not just exposing islamists, it is exposing our own Fake-Liberals too. For example, he might say, it is not the poor muslim youth’s problem if they don’t have anything but bombs to play with or, maybe, I wouldn’t doubt that this was a setup by the Hindus to suppress the muslims. This is because the religion of peace must be respected and the lack of peace must be as much our fault. It takes two hands to clap, no? He will reason.

The fake-liberal’s realm of fakery isn’t restricted to Islam. Dhimmitude, self-alienation, and other traits are also seen.

The true Hindu-liberal on the other hand arises as Dharmic individual, which is the benchmark for a Hindu. Although the Hindu Fake-Liberal is best viewed as a religious condition, it really has spread its wings and has become a social condition. It threatens India.