1) "A Hindu leader" is a disturbingly inaccurate phrase, even if seemingly innocuous. The definition of a "Hindu" has long been contested, and replacing it with "Sanatani" doesnt really solve the issues in that contest, in some sense making it even more contested.
2) Some will say, helping out an invader with explicit agenda of destruction of what it deems as "Hindu", in ways that adds to the resources of that invader to do what it wants to do - culturally, militarily, economically, religious infrastructure, still keeps one a "Hindu" if
3) if after helping out the invader, the "helper" builds temples, publicly and privately observes approved rituals, feeds the poor, does a lot of charity. Or that the "helper " at least protected his own "Hindu" clan, territory even if helping the invader persecute other Hindus.
4) others may say that someone fails to remain a Hindu, if s/he has ever used words from an invaders language, or shown to have adopted tactical alliances with the invader, or tried to retain non-Hindus in their movements . This often comes with exception clauses.
5) typically the "fail" criteria are applied nonuniformly with extreme prejudice - with blatant absolution given even to those that gave their daughters to the "divine khedive's" of the invader, or added forces to campaigns against other Hindus resisting the invader.
6) I think its time to say it clearly, a "leader of the Hindu" is one who strives to protect the Hindu society in its entirety in all its aspects, ensuring its physical security, cultural freedoms, economic well being - not just for a minority of its members but for all.
7) We have the bitterest of experiences with the "trusteeship" model, so perfectly manifested in the Gandhian framework - an extension of birth-descent based claims of repository of all "purity" and right-to-rule reset/selected from time to time by other self-appointed trustees.
8) Lets have a discussion on the "fail/pass" criteria for being a "Hindu" - but once it converges, it should apply equally to all, past and future. But that discussion will not be something hijacked by "trustees" and no one here is canceling anyone out.
9) The common mass of the Hindu must be heard and their voices must be given space and we collectively decide the criteria. In it we will struggle with what is truly "timeless" and what is material technology and accumulated knowledge dependent, therefore subject to updates.
10) but that debate is crucial, it doesnt have to be a quick decision either. However, we must be aware that the debate will be driven by an ancient contest of power - between those who want to make it hereditary and tightly controlled by a set of self-proclaimed superior beings
11) and those who concede that merit and capacity needs to be proven on ground, and that its best for the society to advance the interests, aspirations and recognition of the abilities of the maximum possible subset of a society - which makes it more robust against hostiles.
12) this cancel culture sought to be imposed from the narrowest of regional, sectarian views needs to be thrown by the roadside. We decide collectively what does a "good Hindu" or "a leader of the Hindu" mean. It will take time. But eventually we will be there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
