Posted by: Sarkozy April 30, 2008
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Why we need Nepal as a Hindu country?
L.
Georgia State
Atlanta
- In Nepal, Hindu religion has never influenced the legal system like in Christianity
or in Islam; it is more a ritual practice which doesn't impose others
to follow the same. No fundamentalism was ever get encouraged in
Nepal. It remained Sanatan Dharma.
- No rules from Dharmashastra as in Islam have ever come into force.
- If
you see UK, USA and many other developed countries, they revere their
religion (Christianity) in national level (see US constitution).They
take oath of Bible while getting into office. But have you seen anyone
in Nepal taking oath of Gita? It is such a liberal practice in Nepal:
it could have been made taking into account that there are
multi-ethnic, religious people in Nepal.
- Hinduism
as practice in India and Nepal are different. Nepal's is much unique
that accommodates all. In Nepal, it is ritual based, not a doctrine
based. The Gurung, Magar, Rai and other communities who are said to be
non-Hindu Janajatis also celebrate Dashain but not as a compulsion. But
do they celebrate Id-Ul-Fitra just because they are living in
Arghakhachi or Nepalgunj? or can Muslims celebrate Dashain as Gurungs
do? If anyone questions: Rai and Limbus celebrate Dashain because of
Hindu's pressure, thats never the case in Nepal. Is any Newar Buddist
barred from visiting Pashupatinath? whereas a Muslim is barred or a
Christian is barred, because without doing so, they could not be
controlled in the wave of proselytizing in the past. My point is
Nepal's Hindu practice is ritual
based, not a doctrine based.
- As
we see, the Hindu population in Nepal is decreasing due to Christianity
they have missionaries to change religion, but do we ever think to
change other's religion? Have you ever done that? But ask a Muslim and
you will get answer about how many non-Muslims has s/he already
converted into Muslim. same in Christianity.
- Early in its history, in the absence of other competing religions, Hindus considered everyone they came across as Hindus (Sanathan Dharm) and expected everyone they met to be Hindus. Hindus have never done business of religion. Hindu view of religious freedom is not based on the freedom to proselytize, but the right to retain one’s religion and not be subject to proselyzation. Don't we have the right to protect our religion from being proselytized?
- since we don't believe on conversion of other's religion but others (such as Muslims and Christians) do and they are financially better off, we are always vulnerable to sell our faith (as is seen in remote villages of Nepal), Should a state do justice to Hindus who are 83% in protecting their religion or should it be a witness to a rampant annihilation upon Hindus by Christians in the name of religious freedom and secularism?
- If Hindus were intolerant
and suppressive of other minorities of Nepal, how could Muslims in
Kathmandu remain safe and secured, up keeping their religious freedom
in the heartland of Hindus for more than 200 or so years? If Hindus
were suppressive, they could have swept Muslims' identity into dust.
Did they do that? And again, it is not wise to compare the Hindu Muslim
politics of India with Nepal. Nepal's is an exemplary case of religious
harmony which was possible due to its being a Sanatan Hindu state.
L.
Georgia State
Atlanta
Last edited: 30-Apr-08 05:59 PM