“Hindu Society” Terrorization

This transpositional article decodes some [salient] mainstream narratives on conventional Hindu-ism. I suggest you to read/share/review it, only when you’re cognitively capable to comprehend the analysis, otherwise there isn’t any obligation to cry “political correctness”, sentiments are hurt, etc.

This article doesn’t refute any polemic or disputable claims regarding casteism, PM Modi, Vedic philosophies, etc. I don’t intend to defame too. Note: I am also not a “liberal” to fake my own critical consciousness. My article here simply endeavors to deconstruct the so-called apolitical nature of Hindus, social conformity, saffronization and hallucinating attitude. Thanks to “bounded rationality” of the modern Hindu society.

WordWeb dictionary defines Terrorism as “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear” and I choose to confine my premises, definitions and comprehensions in the context of Hindu section only (because I am attempting to elenchus the extrinsic attitude of Hindus and exploring the esoteric nature of Hindus). In this article, I elaborate the unnoticed terrorization by Hindu society.

It is believed that Hinduism (also, known as Sanatan Dharma) is a way of life. My observation doesn’t gibe with this common belief anymore, because there is a considerable rise in their belief for statism. Statism doesn’t emancipate anyone’s cognition, irrespective of what Hindus think, empirically speaking. The structures of modern Hindu society is adjunct with involuntaryism and this is transmitted through the social instruments of culture, social capital or relations, communitarian ergonomics and political beliefs. This, holistically speaking, enunciates systemic assimilation of Hindus with politics.

The assertion “way of life” must clearly ratiocinate the principles of non-aggression principles (NAP); the premise that magic wands or “visible hand” can aesthetically uplift the Hindus and downgrade imbecility stands fully incoherent. Rather than intervening into the social philosophy of lives of “others”, the said society must relearn to relook into their content. Other than religious vociferousness, the said society should relearn to embrace the practical consequences. It is not wrong to anticipate any notice, but to claim that some sections hold natural immunities to enforce their ideas is completely against the nature of “way of life”

The height of the said society isn’t beyond postmodern thinking, since its collective obsession with conventional thinking is hopelessly enshrined as well as inured even against those who intend to deviate and dissent. They may or may not condemn their own direct confrontation with “others” but their social attitude is surely inured with passive violence. Their obeisance to the matrix of structural conflict is also responsible for the organized dystopia, today. Rather than applying “tu quoque” argumentation, it is advisable to liberate beyond the given spectrum (in order to defend the principles of “way of life”). Other than applying “argumentum ad baculum“, the width of Hindu society is likely to get stranger and shorter if at all it continues to politically obey the given arrangement. Nothing else than catallaxy can serve as a rejuvenator of this “way of life” theory.  

Terrorization of Hindu society is internally done by the uncalculated social actions of common Hindus. It wouldn’t be annihilated by Islamism, as per the political expectations. It is being endemically unstructured than restructured by Hindus, in the political name of integration and sociocultural expropriation. To add fuel to the fire, the “way of life” theorem is undermined by their daily ultracrepidarianism. This willful ignorance is cordially substantiated to justify the egotism of modern Hindu society. In the long-run, it will be suicidal. Nothing else than all these can serve as a classic example of terrorism, albeit my approach is new, here.

Notification: Before judging me further, let me clarify that generalization isn’t always wrong. Tell me, without using any axiological justifications, who’s at fault: the person engaging in a negative stereotypical act or the person interpreting an act negatively?

Suggested Readings:


An Apologism for Love Jihad

Unable to touch

About Jaimine

An anarchist habituated with critical thinking and passionate to liberate many subconscious minds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *