Islamism, individualism and feminism vs Hinduism

This article is going to be based on SM experiences on our past articles. On the cultural agenda, we have tried to highlight two broad assaults from Islamism and feminism, which come together and make a deadly cocktail for the survival of Hindus in their homeland. The reason these issues get entangled is because in a democracy, more than anything else numbers matter. You can enforce your agenda if you have numbers otherwise you can go for a hike. Muslims though few in numbers as compared to Hindus have excellent organization skills and have enforced their agenda either through voting or riots. While Islam is still debating polygamy and divorce alimony in India, urban Hindus have adopted liberal mementic themes like individualism and feminism with an open heart.

If Hinduism were facing any one of these problems, there was a good chance to fight back and reverse the damages. But the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that all these forces have attacked India at the same time. On the one hand, Muslims have maintained a higher TFR than Hindus in all regions as can be seen here by their increasing numbers. On the other hand, few Hindus have realized this as a problem due to sickular ideology taught in schools. But even those who have acknowledged it have failed to accept the solutions as they hurt their deep seated beliefs.


So, what is the problem. The problem is decreasing number of Hindus, if not through out the country then in specific pockets through out the country. This will have long lasting impact on governance and culture as democracy will ensure Muslim dominated elected bodies in the future. So, what solution did we suggest? The solution is simple i.e. maintain demographic superiority. How to do that?

  1. Increased TFR for Hindus
  2. Ghar Wapsi i.e. reconversion

Ghar Wapsi is important but it has an added complication because it depends on luring the Muslims back into their original religion. Swami Shraddhanand, the original stalwart who conducted massive Ghar Wapsi in 1920s had to pay with his life for his actions. Given the current democratic pressures, it has become even more difficult to go down this route. But still there are ways to do it and this path cannot be rejected completely. This brings us to the first solution i.e. increased TFR.

Suggesting high TFR for Hindus made us run into many criticisms due to pacified Hindu mindset. Compared to other similar articles, this article received much less sharing on Social Media. And we guess there are three important reasons behind it:

  1. 60 years of brainwashing on population problem in India
  2. Financial difficulty in supporting big families
  3. Individualism ranging from feminism to narcissism

Hum 2 Hamare 2(We 2 our 2 children) has made massive impact on Hindus throughout the country, so much so that any suggestion which goes against it seems ridiculous. Given this brainwashing, even though many Hindus will recognize the Islamic problem, they would still choose not to confront it head on and change their opinion on having more children. This means that a lot of men, who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause will ignore the issue because it somehow goes against their fundamental principles. This goes to an extent where some people say they will have two high quality Dharmic children, as if having third child is some how Adharmic!!

The second problem arises due to rise in living costs across India. This is a problem only as long as Hindus don’t decide to act. Once they come together, child related costs can be brought down through various measures by supporting extended families, developing community schools and support institutions. More than a hindrance, this can be classified as a logistical problem and should not deter Hindus. Fact is most well to do and rich people have very low fertility and they hide behind this argument only to support inaction. So, there is more to it than meets the eye.

The third source of criticism comes from rising individualism and its other supporting ideologies especially feminism. While Muslims are immune to feminism to a large extent, it will take a toll on the Hindus by asking its women to forget their collective Dharma. You can read a discussion on Hindu feminism here(whatever that vaguely defined term means). Although the author has devised a smart way to associate Dharma with Abrahamic offshoot called feminism, but it hardly stands on its feet when analysed properly.

One way in which Hindu feminists support current low TFR decision of Hindus is by saying that none of our Gods had large number of kids, nor there are any explicit guidelines for supporting high fertility among Hindus. But history suggests otherwise as Hindus had hardly been as narcissistic as other pagan civilizations and always had demographic surplus. This ensured that they did not get trampled down by the horses of Abrahamic faith like other religions and regions. Also, Dharma is not fixed in time and is ever evolving given local conditions. The current conditions under democracy which reward quantity over quality, it becomes a duty of all sane Hindus to realize and work towards maintaining their demographic superiority to save their cultural heritage.

In the end, when Hindu feminism won’t get any support from individual or collective Dharma it is natural to fall back on the original western feminism and resort to my body my choice argument. While it is true that women bear significantly larger cost of bearing children but they also get greater glory from them in the end. All Hindu scriptures have glorified great mothers who have devoted their kids for upholding Dharma. If those mothers had been individualistic, half of their offsprings would have never seen the light of the day. This also tends to be the ugliest part in this whole debate because as soon as you support high TFR, feminists raise the bogey of misogyny as according to them only women bear the cost of having kids. Sadly, this level of narcissism is widespread as the western liberal constructs have reduced bearing kids as a mechanical task instead of a gift of nature celebrated widely in Hinduism through revering different fertility goddesses. So everyone ends up looking at kids as some sort of burden rather than harbingers of love and happiness.

While it makes sense for any leftist(or feminist) to disregard tradition and cultural preservation as they want to destroy Hinduism, but anyone who attaches himself with Hindu ethos would not out-rightly reject the collective Dharma to maintain demographic superiority. As it becomes amply clear in this example, the Abrahamic construct of feminism is irreconcilable once a person realises his collective and individual Dharma, which is maintaining demographic superiority in this case.

Then there is also the question of how one divides his love for himself and future generations. If you put no weight on future generations and whether they carry your traditions and culture, there is nothing stopping you from being individualistic. But as soon as you stop being myopic and develop some attachment with your future generations, it becomes imperative that your actions are aligned with your future goals. The choice in this case thus becomes simple: either have 3-4 kids now who will help maintain Hindu majority or see your grand daughters walking around in Burqa, subjugated by polygamy and stoned for adultery under Sharia. This way the cycle of Abrahamic exclusivism will go full circle from complete freedom under feminism to no freedom under Islam, with a small possibility of buying a museum ticket to read about dead middle path of Hinduism.

Image credits: India Today

  • Singh Sardar

    Hum ੨ Hamare ੪, Melech Panga Le Ke Dekhe Ek Vaar.

  • guest

    Extended families are very important. First, we should maintain the ones that already exist, next is the research based information campaigns on the mental, emotional health of extended families. They have less privacy but there is a much better support system. Can some be dysfunctional? Absolutely, but that is no vote for nuclear families. In addition, while travel is important, it is also important for people to live in one place of a long time to develop a sense of community of interconnected relationships, we grew up in one such community that sustains on so many levels even today.

    • MadIndian1

      It is absolutely disgusting what the the school books of teach 6-7 yr olds. Their social sciences books are filled with lessons on why large families with uncles, aunts , grandpas are bad and why nuclear family is good. The sad truth, even though it appears as a conspiracy from the outside, is that it seems our elites want to break our society on the altar of progress having drunk the Secular cool aid and internalised it. Why else would 6,7 yr old have such lessons? Atleast they sort of have a pseudo scientific reason to oppose large number of kids per families, but what reason is there really for them to target our joint families, other than part of a nefarious progressive agenda?

      • guest

        Notice how for the last 30 years Bollywood’s families have had 2 or less children. And today it is usually one. Often times it is just simple for ‘plot reasons’ but it is so unrealistic. They should listen to the two generations that were raised in single child families in India…

        Here is an excerpt from the story:

        he described his generation as “pathetic” and “miserable,” ignorant of family love and exceedingly self-centered.

        “We were sacrificed because of a political mistake,” said Mr. Wang, the founder of an Internet start-up. “We were used.”

        Many people in China celebrated the decision by the Communist Party last month, after more than three decades of the one-child policy, to allow married couples to have two children, calling it a rare human rights victory in a country where freedoms are tightly restricted.

        But for some of the more than 150 million young people who grew up as only children, the announcement has reawakened feelings of isolation and regret, according to interviews with more than two dozen of them.

        • MadIndian1

          It is a vicious cycle of isolation, desolation and decay. However, we can cure it. We need massive civilisational intervention through school books and media. But our media and books do the exact opposite of what is needed.

          And the bimbo smriti Irani is proudly announcing how she has not changed a single book so far after she took over, which the RW morons cheer for. Have these idiots forgot that we elected her changing and not for boasting how she allows leftist decay unabated?

          Seriously, all our work in internet is ultimately futile without a proper mass media and academic response

      • guest

        Joint families, as I understand are a solid tool against capitalism, they also support people who are not that equipped. they are in a larger sense, taking care of people without making them feel as a burden. My parents tell me that when they married, the only decision between them was to ‘respect each other’s parents’. that was the only ‘condition’ and then they started with the adventure of grihastha ashram