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 compared to Hindus, have excellent organisation 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 memetic 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 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 the decreasing number of Hindus — if not throughout the country then in specific pockets throughout 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 — 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 Muslims back into their original religion. Swami Shraddhanand, the original stalwart who conducted massive Ghar Wapsi in the 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 — increased TFR.

Suggesting a high TFR for Hindus made us run into many criticisms due to the 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 the population problem in India
2. Financial difficulty in supporting big families
3. Individualism ranging from feminism to narcissism

“Hum Do Hamare Do” (We 2 Our 2 Children) has made a 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 — to the extent where some people say they will have two high-quality Dharmic children, as if having a third child is somehow Adharmic!

The second problem arises due to rising 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 — 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. The 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 largely immune to feminism, it will take a toll on Hindus by asking their women to forget their collective Dharma. Although some authors have devised smart ways to associate Dharma with the Abrahamic offshoot called feminism, it hardly stands on its feet when analysed properly.

One way in which Hindu feminists support the current low TFR decision of Hindus is by saying that none of our Gods had large numbers of kids, nor are there any explicit guidelines for supporting high fertility among Hindus. But history suggests otherwise — Hindus had hardly been as narcissistic as other pagan civilizations and always had a 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. Under democracy — which rewards 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 original western feminism and resort to the “my body my choice” argument. While it is true that women bear a significantly larger cost of bearing children, they also get greater glory from them in the end. All Hindu scriptures have glorified great mothers who devoted their children to upholding Dharma. If those mothers had been individualistic, half of their offspring would never have seen the light of 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 western liberal constructs have reduced bearing children to 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, anyone who attaches himself to Hindu ethos would not outright 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 between 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 to your future generations, it becomes imperative that your actions are aligned with your future goals. The choice thus becomes simple: either have 3–4 kids now who will help maintain Hindu majority, or see your granddaughters 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 only a small possibility of buying a museum ticket to read about the dead middle path of Hinduism.